Smt.I.Shailaja Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi, I Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

Wednesday This the 29th day of April, 2015

O.S. No.1662 / 2006

BETWEEN:-

1. M.A.A. Siddique, S/o M.K.Siddique (died per LRs)

2. Smt. Nazia Siddiqua,

3. Asma Siddiqua,

4. Afshan Siddiqua,

5. Asra Siddiqua,

6. Mohd. Altaf Ahmed Siddique,

7. Mohd. Ausaf Ahmed Siddique …Plaintiffs (The plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the LRs of the plaintiff brought on record as per the Orders in IA No. 786 / 2014 dt: 10/9/2014)

And

1. Jalal Ahmed,

2. Bakhtiar Nawab,

3. M. Mossa,

4. Md. Yousuf Shareef, … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri V. Thrimurthulu, counsel for the Plaintiff and of Sri D. Mohan Reddy, counsel for the defendant No. 4 and the the defendants 1 to 3 remained exparte and upon perusal of the material record record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property against the defendants and also to award costs of the suit.

The contention of the plaintiff is that, the 1st plaintiff herein is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982 from one B. Janaki Ram, after purchasing the suit scheudle property , the 1st plaintiff developed and constructed boundary wall and three rooms and kept in strict watch and ward. Since the date of purchase , the 1st 2 plaintiff was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as full fledged owner. The 1st plaintiff was also paying property tax, electricity charges regularly. The property got assessed in the name of the 1st plaintiff in the year 1993. The defendants are not at all having any right or title over the suit schedule property, but engaged some hired goondas and trying to encroach the suit schedule property , the defendants with malafide intention harassing and blackmailing the plaintiffs. The defendants are nothing to do with the suit schedule property. On the other hand, they are not coming forward to show with dire consequences and openly said that they can take away the lives if any one curtail their acts. Hence the suit.

02.On the other hand, the 4th defendant filed the written statement stating that, the plaint are false, baseless and incorrect and this defendant denies the same.

Neither the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor by virtue of agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982 executed by one B. Janakiram inrpesect of the suit schedule property.

The plaintiff is neither owner nor having any title and possession inrespect of suit schedule property as such the question of paying any property tax, electricity charges and got property assessed in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1993 is nothing but only to grab the suit schedule land and when the vendor of plaintiff himself has no title and possession the question of plaintiff becoming the owner and possessor by virtue of alleged agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982 even without conveying title deed of sale is utterly false and incorrect and this defendant deny the same. The plaintiff has no title and possession and in case if any injunction order is granted by this Court under the guise of the plaintiff may encroach and occupy the suit schedule property which are allotted to the members of Navabharat Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society .

03.The plaint relating to cause of action which arose in the year 1982 3 when the vendor of plaintiff B. Janakiram executed agreement in favour of plaintiff in the year 1982 and plaintiff developed property by paying property tax and electricity consumption charges etc., in the month of May, 2006 and also on 10/7/2006 without disclosing any reason of not getting the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff the allegations that the defendant along with others came to suit schedule property and tried to demolish partly the suit schedule property is not correct. Hence prayed the Court to dismiss the suit with costs.

Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:- (I) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the title and possession over the suit schedule property ?

(ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction ?

(iii) 0To what relief?

Heard and perused the record

ISSUES:-

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his LRs are added as plaintiffs 2 to 7 as legal heirs , as per the Orders in IA No. 786 / 2014 dt:

10/9/2014.

04.During the life time of the plaintiff, he was examined as PW1, who stated in his evidence that, the defendants have nothing to do with suit schedule property, he repeatedly demanded them to produce their title deeds if any in respect of the suit schedule property. But they never shown any title, but they are threatening with dire consequences and giving life threats to him and his family members. In the month of July, ie., 10/7/2006 at about 10-00 AM attacked and tried to encroach the property, but on the timely intervention of the neighbours the defendants could not succeeded in their illegal acts. He was very much apprehended with the nefarious activities of the defendants. Hence the suit. In support of his case, he filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 documents.

4

He also got examined PW2, who is the same villager who stated in his evidence that, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1982 from one B. Janakiram, after purchasing the said suit schedule property, he developed and constructed boundary wall and three rooms and kept him as a watch man to safeguard the said property, since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also paying property tax regularly. The defendants are not concerned with the suit property and they have no right or title over the suit schedule property, but engaged some hired gundas and tried to encroach the suit schedule property.

Hence prayed the Court to decree the suit with costs.

05.On the other hand, the defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte, the 4th defendant contested the suit, he was examined as DW1 who stated in his evidence that, the plaintiff is neither owner nor having any title and possession inrespect of the suit schedule property as such the question of issue of demand notice, and paying any property tax, electricity charges and got property assessed in the name of the plaintiff in the year 1993 is nothing but created and invented for the purpose of illegal claim only to grab the valuable property under the guise of forged, created and bogus documents and receipts for the purpose of filing the suit and also to grab the suit schedule land and when the vendor of plaintiff himself has no title and possession, the question of plaintiff becoming the owner and possessor by virtue of alleged agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982 does not arise and even without conveying deed of sale the plaintiff could not occrue any title to the suit schedule property.

It is further avvered in his affidavit that, the 2nd defendant along with his family members are the original owners and land holders and possessor of entire land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring Ac. 78-37 gts., situated at Guttala Begumpet (V),

Serilingampally (M), R.R. District owned and possessed by one Smt. S.D. Costa, who sold the land to late Nawab Sultan Ul-mulk Bahadur paternal grand father of 5

Smt. Latifunnisa Begum and others, and since then the legal heirs of late Nawab

Sultan Ul-mulk Bahadur was exclusive owners and possessors of entire property.

Smt. Latifunnisa Begum claiming her share of property through her father late

Nawab Nawaj Jung and gifted the entire land in SY.No.63 measuring Ac. 78-37 gts., in favour of Latifunnisa Begum under registered gift deed dt: 14/10/1969 and delivered possession to her.

06.Out of the said land, Smt. Latifunnisa Begum executed gift deed to an extent of Ac. 11-37 gts., infavour of Smt. Iffat Ali Khan under registered Gift deed

dt: 31/3/1971 and delivered possession to her. And in turn the said Smt. Iffat Ali

Khan who became absolute owner and possessor by virtue of said gift deed entered into an agreement of sale infavour of him on 5/4/1982 and received total sale consideration and delivered physical possession of above said land in favour of

Navabharat Weaker section cooperative Housing society, represented by him as

Chairperson , M. Y. Shareef / D4 herein and in turn the said society developed the land and divided the land into residential house plots and allotted to the members of the society and the society some of them have constructed houses and some of them have not constructed any structures and all the members are in peaceful possession of the said land and very few of them raised structures, and taking undue advantage of some of the vacant plots in the land.

