Sri. Huzaib Ahmed Khan

1of 14 A.S.No.43-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

WANAPARTHY.

Tuesday, the 11 th day of April, 2023.

Present:- Sri Huzaib Ahmed Khan,

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy.

APPEAL SUIT No.43 of 2020

Between: Smt Kandi Laxmi W/o Kandi Maddileti aged 41 yrs, Occ: Agril, r/o Koppunur village of Weepangandla mandal, Wanaparthy District,Telangana State.

...Appellant/Plaintiff.

And

1.Madduri Ramudu S/o Madduri Balaiah aged 70 yrs, 2.Maduri Balakrishna S/o Madduri Ramudu aged 40 yrs, 3.Madduri Nagaraju S/o Madduri Ramudu aged 38 yrs, 4.Battula Krishnamma W/o late Narsimlu aged 42 yrs, All are Occ: Agril, and R/o Gopalapuram village of Weepangandla mandal, Presently Pentlavelly mandal. 5.Laxmidevamma W/o Easwaraiah died per Lrs 6.Goda Easwaraiah S/o Savaraiah aged 48 yrs, Occ: Agril, 7.Mahesh S/o Goda Eashwaraiah aged 25 yrs, Occ:Agril, 8.Santhoshi D/o Goda Easwaraiah aged 23 yrs, Occ: Agril, All are R/o Gopalapuram village of Pentlavelly mandal. R6 to R8 as the legal heirs of R5 vide I.A.264 of 2019 dt.29.10.2019.

...Respondents/Defendants.

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 3.5.2018

passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur in O.S.No.152 of 2012.

Between: Smt Kandi Laxmi W/o Kandi Maddileti aged 35 yrs, Occ: Agril, r/o Koppunur village of Weepangandla mandal. …Plaintiff.

And

1.Madduri Ramudu S/o Madduri Balaiah aged 65 yrs, 2of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 2.Maduri Balakrishna S/o Madduri Ramudu aged 34 yrs, 3.Madduri Nagaraju S/o Madduri Ramudu aged 31 yrs, 4.Battula Krishnamma W/o late Narsimlu aged 36yrs, 5.Smt Laxmidevamma W/o Eeshwaraiah age 35 yrs, Occ: Agril, All are R/o Gopalapuram village of Veepangandla mandal.

...Defendants.

Appeal filed under Order 41 Rule 1r/w.sec.96 of CPC.

… This Appeal Suit coming before me for final hearing on 10.4.2023 and reserved for judgment in the presence of Sri J.Brahmaiah Chary,

Sri V.V.Narsimha Rao, Advocates for the appellant and of Sri K.Mohan

Lal, Advocate for the respondent and upon perusing the material papers 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 appellant who is unsuccessful plaintiff of O.S.No.152 of 2012, which was a suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s 1/6th share in respect to the suit schedule property, impugned the judgment of

Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur in O.S.No.152 of 2012 dt.3.5.2018 in this appeal suit on numerous grounds. The relief of partition and separate possession was negated by the trial court by dismissing the suit.

2.In the grounds of appeal in the impugned judgment the same is assailed on numerous grounds and the chief contention of the appellant is that the trial court did not consider the evidence produced by the 3of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 appellant with regard to nature of the ancestral property i.e.

EXs.A1,A2,A3 and A4 which clearly shows that the father of respondent

No.1 is the pattadar of the land. That the trial court failed to consider the evidence as produced by the appellant in order to prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and the family of the appellant and respondents constitute a joint Hindu undivided family and the appellant is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property and the appellant prayed to allow this appeal suit.

3.In the plaint of the original suit the plaintiff who is appellant herein stated that the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 are sons and daughters of defendant no.1. That the plaintiff and defendants have inherited the suit schedule properties from their ancestors and that the suit schedule properties are not divided or partitioned by metes and bounds. That the defendant no.1 is trying to transfer some of the suit schedule property infavour of defendant No.4 and 5 and in favour of third persons by depriving the rights of the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence the suit.

4.The defendants 1,2,4 and 5 filed common written statement in the lower court and the defendant No.3 adopted the same. The defendants contended that the entire suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. It is further contended that at the time of 4of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 plaintiff’s marriage the defendant No.1 has given sheep’s, gold and silver ornaments and expended huge amount for her marriage and also expended huge amount to perform the marriages of D4 and D5. Hence prayed that the suit is not maintainable and to dismiss the suit.

5. The trial court framed the issues as :

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate

possession of suit schedule proeprites?

2. To what relief?

6.In the trial court the plaintiff herself is examined as PW1 and got marked EXs.A1 to A7 on her behalf and on behalf of defendants, DWs 1 to 3 are examined and no documents are marked.

7.The details of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff and defendant and the documents that are marked are appended in the appendix of the impugned judgment. There is no need to again give the details in appendix of this judgment. No additional evidence adduced in this appeal suit.

8.Heard both sides. Counsel for the appellant filed written arguments and in the same the appellant submits that the suit schedule property clearly is an ancestral co-parcenary property in as much as originally it was held by the grandfather of the appellant and the same is evident from the revenue record that is filed in this case.

5of 14 A.S.No.43-2020

9.Further in the written arguments it is mentioned that the respondent No.1 who is the father of the appellant his name was nominally entered in the revenue record. But the same will not change the nature of the suit schedule property as co-parcenary property in which now the appellant being the daughter is entitled for the share as per the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act which came into effect from 9.9.2005.

10.The counsel for the appellant says in spite of clear oral and documentary evidence and even the trial court in the impugned judgment holding the suit schedule property belonged to the grandfather of the appellant, the trial court again came to a conflicting conclusion that the suit property is self acquired property of respondent No.1 and the suit of the appellant was dismissed. The counsel for the appellant says the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside in toto and the suit of the appellant for the relief of partition and separate possession be preliminary decreed as prayed in the plaint.

11.The contesting respondents counsel even filed written arguments and simply again without following the march of law and on the self proclaimed conclusion that the suit property is self acquired property of respondent No.1, the respondents particularly the contesting respondents being father and brothers of the appellant are canvassing 6of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 and pleading in the written arguments that the impugned judgment be sustained and the appeal suit of the appellant be dismissed with exemplary costs.

12.On careful consideration of the oral pleadings of the suit, the oral and documentary evidence lead in and the grounds of appeal and even the written arguments advanced by the rival counsels, the points that arise for effective adjudication of this appeal suit is on fresh evaluation of oral and documentary evidence is as under:

1.Whether the appellant herein is entitled for the relief of

partition and division of the four sub items separate survey

numbers of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and

entitled for the preliminary decree and 1/6 th share as prayed in the

plaint?

2. Whether the impugned judgment of Junior Civil Judge,

Kollapur in O.S.No.152 of 2012 dt.3.5.2018 is liable to be confirmed,

modified or set aside?

13.Point No.1: Whether the appellant herein is entitled for the

relief of partition and division of the four sub items separate

survey numbers of the suit schedule property by metes and

bounds and entitled for the preliminary decree and 1/6 th share as

prayed in the plaint?

i.In respect to the suit schedule property sub-items 1 to 3 originally owned by one Mondi Balaiah, the grandfather of the appellant herein and father of respondent No.1 herein. As per EX.A1 of the year 1976- 7of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 1977 was recorded in the name of the said Mondi Balaiah both as pattadar and possessor in respect to the suit schedule Sy.Nos.90, 214 and 215 to an extent of 0.29gts, Ac.3-06gts and Ac.4-35gts. So therefore the three sub items 1 to 3 of suit schedule property originally stood in the name of the grandfather of the appellant and father of respondent No.1in the revenue record. So therefore, the three sub items, in the considered view of this court will constitute as joint co- parcenary property and the appellant being daughter of R1 and by virtue of taking birth in the family of respondent No.1 even though being a daughter by operation of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act is a co- parcener. This aspect is clearly affirmed and confirmed by the binding case law of Vineeta Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma reported in Supreme

Court of India Civil Appeal No.32601 of 2018 dt.11.8.2020.

ii.PW1 placed reliance on EX.A1. Ex.A1 is of the year 1976-1977 and the said revenue entries have their own presumptive value and therefore in respect to sub items1 to 3 of the suit schedule property, there is clear oral testimony of PW1, the appellant herein as well as the document EX.A1. The same belonged to grandfather of the appellant.