The plaint relating to the valuation of the suit schedule property is meager valuation as shown Rs.1,50,000/- and the Court fee of Rs.3926/- paid which is insufficient since the suit schedule property is valued more than Rs.2 crores as such the plaintiff grossly undervalued the suit and paid insufficient court fee, on this ground alone the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

07.The 2nd defendant is examined as DW2 who stated in his evidence that, he along with his family members are the land holders and possessors of entire land bearing SY.No.63 admeasuring Ac. 78-37 gts., situated at Guttala Begumpet 6 (V), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District. Originally the entire land was owned and possessed by Smt. S.D. Costa who sold the land to late Nawab Sultan Ul mulk

Bahadur, the paternal grand father of Smt. Latifunnisa Begum & others and since then the legal heirs of late Nawab Sultan Ul mulk Bahadur were exclusive owners and possessors of entire property, Late Nawab Nazeer Nawaj Jung gifted the entire land in Sy.No.63 measuring Ac. 78-37 gts., infavour of Latifunnisa Begum under registered Gift deed dt: 14/10/1969 and delivered possession to her.

Out of the said land, Smt. Latifunnsa Begum executed Gift Deed to an extent of Ac. 11-37 gts., in favour of Smt. Iffat Yar Khan under registered Gift deed

dt: 31/3/1971 and delivered possession to her. And in turn the said Smt. Iffat Yar

Khan who became absolute owner and possessor by virtue of said Gift deed, entered into an Agreement of sale in favour of the 4th defendant on 5/4/1982 and delivered physical possession of above said land infavour of Navabharat Weaker Section

Cooperative Housing Society by registered No.TBC 409 and in turn the said society converted the land into a Residential House plots in respect of land bearing

Sy.No.63 to an extent of Ac. 11-37 gts., situated at Guttala Begumpet (V),

Serilingampally (M), R.R. District represented by defendant No.4 as the

Chairperson. He also reiterated the same facts of the DW1. Hence prayed the

Court to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs. In support of their case,

Ex.B1 to Ex.B9 documents are marked.

08.The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property by virtue of an Agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982

U/Ex.A1 purchased from one Jankiram. The said Jankiram purchased the land of

Ac. 6-0 gts., from one P. Venkaiah , the said P. Venkaiah was gifted the land of Ac.

6-0 gts., of land from one Latifunnisa Begum. After purchasing the schedule property by the 1st plaintiff , he developed and constructed the boundary wall and also constructed three rooms and since then , he has been in peaceful possession and 7 enjoyment of the same and the property was also assessed in the year 1993 U/Ex.A2

dt: 7/9/1993 infavour of the 1st plaintiff and the H.No., was also given as H.No.1-

98/71, Ex.A3 –Tax receipt dt: 8/8/95 inrespect of the same H.No., infavour of the plaintiff. Ex.A4-another Tax receipt dt: 29/3/2006 for the year 1997-98 to 2005- 2006. Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 are the Tax receipts dt: 12/7/1985 stands in the name of the plaintiff’s vendor. The House No., was shown as H.No.1-65/9, 1-65/10.

For that the learned counsel for the defendant put a question on the

PW1 that, the H.No.is different in the said two receipts and the area was also shown as Madhapur, but the schedule property is situated at Gutla Begumpet, for that, during the course of cross examination of PW1 stated that, the Gutla Begumpet village is part and parcel of Madhapur and the H.No.1-65/9 and H.No.1-65/10 were given by the Panchayat , subsequently the Municipality gave the No., as H.No.1- 98/71, so both the H.Nos., belongs to the schedule property only. To disprove the plaintiff contention , the defendant did not adduce any documents inrespect of different H.Nos., but on the other hand, the 4th defendant disputed the ownership of the plaintiff and also possession of the plaintiff, his contention is that, originally the land bearing Sy.No.63 admeasuring Ac. 78 -37 gts., situated at Gutla Begumpeta (V), Serilingampally (M), R.R. District owned possessed by Smt. S.D Costa who sold the land to late Nawab Sultan Ul-mulk Bahadur paternal grand father of Smt.

Latifunnisa Begum and others, and since then the legal heirs of late Nawab Sultan

Ul-mulk Bahadur was exclusive owners and possessors of entire property. Smt.

Latifunnisa Begum claiming her share of property through her father late Nawab

Nawaj Jung and gifted the entire land in SY.No.63 measuring Ac. 78-37 gts., in favour of Latifunnisa Begum under registered gift deed dt: 14/10/1969 and delivered possession to her.

09.Out of the said land, Smt. Latrifunnisa Begum executed Gift deed to an extent of Ac. 11-37 gts., infavour of Smt. Ifath Yar Khan under registered Gift 8 deed dt: 31/3/1971 –Ex.B2 and delivered the possession to her and in turn Smt.

Ifath Yar Khan who became the absolute owner and possessor by virtue of the said

Gift deed entered into an agreement of sale infaovur of him on 5/4/1982 and received total sale consideration and delivered the physical possession of the above said land infavour Navabharat Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society represented by him as Chairperson and in turn the said society developed the land and divided into residential house plots and allotted to the members of the society and some of the society members constructed houses and some of them have not constructed any structures and all the members are in peaceful possession of the said land, some of them raised the structures taking advantage of some of the vacant plots in the said land , the plaintiff herein mis-represented the facts and filed the false suit by making false cause of action. If really Ifath Yar Khan executed agreement of sale infavour of the 4th defendant on 5/4/1982, but the said agreement of sale was not filed by the defendant in this Court.

For that the defendant did not offer any explanation to support the defendants case, he also got examined DW2 / D2 , actually the 2nd defendant was set exparte in the main suit, it seems that, the defendants 1 to 3 colluded with 4th defendant , for that only they were set exparte. But to support the contention of the 4th defendant, the 2nd defendant is examined as DW2 who is none other then the brother of Ifath Yar Khan and son of Latifunnisa Begum.

10.The DW2 also disputed the ownership , possession by the plaintiff in the schedule property, both their contention is that, the plaintiff’s vendor has no total or possession over the property, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise The name of the plaintiff ‘s vendor is no where mentioned in the

Revenue records. The DW1 filed Ex.B3 –CC of B Memorandum for the year 1988-1989. In the said document, the name of Venkaiah is reflected to an extent of

Ac. 4-02 gts., the said Venkaiah is none other than the vendor of the Janikaram.

9

The said Janakiram is vendor of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff contended that, the Latifunnisa Begum , during her life time executed one Memoradum of a Gift on 30/9/1967, as per the said Gift of

Memorandum , the Latifunnisa Begum executed on 30/9/1967 infavour of

Venkaiah, who was being the washer man to her by that time for his services, she executed the land of Ac. 6-0 gts., out of Ac. 78 – 37 gts., infavour of the Venkaiah.

The said document was in URDU, but the 2nd defendasnt disputed the signature of his mother –Latifunnisa Begumpet on the said document, but if he disputed the signature of his mother, it is for the defendants to prove that the said document was not executed by Latifunnisa became infavour of the Venkaiah.

11.Apart from that, the Navabharat Weaker Section Cooperative Housing

Society filed the suit –OS No.31 / 2000 on the file of IV Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, R.R.