iii.EX.A2 which is of the year 1991-1992 and which pertains to sub item No.4 in Sy.No.36/2/6 to an extent of Ac.1-33 gts of Jetaprole village of Weepangandla mandal clearly stands in the name of the respondent 8of 14 A.S.No.43-2020

No.1 as pattadar and possessor of sub item No.4 of the suit schedule property.

iv.The attempt of the appellant herein even to include sub item

No.4 of suit schedule property as joint co-parcenary property is not correct and cannot be given any effect. It is a fact that R1 has not filed his purchase document but since 1991-1992 it is in the name of R1.

v.The testimonies of DWs 1 and 3 being the father and brother of the appellant clearly accepts that in respect to sub items 1 and 3 of the suit schedule property originally the land was owned and possessed by

Mondi Balaiah. So therefore, the contention of the respondents that the said three sub items of the suit schedule property is self acquired property of the respondent No.1 is not true and correct and the same cannot be given any effect. No proof of R1 being exclusive owner of sub items 1 to 3 of schedule property is filed.

vi.One peruses the own documents filed by appellant as EXs.A3 and A4 which pertains to land in Sy.No.36/2/6 to an extent of Ac.1-33gts situated at Jetaprole village of Weepangandla mandal, clearly the land is standing in the name of respondent No.1 both as pattadar and possessor. So, therefore the attempt of the appellant to include the sub item No.4 as joint co-parcenary property is not true and correct. The 9of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 same is so in the light of EXs.A2 and A3. No document of purchase of sub item 4 by grandfather of appellant is filed.

vii.It is a fact that Mondi Balaiah is no more alive and after his death in respect to the sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property nominally was transferred the name of respondent No.1 and is entered in the revenue record and the same in itself does not make the sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property as self acquired property of the respondent No.1.

viii.Thus there is overwhelming evidence of PW1 and the document Ex.A1 to show that sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property originally belonged to Mondi Balaiah the father of respondent

No.1 and the same is ancestral property and liable to be divided and partitioned among all the co-parceners and the appellant being the daughter and co-parcener is entitled to the share in sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property in the ratio of 1/6th share.

ix.It is a fact that the sub items 1 to 3 are not partitioned among all the co-parcenary members and simply when the sub items 1 to 3 are nominally entered in the name of respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 cannot become the absolute owner of the same cannot be considered as self acquired property of respondent No.1.

10of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 x.In this matter the defendants only lead oral evidence of DWs 1 and 3 and did not mark any documents.

xi.The respondents have failed to establish that there was a valid division or partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds either by way of a registered deed of partition or a decree of partition of competent court of law. Thus the presumption is that sub items 1 to 3 are the joint co-parcenary property of appellant and the respondents and the same is liable to be divided and partitioned in the share as provided by law.

xii.The testimonies of DWs 1 and 3 is to the effect that at the time of marriage of appellant, she was provided by ample dowry and her marriage was performed in a very grand way and that respondent No1 had to undergo lot of expenditure in that regard, as such the witnesses

DWs 1 and 3 are taking a stand that the appellant cannot be given any share in the suit schedule property.

xiii.First of all the respondents as DWs 1 and 3 have not filed any piece of evidence and there is no iota of evidence to establish that the marriage of appellant/ PW1 was performed in a very grand way and the same involved lot of expenditure giving of dowry and also PW1 being provided with gold and silver in the marriage. In the absence of such 11of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 evidence the stand of the DWs 1 and 3 cannot be sustained and cannot be upheld as one to deny the share to Pw1/appellant.

xiv.The amendment to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act is very progressive step taken to consider daughters on par with son and the law by the said affording of share to daughters even though married but living are provided with share and entitlement so as to empower woman and to be treated on par with the sons. Hence the stand of the respondents to deny share to the appellant cannot be sustained as the same comes in the way of what the law has provided.

xv.In this matter there was oral division that was sought by the appellant and when the respondents failed to divide the same, the appellant filed the suit and the suit is filed within time and the claim of the appellant is within time and not hit by Article 110 of the Schedule of the

Limitation Act, 1962. This court has no hesitation to hold that the suit of the appellant is within time and the appellant is entitled only for share in sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property by way of granting the preliminary decree relief of division of sub items 1 to 3.

xvi.The appellant has miserably failed to establish that the sub item

No.4 of the suit schedule property i.e. land in Sy.No.36/2/6 is also joint in nature as much as there is clear evidence that the same is the self acquired property of respondent No.1 and since the respondent No.1 is 12of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 alive, as such no share can be given from the sub item No.4 to the appellant as long as the respondent No.1 is alive and sub item No.4 belongs to respondent no.1.

xvii.Thus by preponderance of proof and the probabilities of the case and the clear and cogent oral and documentary evidence lead by the appellant, she is entitled for preliminary decree in respect of sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property and the claim of the appellant in respect to sub itemNo.4 of the suit schedule property is negated.

xviii.The preponderance of proof warrants a preliminary decree in favour the appellant only in respect of sub items 1 to 3. Thus the appellant is entitled for the relief of partition and division by metes and bounds of the sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property as prayed in the plaint and the claim of the appellant in respect to sub item No.4 is negated. As such the appellant is only entitled for the preliminary decree of partition and division by metes and bounds of sub items 1 to 3. This point is thus answered.

14.Point No.2: Whether the impugned judgment of Junior Civil

Judge, Kollapur in O.S.No.152 of 2012 dt.3.5.2018 is liable to be

confirmed, modified or set aside?

The trial court even came to right conclusion that sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property belonged to Mondi Balaiah, father of the 13of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 respondent No.1. But the trial court got confused by seeing EXs.A2 and

A3 wherein the sub item No.4 of suit schedule property stood in the name of respondent no.1 and basing on the same the trial court dismissed the suit of the appellant.

ii.The right course to have been followed by the trial court was to partly decree the suit of the appellant for the sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property and to negate the division and partition in respect of the sub item No.4 of the suit schedule property. To that effect the trial court judgment is to be modified.

15.In the result the suit of the appellant for preliminary decree and partition of sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property is sustained and the preliminary decree of division of the sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds is ordered. In respect to the claim of the appellant for division of sub item No.4 of the suit schedule property is negated. Consequent to the above Judgment and decree of this court, the impugned judgment of Junior Civil Judge,

Kollapur in O.S.No.152/2012 dt.3.5.2018 is modified and there shall be a preliminary decree of division of sub items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property and the appellant herein is entitled for 1/6th share of the same and the impugned judgment of negating the relief of partition and division in respect of the suit schedule property sub item No.4 is 14of 14 A.S.No.43-2020 however confirmed. The impugned judgment is modified as above.

In view of the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant shall be entitled for a final decree, for which the trial court shall suo-moto number of final decree petition and take steps for appointment of advocate commissioner as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court.

Section to send back the trial court record in compliance of O.41

R.37 CPC so as to enable the trial court to proceed for passing the final decree without waiting for formal petition for final decree or for appointment of advocate commissioner. Judgment pronounced accordingly.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 11th day of April, 2023.

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy. Appendix of evidence For Plaintiff: PW1 is examined and EXs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of plaintiff in the lower court. For defendants: DWs 1 to 3 are examined and no documents are marked on behalf of defendants in the lower court. (Appendix of impugned judgment gives the details).

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy.

1of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, WANAPARTHY.

(FAC PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE WANAPARTHY)

Tuesday, the 6th day of December, 2022.

Present:- Sri Huzaib Ahmed Khan,

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Wanaparthy, FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.242 of 2022.

Name of the Accused :

Vadde Mahesh @Vallapu Mahesh S/o Neelaiah age 19 yrs, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Auto driver R/o Gopalpet village and mandal.

Name of the complainant:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of police, Gopalpet P.S.