District for perpetual Injunction against the MRO, RDO, District Collector , R.R.

District, in the said suit, the society itself shows the Northern boundary as neighbour land in SY.No.63 (venkaiah).

If the entire land in SY.No.63 belongs to the Latifunnisa Begum, how the name of the Venkaiah is incorporated in the Revenue records? As per the

Memorandum of Gift by Latifunnisa Begum, she gifted the land of Ac. 6 -0 gts., infaovur of Venkaiah and the said Ac. 6-0 gts., of land sold to the Janakiram. So by the date of Ex.B3 –ie., in the year 1988-89 itself the name of the Venkaiah was reflected and during the course of cross examination, the DW2 also admitted that, the Northern boundary was encroached by Venkaiah to his knowledge. If actually the said Venkaiah encroached the land what prevented the 2nd defendant to take steps against Venkaiah for encroaching the land? It clearly reveals that, he know the fact that, his mother –Latifunnisa Begaum gave the land of Ac. 6-0 gts., infavour of

Venkaiah. The plaintiff claim is also that his vendor –Janakiram purchased the land from Venkaiah. So the plaintiff proves his title over the property.

10

12.No doubt the plaintiff did not obtain any registered sale deed from the

Janakiram, for that he gave an explanation that, unless alienation permission obtained by the Janakiram, he cannot execute the registered deed infavour of the plaintiff.

That condition was also mentioned in Ex.A1-Agreement of sale to support his contention. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A8-notice issued by the Surpanch of Madhapur on 10/9/1981 stating that, “the plaintiff vendor by name Janakiram started construction in SY.No.63 and directed him not to make any further construction”. It itself reveals by the date of 10/9/1981 , the plaintiff’s vendor by name Janakiram was in possession of the schedule property. So the plaintiff proved the possession of his vendor , he also filed Ex.A5-Encumbrance certificate from 1/1/1983 to 26/12/2005. The said document also reflects no Encumbrance certificate over the suit schedule property.

13.Inrespect of the possession, the plaintiff filed Ex.A2 – Property tax assessment letter , Ex.A3 –Property Tax receipt by the year 1995, Ex.A4 – Tax receipt, Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 –Tax receipts which stands in the name of the plaintiff’s vendor , Ex.A9 & Ex.A10 are Tax receipts reflects the name of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff proved his possession over the property.

Not only that, the photographs filed by the defendant marked as

Ex.B9, in one of the photograph , the H.No.1-98/71 was also reflected in the photograph and the said fact was also admitted by the DW1 in his cross examination. Apart from that, the DW1 also admitted that, Navabharat Nagar &

Navabharat Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society are different. The plaintiff contended that, the TBC – 409 was registered in the name of Padmashalli

Seva Sangam at pattadar column but not in the name of the Navabharat Weaker

Section Cooperative Housing Society. To prove the said fact, the plaintiff did not file any document, but the defendant filed Ex.B4 –xerox copy of Bye-laws in 11 column No.1 , it was mentioned as “Bharat Weaker Cooperative Housing Society, but not as Navabharat Weaker Cooperative Housing Society”.

14.For that, the defendant gave an explanation that the word Navabharat mentioned in the Top of the bye laws, the defendant also failed to file the copy of registration of the Navabharat Weaker Sections Housing Society.

The plaintiff also disputed that, the 4th defendant is not a Chairperson of the said society and as per the Bye laws he is only Secretary , the said fact was also admitted by the 4th defendant in his cross examination. He filed Ex.B7 – proceedings of the Election of the president and Committee members of the

Navabharat Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society , those elections are only pertaining to the year 2002-2007, but the defendant failed to file any document to show that, he is the Chairperson as on the date of execution of the alleged agreement of sale dt: 5/4/1982. Original agreement of sale was not filed by the defendant. So it also gives raises a doubt whether the Latifunnisa Begum executed any Agreement of sale infavour of the 4th defendant?

15.Another contention of the defendant is that, the plaintiff is relying on the agreement of sale but he did not obtain the registered sale deed and basing on the agreement of sale, the title cannot Transfer , but at the same time the defendant is also relying on the agreement and he is also did not have any registered sale deed.

In the injunction suits, the Court has to see who is in the possession of the schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. In the above paragraphs, I have already discussed that the plaintiff proved his possession over the schedule property. If the injunction is not granted infavour of the plaintiff, the defendant will interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. It will leads to the multiplicity of the litigation.

After foregoing the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as claimed.

12

RESULT:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by way of granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants , henchmen from interfering with the suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2015.

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants ; PW-1: M. A. A. Siddique DW-1 : M. Y. Shareef PW-2 : Syed Zameel Hussain DW-2 : Bukhtyar Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 : Original agreement of sale dt: 5/2/1982 Ex.A2 : Original property tax assessment dt: 7/9/1993 Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 : Original property tax receipts dt: 8/8/95 & 29/3/2006

Ex.A5 : Original Encumbrance certificate dt: 27/12/2005 Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 : Original property tax receipts dt: 12/7/1985

Ex.A8 : Original notice issued by the Gram Panchayat dt: 10/9/1981 Ex.A9 : Computerize property tax due details 2011-2012 dt: 9/7/2011 Ex.A10 : Original cash receipt dt: 31/5/2011

For Defendants:

Ex.B1 : Cc of gift deed with consideration dt: 14/10/1969 Ex.B2 : CC of Deed of gift dt: 31/3/1971 Ex.B3 : CC of “B” Memorandum for the year 1988-89

Ex.B4 : Attested copy of Byelaws of the Navabharath Cooperative Housing Society (marked subject to objection)

Ex.B5 : CC of plaint in OS No. 31/ 2000 on the file of IV ASCJ, R.R. District. Ex.B6 : CC of docket order in IA No. 69/2000 dt: 01/02/2000

Ex.B7 : Election proceedings of Navabharath Weaker Section Cooperative Housing Society Ltd., dt: 11/3/2010

Ex.B8 : Xerox copy of certificate of registration of the society dt: 1/12/81 Ex.B9 : Photographs with CDs

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

CYBERABAD : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : SMT. I SAILAJA DEVI, I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge.

Dated this Thursday the 7th day of May, 2015

S.C.No.601 / 2014

Name of the complainant:The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by SHO, Rajendranagar

Names of the accused :Majjiga Lalu Yadav @ Lingam , S/o late Ramulu, Age : 24 years, Occ: Milk business, R/o : H.No.1- 8-115, Opp: Andhra Bank, Rajendranagar (V & M), R.R. District.

Charge Under Section:307 IPC

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the court : Accused found guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, accused found guilty for the offence U/s. 307 IPC and convicted U/s. 235 (2) Cr.p.C.,

The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- I.D.S.I. for another three months for the offence U/s.