Nature of offences:Under Section 366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. :

Finding of the courtFound not guilty. :

In the result, the accused is acquitted Sentence or order :U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Ss. 366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v)of SC/ST(POA) 2of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

Amendment Act, 2015. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. ***

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri M.Anjaneyulu, Advocate for the accused and of Sri

B.Chandra Shekar Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-divisional Police Officer, Wanaparthy laid the charge sheet in Cr.No.65/2022 of P.S.Gopalpet for the offences U/Ss. 366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused herein.

a)The Sub-inspector of police after the case was registered when

LW1 the complainant and mother of the victim girl addressed her grievance before the police for which Cr.No.65/2022 was registered and investigation is commenced in this case.

b)As a part of the investigation, the investigating officers recorded the statements of the material witnesses in the form of LWs 1 to 6 and the victim statement was recorded by LW19 thereafter in order to note the physical evidence at the place of offence the investigating officer in the presence of LWs 8 and LW9 recorded the scene of offence panchanama and noted the particulars and also recorded the confession of accused and seized the material objects in the presence of 3of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

LW10 and 11 and after collecting all material and even finding a primafacie case the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences mentioned above.

2.There was an apprehension of the accused in this case and he was send to judicial remand pending case.

3.The case is taken on file for the offences U/Sections 366-A, 376

IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Wanaparthy as Spl.S.C.No.12/2022.

3)Inview of establishment of Fast Track Special Court for expeditious

Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Wanaparthy, this case is transferred to this court. This court took case on file against the accused as this special Sessions case No.242/2022 and ordered summons to the accused.

4)After appearance of accused, examined him and framed charges under Sections 366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of

SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 The accused pleaded not guilty and preferred to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs 1and 2 and got marked EXs.P1 and P2. Thereafter the remaining witnesses evidence was closed in view of the evidence of Pws 1 and 2. The details of the same are in the appendix of evidence herein below.

5).After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating 4of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022 circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence.

6).Heard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.

7).Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused committed the offences U/Ss. . 366-A,

376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)

Amendment Act,2015 as alleged in the charge sheet?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

herein beyond reasonable doubt?

8).Point No.1:Whether the accused committed the offences U/Ss.

366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of SC/ST(POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 as alleged in the charge sheet?

PW1 the mother of the victim girl says her husband Gopal died 15 years back and she is the second wife of her husband and was having two daughters.

ii.That the victim of this case is the second daughter of Pw1 and at the time of incident she was studying Intermediate at Gopalpet. She says she knows the accused and in the night they found that her daughter Anitha was missing at about 3.A.M, on that she gave Ex.P1 complaint. Pw1 has not identified the accused. But stated on suspicion she gave the complaint.

iii.Pw2 is the victim girl she categorically stated that she does not know anything about this case and she had not given Ex.P2 statement to the police.

5of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022 iv.There is no support to the prosecution case and the prosecution is failing to connect the accused with this crime. The witnesses cited by the prosecution are of no help to the case of the prosecution in as much as PW2 herself is not identified the accused saying anything against the accused. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Point answered.

9.Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused herein beyond reasonable doubt?

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused herein beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to connect the accused with this crime.

10. In the result, U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted for the offences U/Ss.366-A, 376 IPC and Sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and Sec.3(2)(v) of

SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December, 2022.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution:Defence:None. PW1Mudavath Shanthi 6of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

PW2 victim girl.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 is complaint. EX.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Defence:Nil. MOs marked: Nil.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

7of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

WANAPARTHY

1. Case.No. Spl.S.C.No.245 of 2020

2. Name of the station P.S.Kothakota

3. Name of the accused:Md.Abdul Hussain @Vaheed S/o Abdul Nabi age 20 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ: Coolie R/o Kothakota village and mandal.

4. Date of:

1Occurrence 1.4.2020 2Complaint 2.4.2020 3Apprehension Vb 4Released on bail2.5.2019 5Commitment- 6Commencement of trial4.1.2022 7Close of trial20.4.2022 8Sentence or order/judgment.22.4.2022 Sentence or order/judgment.

In the result, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Secs. 366-AB of IPC and also sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : Due to non-production of the witnesses by the prosecution.

IX-Addl.Sessions Judge, FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of 8of 6 Spl.S.C.No.242 of 2022

Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

1of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES, WANAPARTHY.

(FAC PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE WANAPARTHY)

Tuesday, the 6th day of December, 2022.

Present:- Sri Huzaib Ahmed Khan,

Principal District and Sessions Judge

Wanaparthy, FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.120 of 2020.

Name of the Accused :

Rachala Satya ReddyS/o Chinna Reddy age 37 yrs, Caste: Reddy Occ: Coolie R/o Raghavendra colony H/o Mentepally village of Wanaprthy mandal. Name of the complainant:

The State through the Sub-Inspector of police, Wanaparthy rural P.S.

Nature of offences:Under Section 376-AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty. :

Finding of the courtFound not guilty. :

In the result, the accused is acquitted Sentence or order :U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Ss. 376-AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property if any 2of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. ***

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri MD.Fazal Baig, Advocate for the accused and of Sri

B.Chandra Shekar Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Circle Inspector of police, Wanaparthy laid the charge sheet in Cr.No.128/2019 for the offences U/Ss. 376-AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 against the accused herein.

a)The Sub-inspector of police after the case was registered when

LW1 the complainant and mother of the victim girl addressed her grievance before the police for which Cr.No.128/2019 was registered and investigation is commenced in this case.

b)As a part of the investigation, the investigating officers recorded the statements of the material witnesses in the form of LWs 1 to 3 and 6 to 13 and the victim statement was recorded by LW5 thereafter in order to note the physical evidence at the place of offence the investigating officer in the presence of LWs 14 and LW15 recorded the scene of offence panchanama and noted the particulars and also recorded the confession of accused and seized the material objects in the presence of

LWs 14 and 15 and after collecting all material and even finding a primafacie case the charge sheet was laid against the accused for the offences mentioned above.

3of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020

2.There was an apprehension of the accused in this case and he was send to judicial remand pending case.

3.The Special Court to try the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act cases i.e. I.Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubangar took case on file against the accused as this special

Sessions case and ordered summons to the accused after the

cognizance was taken for the offences U/Ss.376-AB IPC and Sec.5(l)(m) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012.4.After the formation of the Special Court at Wanaparthy the

I.Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar made over this case to the Special Court to try the POCSO Act offences at Wanaparthy on the point of jurisdiction.

5.The Special Court at Wanaparthy framed the charges for the offences U/Ss.376AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and read over the same to the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried as per law.

6.In this matter the requirements of furnishing copies to the accused and he being defended by the counsel was complied and after that the matter went in for trial.

7.The prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2and got marked EXs.P1to

P4. Thereafter the remaining witnesses evidence was closed in view of the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 The details of the same are in the appendix of evidence herein below.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C explaining him the incriminating 4of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020 circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence.

9.Heard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1.Whether the accused committed the offences U/Ss.376-AB

IPC and Sec.Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 as alleged in the charge sheet?

2.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused

herein beyond reasonable doubt?

11.Point No.1:Whether the accused committed the offences U/Ss.

376AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 as alleged in the charge sheet?

i) PW1 is complainant and mother of victim girl narrates before this court that in the year 2019 her daughter was studying 4th class in

Sishumandir at Kadukuntla and that her daughter did not inform anything against her husband and she did not lodge any report before police.

Pw1 did not support the prosecution case and even during her cross examination she denied her giving statement before police as in Ex.P3.

ii)PW1 is victim girl deposed before this court that nothing was happened to her and that she did not give any statement before

Magistrate. Even during her cross examination she denied that she did

not state before police as in EX.P4.

iii)The main witness of the prosecution i.e. PW2/ victim girl clearly says that nothing was happened to her and she denied the contents of her 161 Cr.P.C statement as EX.P4. Thus in this case, it is 5of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020 very clear the prosecution is failing to connect the accused with the allegations made in the charge sheet. The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused is guilty in this crime beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.

12.Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused herein beyond reasonable doubt?

The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused herein beyond reasonable doubt. There is no cogent evidence to connect the accused with this crime.

13. In the result, U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C the accused is acquitted for the offences U/Ss. 376-AB IPC and Sec.5(l) r/w.sec.6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012 and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December, 2022.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution:Defence:None. PW1Mother of victim girl PW2 victim girl 6of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2 complaint Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Defence:Nil. MOs marked: Nil.