307 IPC. The detention of the accused will be set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. The Mo1 – sickle shall be destroy after expiry of the Appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Mr. Alige Shankar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended by : Sri J. Srinivas, Counsel for the accused

Case committed by : Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, VIII MM, Cyberabad, Rajendranagar 2

This case is coming for final hearing before me on this day in the presence of Mr. Alige Shankar, Additional Public Prosecutor for complainant and Sri J. Srinivas, Counsel for the accused and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

CASE OF THE PROSECUTION:

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajendranagar Police Station, filed charge sheet against the accused stating that, on 25/2/2014 at 3-00 hours, received a complaint from PW1 stating that, about one month back, his uncle by name Balraj killed two persons namely Mallesh and Nandu, since then he is in Jail. The family members of Mallesh bore grudges on them, on 24/2/2014 at night about 21-30 hours, when his father by name

Danaiah aged 55 years was present at Sri Venkateshwara Kirana and Rice

Depot on the road of Himayathsagar and was chit chatting, suddenly the accused @ Lingam attacked o his father with a grass cutting sickle and beat indiscriminately due to which his father sustained severe bleeding injuries on head, should, left hand thumb and abdomen, further the relatives of the accused by name Srinivas Yadav , Narsing Yadav also beat to his injured father and when he went across them they too beat him. On seeing the same, Satyanarayana, Raghu, Anil Goud have rescued and shifted them for treatment through 108 Ambulance to the hospital. He requested to take necessary action against the accused.

Basing on the above statement, a case was registered in

Cr.No.156 / 2014 U/s. 307 IPC by LW11 / Ch. Kushalkar, Inspector of police and entrusted the case to LW12 / PW8 .

3

02.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Pw1 , he visited the Maithri hospital and recorded the statement of PW2, after that, he visited the scene of offence and examined the statements of Lws 3 to 5 (Pws 3 to 5) who are the eye witnesses to the offence. He secured the presence of two mediators Lws 8&9 (PW6 & Mohammed Afsar) , later on 26/2/2014 he recorded the statements of Lws 6&7 (G. Rakesh & V. Babu Rao), LW7 /V. Babu informed to the alleged accused Srinivas Yadav and Narsing Yadav over phone about the offence, immediately they rushed to the spot and found Lws 1&2 with the accused , on 1/3/2014 the accused was discharged from hospital and present in his residence at Rajendrangar , immediately deputed the staff rushed to the spot and apprehended him at 10-30 hours brought to the police station and surrendered before the investigating Officer. The medical officer / LW10 / PW7 treated the injured / PW2 and furnished the wound certificate in which he opined that the injureis sustained by the injured are grievous in nature. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet is filed against the accused.

FURNISHING COPIES:

The learned VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Rajendranagar after taking cognizance and appearance of the accused furnished copies of case documents and complied with the provisions of

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED AND FRAMING OF THE CHARGE:

03.After appearance of accused, heard the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Charge U/s.307 IPC against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in 4 mother tongue. The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the charge, the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to

PW.8 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-5 are marked in support of the case.

EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED U/S.313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C.

After closure of the prosecution's evidence the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., and explained the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the circumstances.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s. 307 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts ”?

04.This is a case of attempt to murder due to previous grudges.

To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined

PWs 1 to 8 witnesses, out of them- PW1 who is the son of the victim who stated in his evidence that, LW2/ Danaiah is his father. On 24-2-2014 at about 8.30 his father went to Sri Venkateshwrara Kirana shop to purchase the Atta, which is situated in Himayathsagar Road. His father did not come to home. He searched for his father. when he reached to the shop he found one sickle in the hand of the accused and his father with injuries on his left side of the hand , ear and shoulder and also to the left side of the stomach. He tried to take the sickle from the hand of the accused, the accused also sustained injury .

Meanwhile brothers of you accused also came to the spot and beat him and his father with their hands. The Kirana shop owner and two others LW 3 to 5 rescued and shifted them to the hospital. After 5 completion of the first aid he was shifted to Osmania Hospital and went to

Maithri Hospital. From there he went to the police station and they lodged a complaint at 3 am. ExP1 is complaint is given by him. He was examined by the Police. MO 1 is sickle which was used in the offence. The accused is the said person who stabbed him.

05.PW2 who is the victim who stated in his evidence that, Pw1 is his son and at about 14 months back at about 8.30 he went to Sri

Venkateshwrara Kirana shop(LW3) to purchase the atta, which is situated in Himayath Sagar Road. At the shop he was chit chatting where LW4 and 5 meanwhile the accused came near to him and stabbed him with sickle on his left side of hand, left ear, left abdomen, left thumb due that he sustained bleeding injuries. MO1 is the sickle. Meanwhile Lw 3 to 5 came there and rescued him.

At that time PW1 came to the shop, himself , PW1 tried to take the sickle from the hand of the accused , the accused also received injury.

The brothers of the accused also beat him with their hands. They were shifted to hospital in 108 ambulance. From there they shifted to Maithri

Hospital. He was treated as inpatient for three days. He was examined by the Police.

06.PW3 who is the eye witness to the incidnet who stated in his evidence that, he is the resident of Rajendranagar. He is running Kirana shop by name Sri Venkateshwara Kirana Shop. On 24-2-2014 at 9.30 pm

PW2 came to the shop. While they were chit chatting with LW 4 and 5 meanwhile the accused came with sickle and stabbed Pw2 on his left side of the head and shoulder. Along with the accused one Srinvas Yadav and

Narsing Yadav were also present. The said two persons also beat PW1 and 6

PW2 with their hands. Himself and LW4 and 5 called the 108 ambulance and sent them to Osmania General Hospital. He was examined by the

Police.

Pws 4&5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident, who stated in their evidence that, they knew PWs 1 to 3 and the accused. On 24-2-2014 himself and LW5, Pw2 were chit chatting at the shop of PW3 the accused came there with sickle and stabbed the PW2 on his left hand, shoulder, left abdomen. Himself , PW3 LW5 called the 108 ambulance and shifted to Hospital. Srinvas yadav and Narsing Yadav also beat PW1 and

PW2 with their hands. He was examined by the Police.

07.PW6 who is the panch witness who stated in his evidence that, his mess is situated near shop of PW3. At about fourteen months back he was called by the police at about 10.30 am along with LW9 / Mohammed

Afsar. Police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seized the

MO1 from the scene of offence. The contents of the panchanama were read over to him, ExP2 is scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch. LW9 also put the signatures on Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

PW7 who is the Doctor who stated in his evidence that, on 25/2/2014 one Danaiah came to the hospital with injures and brought by his relatives, he examined around 1-30 AM early hours, he found the following injuries : -

1. Laceration 10 inches frontal reason one

2. Lesarion lefte shoulder

3. Laceration of left ear

4. Fracture primal pholom the injuries caused by sharp objects. The age of injuries was within six hours and they are simple in nature. The injury No.4 is grievous, Ex.P4 is medical certificate of PW2 issued by him.

7

08.PW8 who is the investigating Officer who stated in his evidence that, on 25/2/2014 at 3-00 AM, LW11 received a complaint from

PW1 and registered a case in Cr.No.156 / 2014 U/s. 307 IPC and issued FIR

U/Ex.P5, then he entrusted the C. D. file to him.

During the course of his investigation, he examined PW1, he visited the Maithri hospital and examined PW2, he also visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of Pws 3 to 5 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6 & LW9. On 26/2/2014 he went to the houses of Lws 6&7 and he examined them. On 1/3/2014 he apprehended the accused at the house of him and then the accused was sent to the Court for judicial remand. On 20/3/2014 after collecting the medical certificate, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

09.The contention of the PW2 who is the victim is that, on 24/2/2014, he went to the Kirana shop of PW3 in order to purchase the

Atta, meanwhile the accused came there with sickle and stabbed him on his left side of hand, left ear, left abdomen, left thumb due to that he sustained bleeding injuries. He also identified the sickle which is marked as

MO1.

PW3 who is the Kirana shop onwer, Pws 4&5 who are chit chatting infront of the Kirana shop stated the same fact that the accused came there and stabbed the PW2 with the sickle, due to that, PW2 sustained bleeding injuries. Then they called the 108 Ambulance and sent him to the Osmania General Hospital.

10. The back drop of the prosecution witnesses is that, the PW2's brother by name Balraj has killed the brother of the accused by name

Mallesh and another person by name Nandu , in the said case, the brother 8 of the PW2 was in the jail. Due to that grudge, the accused stabbed PW2 with sickle.

For that, the learned counsel for the accused argued that, during the course of evidences of Pws 1 to 5 , they admitted that there are no cases pending between PW2 and the accused. But it is also not the case of the prosecution that, there are direct cases pending between the accused and the PW2, but to prove the intention of the accused, it was categorically stated by Pws 1&2 that, the brother of the PW2 has killed the brother of the accused. So the motive behind the incidnet was established by the prosecution.

11.Another contention of the accused is that, as per the Doctor evidence/PW7 is that, the injuries are caused by the sharp edged weapon and it was also stated by the Doctor that, the weapon may be the Sword , but as per the evidences of Pws 1 to 5 , the accused used the sickle, as such the weapon is not tallied from the evidences of Pws 1 to 5 to the doctor evidence , as such the MO1 is a planted one. May be the Doctor stated that, the weapon is a sword , but in Ex.P4-it was mentioned that the injury was caused due to sharp edged weapon, the sickle is also sharp edged weapon and admittedly the doctor is a third person there is no necessity for him to support the case of the Pws 1&2 It is also not the case of the prosecution is that, there is a personal grudge between the accused and the Doctor. So the evidences of the Doctor is to be true and genuine.

Apart from that, in Ex.P4-it was also mentioned that, the PW2 was stabbed by one known person at 10-00 PM, the PW2 was admitted in the hospital at 1-30 AM (early hours) .

9

Another contention of the accused is that, the signature of the

Doctor on the deposition and on the medical certificate is different, as such the Doctor is also not a correct person, the certificate is also not a genuine one. Once the Doctor himself admitted that Ex.P4 was issued by him, no body will question the signature of the Doctor on Ex.P4-medical certificate.

12.Not only that, the Pws 3 to 5 who are known persons to both the accused and the PW2 since twenty years, even then the Pws 2 to 5 categorically narrated the entire incident and the injuries are caused by the accused. So the evidences of Pws 3 to 5 is believable and it is also not the case of the accused is that, the accused is having grudge against the

Pws 3 to 5 . If such is the case, the evidences of Pws 3 to 5 is a trustworthy.

Another contention of the accused is that, even though there is no direct enmity between the PW2 and the accused and it is a counter- blast to the case filed by the accused family against the brother of the

PW2, the PW1 lodged a false complaint against the accused. It itself reveals that, there is a motive for the incident which is proved by the prosecution.

13.Another contention of the accused is that, as per the evidences of Pws 1 to 5, the PW2 was referred to the Osmania General hospital and from there to Maithri hospital which is a private one hospital .

For that, the Pws 1&2 stated in their evidences that, as the Doctors are not available in the Osmania hospital, they went to the Maithri hospital.

For that, it is the case of the accused is that, as there are no severe injuries on the body of the PW2, the Osmania General hospital authorities may not admitted them into the hospital, but as per the 10 evidence of PW2, the PW2 sustained four injuries , out of them, the 1 to 3 injuries are simple in nature and the 4th injury is grievous in nature. The age of the injury categorically mentioned by the Doctor is within six hours.

So the injuries are fresh in nature and as per the prosecution case is also that, the incident took place on 24/02/2014 at 10-00 PM.

The injuries mentioned by the Pws 1 to 5 coupled with the medical certificate / Ex.P4 clearly reveals that, the accused stabbed PW2 with the sickle and the motive was also established by the prosecution for the incident.

16.The charges levelled against the accused are U/s. 307 IPC . To attract the ingredients of Section 307 IPC , the intention of the accused is sufficient to convict the accused.

The prosecution has proved the intention / motive behind the incident through the evidences of Pws 1 to 5 coupled with the Ex.P4, which is issued by PW7. PW8 who is the Investigating Officer also supported the case of the prosecution and he narrated the about the investigation done by him. The prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts by examining the witnesses / Pws 1 to 8 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

RESULT:-

17. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and he is convicted under Section 235(2)

Cr.P.C., without any hesitation.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 7th day May, 2015.

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar.

11

As the offence is grave offence they are not entitled for invoking the provisions of Probation of offenders act.

When the quantum of the sentence to be imposed against the accused :

Accused represented that, he is having old aged parents and he has to look after them and requested the Court to take the lenient view. Considering the submissions of the accused, I feel that the accused shall be punished to meet the ends of the justice.

In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s. 307 IPC and he is convicted u/s.235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- I.D.S.I. for another three months for the offence U/s. 307 IPC.

The detention of the accused will be set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. The Mo1-sickle shall be destroy after expiry of the Appeal time.

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE

PROSECUTION:

PW-1 : M. Raju – Complainant & eye witness PW-2 : M. Danaiah – Eye witness PW-3 : K. Raghu Mudiraj – Eye witness & owner of the kirana shop

PW-4 : E. Anil Goud – Eye witness PW-5 : D. Satyanarayana – Eye witness PW-6 : Ramaiah Venkanna – Panch witness for Scene of offence

PW-7 : Dr. P. Srinivas – Medical officer PW-8 : K. Kanakaiah - Investigating Officer -filing of the charge sheet

DEFENCE : - None - 12

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1 : Complaint given by PW1 Ex.P2 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3 : Rough sketch

Ex.P4 : Medical certificate Ex.P5 : FIR

FOR DEFENCE : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

Mo1- sickle

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Cyberabad.

13

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

S.C. No.601 / 2014

C A L E N D E R

Name of the Complainant:The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by the S.H.O. P.S. Rajendranagar

Name of the Accused:Majjiga Lalu Yadav @ Lingam , S/o late Ramulu, Age : 24 years, Occ: Milk business, R/o : H.No.1- 8-115, Opp: Andhra Bank, Rajendranagar (V & M), R.R. District.