Principal District and Sessions Judge

FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

7of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK

SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

WANAPARTHY

1. Case.No. Spl.S.C.No.245 of 2020

2. Name of the station P.S.Kothakota

3. Name of the accused:Md.Abdul Hussain @Vaheed S/o Abdul Nabi age 20 years, Caste:Muslim, Occ: Coolie R/o Kothakota village and mandal.

4. Date of:

1Occurrence 1.4.2020 2Complaint 2.4.2020 3Apprehension Vb 4Released on bail2.5.2019 5Commitment- 6Commencement of trial4.1.2022 7Close of trial20.4.2022 8Sentence or order/judgment.22.4.2022 Sentence or order/judgment.

In the result, the accused is acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C. for the offences under Secs. 366-AB of IPC and also sec.3 r/w.sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act, 2012. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : Due to non-production of the witnesses by the prosecution.

IX-Addl.Sessions Judge, FAC of Fast Track Spl.Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of 8of 6 Spl.S.C.No.120-2020

Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Wanaparthy.

1 of 2 E.P.No.68 of 2021 in AA.NO.226 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE WANAPARTHY

Monday, the 3rd day of April, 2023

Present:- Sri Huzaib Ahmed Khan,

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy.

E.P.No.68 of 2021

In Arbitration Case No.226 of 2019

Between:

Shriram City Union Finance Ltd Branch Wanparthy authorized signatory, N.Srinivas S/o N.Somaiah age 40 yrs, Occ: Senior Manager R/o Mahabubnagar.

...Decree Holder

And

1.G.Narasimha S/o G.Pedda Nagaiah Occ: Auto driver H.No.26-151/2 Gandhi nagar Wanaparthy District.

2.Dwarapogu Thirupathamma W/o D.Srinivasulu Occ:Working at Public Health worker (SNNR) at Municipal office at Wanaparthy District H.No.30-30 Harijanwada, Wanaparthy.

... Judgment Debtors.

Sub:- Petition filed under O.XXI R.48 CPC against Judgment

Debtor No.2 .

***

This petition coming before me for final hearing on this day, in the presence of Sri B.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the Decree Holder and the Judgment Debtor No.2 remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

2 of 2 E.P.No.68 of 2021 in AA.NO.226 of 2019

O R D E R

The Decree holder herein by virtue of the award passed in

AA.No.226 of 2019 by the sole arbitrator was able to get the award against the Judgment debtors.

2.When there was default in payment of the money the Dhr filed the E.P which is taken on file and thereafter process was ordered to the JDr No.2. Judgment debtor No.2 was remained exparte and further coercive steps for recovery of the E.P amount was resorted in as much as the amount there under paid by the Judgment debtor.

4.Inview of the full satisfaction memo filed by Dhr, this EP is closed as fully satisfied vide this order. Order pronounced accordingly.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of April, 2023.

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy.

Appendix of evidence None. Exhibits marked: Nil.

Principal District Judge,

Wanaparthy.

IN THE COURT OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

WANAPARTHY.

Wednesday, the 29th day of March 2023. PRESENT: Sri.Huzaib Ahmed Khan, Prl.District and Sessions Judge.

AS.No.28 of 2022

Between: Muddangula Ramesh S/o Muddangula Venkataswamy, age:32 yeard, Oc:Private Job, R/o H.No.5-48/1, Rajanagaram village of Wanaparthy mandal.

...Appellant.

And

Gundu Swamy S/o Gundu Chandraiah, age:32 years, occ:Police Constable, R/o Quarter No.515, Old Building, Police station, Kollapur.

...Respondent.

Appeal Under section 96 of CPC r/w Under Order 41 rule 1 of CPC against the judgment and Decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool in OS.No.17 of 2019, dt.28.07.2021.

***

This Appeal suit is coming before me for Hearing on this day in the absence of Sri.Mohd.Hameed Ali, Advocate for the Appellant, Sri.K.Mohan Lal for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record this court passed the following order:

ORDER

Appellant and counsel called absent. No representation for the appellant and his counsel. Appellant has no interest in this case. Hence at 12:00 Noon the matter is taken and the same is dismissed in default. Each parties to bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29thday of March, 2023.

Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Wanaparthy.