Charge Under Section:307 IPC

Crime No. & PRC.No.:156 /2014 & 56/2014

Date of Occurrence:24/2/2014

Date of Complaint:25/2/2014

Commencement of Trial:09/04/2015

Closure of Trial:30/04/2015

Date of Judgment:07/05/2015

Finding of the Court:Accused is found guilty

Sentence of order : In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offence U/s. 307

IPC and he is convicted u/s.

235(2) Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of two years and shall pay a fine of Rs.500/- I.D.S.I. for another three months for the offence U/s.

307 IPC.

The detention of the accused will be set off under Section 428

Cr.P.C. The Mo1-sickle shall be destroy after expiry of the Appeal time.

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Cyberabad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi, I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Monday, this the 4th day of May, , 2015

SC No.232 / 2014

1.Name of the complainant:The State of A.P. through Sub Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef

2.Name of the Accused:Rajamoni Ramesh, S/o Ramulu, Age : 25 years, Occ: JCB Driver, R/o : Koduparthy (V), Thimmajipet (M), Mahabobnagar District.

3.Offence under sections:417, 376, & 506 IPC

4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S: 375 of 2013 of PS Pahadishareef

5.P.R.C. No.:7 / 2014

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

7.Finding of the Court:Not guilty for the offences under Section 4217, 376 & 506 IPC

8.Sentence of Order: Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 IPC and he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9.Prosecution conducted by :Sri Alige Shankar

Additional Public Prosecutor for

state.

10. Defence conducted by:Sri N. Vishnu Murthy, Advocate for the accused

11. Case committed by:Smt. J. Kavitha, XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, L B Nagar 2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N. Vishnu Murthy, Advocate for the accused and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pahadishareef Police Station filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 IPC, and the brief case of the prosecution as seen from the charge-sheet is that:

On 11/10/2013 at 10-00 hrs., a complaint was lodged by PW1 stating that, they are two children to her parents, she is having one elder brother, when she was aged about 3 years, she was effected with POLIO with two legs, she studied decree, about 10 years ago, her father died due to ill health, she got opportunity to work as casual worker in DIAMOND

Company through DRDA, about two years back , she came down to

Tukkuguda and took a rented house portion from Saleem's house and she started attending her duties at the said DIAMOND company.

02.In the month of November, 2012, she got acquaintance with one

Ramesh, aged 25 years, he is a JCB driver, when ever she was alone in her room, the said ramesh used to visit her and had utilized her, she believed him and acted according to his wishes and they both had enjoyed as such till July, 2013, thereafter he refused to marry her as she is a handicapped and also threatened her with dire consequences. She requested to take necessary action against the said Ramesh.

Basing on which, a case was registered in Cr.No.375 /2013 U/s.

417, 376 & 506 IPC by LW12 / D. Bhaskar Reddy, Inspector of Police and took up the investigation.

3

03.During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1, the victim was sent to the Modern Govt., Maternity hospital through escort WHC 2338/Megahamala for examination for the alleged rape and report, the doctor/ LW8/Dr. Sujatha - preserved the vaginal slides, blood samples, pubic hair, nail clipping and issued preliminary examination report, pending FSL report and handed over the seized material objects for sending to the FSL for examination and report.

During the investigation, he further caused enquires and examined and recorded the statement of the witnesses /Lws 2 to 5 (PW2,

Shakthi Mohan Babu, Modh. Asha, Mohammed Saleem), on requisition

LW11/ P. Anjaneyulu, XIII MM Judge, recorded the 164 statement of the complainant.

04.On 19/10/2013 at 6-00 PM, apprehended the accused and brought him to the police station at 8-00 PM, on further enquiry, the accused stated tat he participated in sexual intercourse a long back, as such the clothes of accused could not be seized. LW9 / Dr. M. Taqiuddin Khan examined the accused and issued potency certificate opining that, 'THERE

IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE INDIVIDUAL EXAMINED IS

INCAPABLE OF PERFORMING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE'.

The seized material was sent to the Director of APFSL

Hyderabad for examination and report. LW10 / K. Arun Jyothi conducted the examination of the items issued FLS report dt: 7/1/2014, LW8/Dr.

Sujatha issued final report opinion that, 'POSSIBILITY OF RAPE CANNOT

BE EXCLUDED', after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4

05.The learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate registered the case as

PRC 7 of 2014 for the offences under Section 417, 376 & 506 IPC . After furnishing copies of documents to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, R.R. District under Section 209 of Cr.P.C by

order dated 11/4/2014. The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Cyberabad registered the same as SC No.232 of 2014. Subsequently the case is made over to this court, as per orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan

Sessions Court.

On appearance of the accused before this court, this court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and found prima-facie case for the offence under Sections 417, 376 & 506 of IPC and framed charges, read over and explained the charge to the accused in Telugu and accused plead not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, the Pws 1&2 are examined. After closure of prosecution, the examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C, is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused in the evidence of Pws 1&2 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked.

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel

for the accused.

Now the point for determination is: “ Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

07.This a case of rape by way of cheating on the victim woman which was occurred prior to 11/10/2013.

5

The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the complainant was effected with Polio for two legs when she is at the age of 23 years , she got an opportunity to work as casual worker in a DIAMOND company through DRDA, her friends are also residing with her in a room.

In the month of November, 2012 , she got acquaintance with the accused , who is a JCB driver and out of that acquaintance , they used to speak with each other and their friendship turned to love affair and agreed to get married both of them.

08.Whenever she was alone in her room, the accused used to visit her and had sexual intercourse with her, both of them enjoyed till July, 2013. Thereafter the said Ramesh shifted to other place, subsequently when she asked the accused to marry her, but the accused refused to marry her and threatened her with dire consequences, on that, she lodged a complaint before the police.

But during the course of evidences, she simply stated that, she does not know the accused and the accused never cheated and raped her, she denied her entire 161 cr.p.c., statement which was marked as Ex.P2.

She also denied lodging of the complaint , except admitting the signature on the complaint. So her her evidences is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

09.PW2 who is the mother of the victim/ PW1, she also simply stated that she do not know the facts of the case and denied her entire 161 cr.p.c., statement and got marked it as Ex.P3, the evidences of Pws 1&2 are no way helpful to the prosecution case.

The prosecution altogether cited Lws 1 to 12 witnesses, out of them they got examined only Pws 1&2, when the victim herself not supported the case of the prosecution , the Court is constrained to close the evidences of the remaining witnesses.

10.The charges levelled against the accused are U/s. 417, 376 & 506 IPC, but the evidences of Pws 1&2 did not disclose the ingredients of 6 the above sections. Once the ingredients of the charges levelled agaisnt the accused are not proved by the prosecution, it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the averments mentioned in the charge sheet.

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 376 & 506 IPC and he is acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

The unmarked property if any shall destroy after expiry of the Appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of May, 2015.

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W-1 :Kum. Shaik Wajeeda Begum - complainant / victim girl P.W-2 : Smt. Bibi Jani – Mother of the victim girl

For defence: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P-1 : Signature of PW1 on the Complaint given by her Ex.P-2 : statement of PW-1 U/S.161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P-3 : statement of PW-2 U/S.161 Cr.P.C.,

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R District 7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

S.C. No.232 / 2014

C A L E N D E R

Name of the Complainant:The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the S.H.O. Pahadishareef

Name of the Accused:Rajamoni Ramesh, S/o Ramulu, Age : 25 years, Occ: JCB Driver, R/o : Koduparthy (V), Thimmajipet (M), Mahabobnagar District.

Charge Under Sections:417, 376 & 506 IPC

Crime No. & PRC.No.:375 /2013 & 7/2014

Date of Occurrence:prior to 11/10/2013

Date of Complaint:11/10/2013

Commencement of Trial:21/04/2015

Closure of Trial:27/04/2015

Date of Judgment:04/05/2015

Finding of the Court:Accused found not guilty

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/s. 417, 376 & 506 IPC and he is acquitted

U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

The unmarked property if any shall destroy after expiry of the Appeal time .

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

L.B.NAGAR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi, I Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Firday, this the 15th day of May, 2015

SC No.247 / 2014

1.Name of the complainant:The State of A.P. through Sub Inspector of Police, K.P.H.B.

2.Name of the Accused:

A1)D. Ashok, S/o Bikshapathi, Age : 26 years, Occ: Flower Decoration, R/o : Hydernagar, KPHB Colony, N/o : Saathval (V), Zaheerabad (M), Medak District.

A2)Mohammed Jameel, S/o Md. Ismail, Age : 26 years, Occ: Flower Decoration, R/o : H.No.20-188/3, Indranagar, Shapur, Qutbullapur

3.Offence under sections:366 & 354 IPC

4.Cr. No. and Name of P.S: 289 of 2013 of PS Kukatpally

5.P.R.C. No.:291 of 2013

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

7.Finding of the Court:Not guilty for the offence under Sections 366 & 354 IPC

8.Sentence of Order: Accused /1&2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 366 & 354 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

9.Prosecution conducted by:Sri Alige Shankar

Additional Public Prosecutor for state.

10. Defence conducted by:Sri S. Suman, counsel for the accused

11. Case committed by:Smt. N. Roja ramani, XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally .

2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri S. Suman, Advocate for the accused and the case having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, K.P.H.B., Police Station filed final report against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 366 & 354 IPC, and the brief case of the prosecution as seen from the charge-sheet is that:

On 24/03/2011 at 1-00 hours ., received a complaint from LW1 / M.

Suresh stating that, he had a sister by name Srilatha aged 16 years who is a dumb and she is working as a maid in the houses On 23/3/2013 -she went to the work and did not return to the home, when he is searching for his sister, he found two persons were taking his sister on their motorcycle at nearby

Vasanthnagar Bus Stop. When she enquired his sister , she explained by signal that they both misbehaved with her. The public also beaten both the person, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint and requested to take the necessary action.

02.Basingonwhich,LW9/P.Anjaneyulu,

Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.289 /2013 U/s. 366 & 354 and too up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of Lws 1 to 4 (M. Suresh, Kum. Methur Srilatha, Smt. Methur

Padmamma, G. Krishna) , while recording the statements, LW3 stated that, her daughter is aged about 19 years, but his son written her age as 16 years instead of 19 years in the complaint. A2 /accused person on interrogation voluntarily 3 admitted the commission of the offence along with the accused/A1. He secured the presence of two mediators / Lws 5&6 (Pws 1&2).

03.On 23/3/2013 the accused/A1 came to the shop of A2 and asked him to come to his house, then both accused started from there on A2's motorcycle to

Hydernagar, KPHB. Then the victim /LW2/Kum. M. Srilatha stood nearby the bus stop at Hydernagar, K{HB. They forcibly made her to sit in the middle of them on the bike and A1 caught her tightly and A2 was riding the vehicle, when they reached Vasanthnagar bus stop, LW1 /M. Suresh noticed them and chased them and enquired the victim.

While the investigation is in progress, on 24/3/2013 at 18-00 hours, on credible information, he apprehended the A1/accused, on interrogationt he accused/A1 voluntarily admitted to have committed this offence alsong with A2.

He recorded the confessional statement of the accused/A1 in the presence of two mediators /Lws 7&8 (R. Sainadh & D. Ram reddy). After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused.

04.The learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate , Kukatpally registered the case as PRC 213 of 2013 for the offences under Section 366, 354 IPC . After furnishing copies of documents to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Metropolitan Sessions

Judge, Cyberabad, R.R. District under Section 209 of Cr.P.C by order dated 26-

04-2014. The Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad registered the same as SC No.247 of 2014. Subsequently the case is made over to this court, as per orders of Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Court.

On appearance of the accused before this court, this court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and found prima-facie case for the offence under Section 366, 354 of IPC and framed 4 charges, read over and explained the charge to the accused in Telugu and accused plead not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

05.During the course of trial, the Pws 1&2 are examined and Ex.P1 &

Ex.P2 are marked. After closure of prosecution, the examination U/s 313

Cr.P.C, is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence available against the accused in the evidence of PWs.

Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

Now the point for determination is: “ Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366 & 354 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

This a case of kidnapping and outraging the modesty of the girl. The facts of the prosecution case are that, on 23/3/2013 the victim girl who is dumb and working as maid servant in the houses. On that day also, she went to the work but did not return to the home. LW1 who is the brother of the victim searched here and there, subsequently he noticed two persons were taking the victim girl on their motor-bike near by Vasanthnagar. He followed her and caught hold his sister / victim and she informed him with signs that both the accused misbehaved with her. On that, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint before the police.

06.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited

Lws 1 to 9 witnesses, out of them they got examined only Pws 1&2 who are the panch witnesses for the confessional and seizure panchanama. But they turned hostile, except admitting the signatures. The prosecution failed to bring the Lws 1 to 4 and 7&8 stating their whereabouts are not known and they are not residing in the address given at the time of the investigation. So they failed to produce the material witnesses / Lws 1 to 4 and 7&8.

5

The prosecution also failed to examine the Investigating Officer even though so many opportunities were given to them. Admittedly the evidences of

Pws 1&2 are not supported the case of the prosecution. The charges levelled against the accused are U/s. 366 & 354 IPC and no witnesses spoke about the ingredients of the Sections 363 & 354 IPC. Once the complainant and the material witnesses are not examined by the prosecution , it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the averments mentioned in the charge sheet.

RESULT:-

In the result, the accused/ 1&2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 & 354 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property if any are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of May, 2015.

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W-1 : Mahammad Reyaj- Panch witness for confessional cum seizure of A2 P.W-2 : Md. Vazid – Panch witness for confessional cum seizure of A2

For defence: -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :

Ex.P-1 : Signature of PW1 on confessional recovery panchanama Ex.P-2 : Signature of PW2 on confessional recovery panchanama

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge Cyberabad, R.R District 6

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

S.C. No.247 / 2014

C A L E N D E R

Name of the Complainant:The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By the S.H.O. K. P.H.B

Name of the Accused:

A1)D. Ashok, S/o Bikshapathi, Age : 26 years, Occ: Flower Decoration, R/o : Hydernagar, KPHB Colony, N/o : Saathval (V), Zaheerabad (M), Medak District.

A2)Mohammed Jameel, S/o Md. Ismail, Age : 26 years, Occ: Flower Decoration, R/o : H.No.20-188/3, Indranagar, Shapur, Qutbullapur

Charge Under Sections:366 & 354 IPC

Crime No. & PRC.No.:289 /13 & 291 /2013

Date of Occurrence:23/5/2013

Date of Complaint:24/05/2013

Commencement of Trial:15/04/2015

Closure of Trial:14/05/2015

Date of Judgment:15/05/2015

Finding of the Court:Accused /1&2 found not guilty

Sentence of Order:In the result, accused /1&2 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.366 & 354 IPC and they are acquitted U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after the Appeal time is over.

I Additional Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

 RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi, I Additional Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District

Friday, this the 1st day of May, 2015

O.S. No.1970 / 2014

BETWEEN:

1.Chitikala Shekar, S/o late Chitikala Swamy 

2. Chitikala Meena, 

3. Chitikala Nirmala, 

4. Chitikala Sony, ...Plaintiffs

And

1. D. Venkanna, S/o Rangaiah 

2. The Tahsildar, Saroornagar (M), 

3. ALL CONCERNED… Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G. Ramashankar, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and the defendants remained exparte and upon perusal of the material record record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

 01.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs and successors of late Chitikala Swamy with regard to the suit scheule property.

Originally the suit was filed against the three defendants, the 3rd defendant is ALL CONCERNED, for that­ the plaintiffs filed a paper publication in 

Janatha paper and accordingly the publication was filed and no objections were received from the public on 12/02/2015. After receiving the the summons, the defendants 1&2 failed to appear before the Court, as such he was set exparte on 2 21/4/2015 and the matter was posted for exparte plaintiff’s evidence.

02.The 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 who stated in his evidence that, he is the brother of the plaintiffs 2,3,4 and they are the sons and daughters of late Chitikala swamy and late Chitikala Renuka in relation. Thei father originally ­late Chitikala swamy was the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the schedule property, he died on 28/12/2012 by leaving him and the other plaintiffs herein as his legal heirs, and their mother/late Chitikala Renuka also died, his father acquired the schedule property 202 sq. yards from Reddy Ashok, S/o Chandraiah through a registered sale deed vide document No.183/96 dt: 17/1/1996.

his father ­late C. swamy became the owner of the schedule property mortgaged the same with the 1st defendant and obtained a loan of Rs.1,50,000/­ thereafter he paid the most of the amount leaving a small portion of Rs.25,000/­. 

The said late C. swamy expired on 28/12/2012 due to ill health and over mother ­Chitikala Renuka also died who is the wife of the deceased late C. swamy also died on 3/5/husband /deceased M. Veeraiah is the absolute owner and possessor of plot bearing No.31, admeasuring 175 sq. yards in SY.Nos., 389 situated at Pedda 

Amberpet Kalan (V), Hayathnagar (M), R.R. District.

 03.The suit schedule property purchased in the name of Makam 

Veeraiah, S/o Channaiah through a registered sale deed document bearing 

No.9685 / 90 dt: 28/7/1990 from Smt. K. Sujathamma @ K. Sujatha Devi, W/o K. 

Yadi Reddy @ Yadagiri Reddy , since from the date of purchase of the suit schedule property , the said M. Veeraiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he died on leaving behind themselves as his legal representatives / successors. They are the only legal heirs of late Makam Veeraiah. 

3

He died , they are the children of late C. Swamy and late C. Renuka ­ by virtue of succession, they all became the owners of the schedule property after the death of late C. Swamy and C. late Renuka.

After the death of their father, the 1st defendant made enquiry with regard to the repayment of the balance amount and thereby they all cleared the balance amount of Rs.25,000/­ along with interest. Thereafter on 25/11/2014 they requested the 1st defendant to return the original documents kept with him by late 

C. Swamy while taking loan, but at this stage the 1st defendant questioned them about over legal heir­ship and exclusive to five the above suit seeking declaration that they are the only surviving legal heir of late C. Swamy with regard to the schedule property, as such they approached the Civil Court to get the legal heir certificate. Hence the suit.

Heard and perused the record

04.In support of their case, Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 documents are marked. It is an admitted fact that, the 1st plaintiff is the son, the plaintiffs 2to 4 are the daughters of late C. Swamy & late C. Renuka. Ex.A2 is the original death certificate of late C. Swamy and Ex.A3 is the original death certificate of Burial 

Ground report dt: 15/5/2013. 

During the life of the C. Swamy, he purchased schedule property from one 

Reddy Ashok through a registered sale deed vide document No.183/96 dt: 

17/1/96 , the certified copy is marked as Ex.A1. During his life time of late C. 

Swamy mortgaged the schedule property with 1st defendant and obtained the loan f 

Rs.1,50,000/­ , thereafter he obtained most of the amount leaving portion of 4

Rs.25,000/­ , after the death of their parents , they paid remaining Rs.25,000/­ along with interest to the 1st defendant, but the 1st defendant refused to handover the original sale deeds and the 1st defendant also expressed a doubt whether the plaintiffs are the successors and legal heirs of late C. Swamy.

05.For that, they approached the Tahasildar, Saroornagar /D2 ­but they failed to give the legal heir certificate and advise them to approach the Civil Court. 

Accordingly they approached the Civil Court for declaration .

To show the relationship with the deceased C. Swamy, the plaintiffs filed the Aadhar cards and also voter I.D., cards of the plaintiffs and they also filed the original house tax receipts U/Ex.A4. So the plaintiffs proved their relation with the late C. Swamy and late C. Renuka and except the plaintiffs, there are no other legal heirs to the late C. Swamy and late C. Renuka ­ because no objections were received from the public. So the evidence of PW1 and the documents filed by the 

PW1 remained unchallenged. As such I am of the opinion that, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as claimed.

RESULT:­ 

06.In the result, the suit is decreed by way of declaring the plaintiffs are the legal heirs and successors of deceased Chitikala Swamy inrespect of the suit schedule property. 

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by 

me in the open Court on this the 1st day of May, 2015.

 I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

5

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants ; 

PW­1: Ch. ShekharExparte 

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A.1 : CC of sale deed Ex.A.2 : Original Death Certificate of late C. Swamy dt: 6/2/2013 Ex.A.3 : Original death certificate of Burial ground reprot dt: 15/5/2013

Ex.A.4 : Original house Tax receipt dt: 19/11/2014 Ex.A.5 : Original copies of Aadhar card of plaintiffs (2) Ex.A.6 : Original voter I D., card of the plaintiffs (2) 

For Defendants:NIL 

I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT