Smt Jonnapalli Bala Tripura Sundari Devi

CC1293/2021 1

I.Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl.J.F.C.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

Dt.17.04.2025.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONALCIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-I

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KOVVUR

Present : Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Thursday, the 17th day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.1293/2021

Between:

State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

...Complainant

And

Goda Sagar Babu, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao, Age 41 years, Parimpudi (V), H/o. Koyyalagudem village and mandal. …. Accused

This case having come before me on 15.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V.Venkata Subba Rao, learned Advocate for the Accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.247 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

2. Brief allegations mentioned in the charge sheet are as follows:

The marriage of LW.1/ Goda Nirmala Kumari was performed with the accused at Koyyalagudem. During their wedlock, they blessed with two children. After some time, disputes arose between LW.1/ Nirmala Kumari and

CC 1293/2021 2 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

the accused and they separated about nine months back and living separately at Annadevarapeta village.

On 08.09.2021 while LW.1/ Nirmala Kumari was present in her house, at that time, the accused criminally tresspassed into the house, caught hold her tuft of hair, slapped on her cheek, and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, LW.1/

Nirmala Kumari presented a report to Tallapudi police. Basing on the said report, LW.6/ G.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.247/2021 for the offences punishable under

Sections 448, 323 and 506 of I.P.C and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW.6/ G.Satish examined witnesses viz., LWs.1 to 5/ Nalla Ganesh, Nalla Sangamesh, Cherukuri Bangaraju and

Menni Sattibabu and recorded their statements, visited the scence of offence, examined the scene and prepared rough sketch. On 10.09.2021 LW.6/

G.Satish served a notice under Section 41-A(1) of Cr.PC on the accused. After completion of investigation LW.7/ K.Venkata Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police,

Tallapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 of IPC.

4. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The Accused was examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Sections 448, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC were framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He denied the said charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution has

CC 1293/2021 3 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

examined PWs.1 to 6 and exhibited documents Exs.P1 to P4 and Ex.D.1. The evidence of LW.7/ K.Venkata Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi

Police Station was given up by the prosecution.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The accused reported no defence evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard both sides.

9. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PWs.1 to 6 are cogent, consistent and corroborative with each other. Further argued that PWs.4 and 5 are independent witnesses, and their evidence clearly proves the guilt of the accused, hence the accused is liable to be convicted for the charged offences U/Sec.448, 323 and 506 of IPC.

10. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the ingredients of

Section 448 of IPC are not attracted to this case, as PW.1 is the wife of the accused. There are several inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

PW.4 who is the house owner of the PW.1 did not support the case of the prosecution. He further argued that PW.1 foisted several cases against the accused, and moreover, PW.1 deposed negatively. Further he argued that there are material omissions and contradictions in the case of prosecution.

Hence, the accused is liable to be acquitted for the charged offences.

11. Now the point for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC?

2.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

CC 1293/2021 4 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC?

3.Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506(ii) of IPC?

12. Before appreciating the evidence available on record, it is just and proper to reproduce the necessary ingredients to prove the charged offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC.

Section 448 IPC:

In order to prove the offence under Section 448 of IPC, the prosecution has to establish that (1) that the accused committed criminal trespass. (2) that such criminal trespass was committed by entering into, or remaining in, a building, tent, or vessel. (3) that such building, tent, or vessel, was used as a human dwelling or as a place of worship, or as a place for the custody of property.

Section 323 IPC: (1) that the accused by his act caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the complainant. (2) that he did such act intentionally or with knowledge that it would cause the hurt, etc.

Section 506(ii) IPC:

(1) that the accused threatened some person. (2) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested. (3) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

13. Point Nos.1 to 3:-

CC 1293/2021 5 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

i) Perused the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. She testifies that her marriage with the accused was performed in the year 2014 and both of them lived happily for about 2 or 4 months, later due to disputes between them, they have been living separately.

She further testifies that she got a job as a staff nurse on contract basis at

Annadevarapeta in the month of October, 2020 and she used to stay in a rental house at Annadevarapeta.

ii) PW1 further testifies that on 08.09.2021 at about 4.30 P.M., after completion of her duties, she went to her house, then the accused went to her house without her permission and made altercation with her and the accused caught hold tuft of her hair and beat her with hands, the accused demanded her to hand over the children to him, otherwise he would kill her. Further, she testifies that on the date of incident, the house owners were not present. Prior to the incident, there were similar disputes arose between her and her husband and in that connection she also gave report to Tanuku police and the police registered a case to that effect.

iii) PW.2 is the father of PW.1. He deposed that the accused is his son-in-law, he performed the marriage of his daughter (PW.1) with the accused on 12.05.2014. Further he testifies that prior to the marriage PW.1 was working as a staff nurse in Jangareddigudem Government hospital on outsourcing basis, after marriage PW.1 joined with accused at Koyyalagudem village; and that in the month of Septemeber 8th of the last year at 4.30 P.M.,

PW.1 informed to him by way of phone that the accused beat her while she was returning from her duty; at that time, PW.1 used to reside in a rental house; then himself and his son went to PW.1, later, all of them went to the police station and PW.1 gave report to the police.

CC 1293/2021 6 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

iv) P.W.3 is the brother of PW.1. He deposed on the same lines of

PW.2. He further testifies that on 08.09.2021 while PW.1 was returning from her duty, she made a call to him and informed that the accused and his paternal aunt went to PW.1 and beat her; PW.1 further informed him that after pushing them aside, she closed the door and made a call to him; she also informed that the house owners were not available; on his advise, PW.1 made a call to police, immediately, he went to Tallapudi police station, by that time,

PW.1 was also present there. He further testifies that he caused enquiries with

PW.1; earlier PW.1 gave report against the accused in Tanuku police station.

v) P.W.4 is the house owner of PW.1. He has not supported the version of the prosecution.

vi) PW.5 is a vegetable vendor. He deposed that about 3 years back, on one day in the evening hours, while he was present in the shop, he heard shouts from the house of PW.1, then he went to the house of PW.4, by that time, PW.1 was weeping. He further deposed that PW.1 had shown the accused to him and introduced and informed that he is her husband and he beat her, he notice and injury on the left ear of PW.1, at that time, PW.1 was also present. PW.1 informed that there are disputes between and her husband.

vii) PW.6 is an Investigating Officer. He deposed that on 08.09.2021 basing on the report of PW.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.247/2021 for the offence under Sections 448, 323 and 506 IPC, examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. He further deposed that on 09.09.2021 he along with PW1 visited the scene of offence, observed the scene and prepared Ex.P.4 rough sketch, examined PWs.2 to 5 and recorded their statements. He further deposed that on 10.09.2021 the accused surrendered before him, then, on ascertaining particulars of the accused, he served a notice under section 41-A

CC 1293/2021 7 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

Cr.P.C and later on completion of investigation, his successor LW7/ K.Venkata

Ramana, Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the accused.

14. So far as the offence under Section 448 IPC is concerned, the prosecution has to prove the criminal tresspass committed by the accused.

Except P.W.1, none of the prosecution witnesses deposed about the tresspass into the house of P.W.1 by the accused on the date of incident. As seen from

Sec.161 Cr.PC statement of P.Ws.1 to 5, all were recorded on 04.09.2021 and 05.09.2021 respectively i.e., prior to the registration of Ex.P.1. Apart from this,

PW.1 admitted in her cross examination that on hearing the cries, one

Cherukuri Subbayamma, Medina Satyanarayana and several neighbours about 10 in number gathered there. But none of them were cited as witnesses in the charge sheet, for the reasons best known to the Investigating Agency.

15. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses,

PW.1 gave Ex.P.1 report to P.W.6 alleging that the accused criminally tresspassed into her house and beat her, caught her tuft of hair, slapped on her cheek and also threatened to kill her. Now, it is better to look into the contents of Ex.P.1. It was mentioned in Ex.P.1 that “on 08.09.2021 at 4.30 p.m., while PW.1 was going to her house after completion of her duty then the accused criminally and unauthorisedly entered into her house”. In this connection, PW.1 deposed in her chief examination that prior to the incident, there were similar disputes between her and her husband (accused) and she also gave a report to Tanuku police. P.Ws 2 and 3, who are father and brother of PW.1 deposed in their evidence that on the information given by P.W.1 only, they came to know about the incident. But they were not physically present at the time of incident. Hence, they are not direct witnesses to the incident.

Moreover, P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses to the case of prosecution.

P.W.4 who is the house owner of PW.1 deposed that on the information given

CC 1293/2021 8 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

by some of his villager, he came to know the incident, then only he rushed to the scene of offence. P.W.5 who is a vegetable vendor deposed that on the date of incident, he heard shouts, then he went to the house of PW.4 and noticed that P.W.1 was weeping. All these witnesses deposed that on coming to know the incident only, they went to the scene of offence and noticed

P.W.1. Except that none of them were deposed about the highhanded act of the accused towards P.W.1 by entering into her house.

16. The learned counsel for accused argued that there are different dates appeared in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs.1 to 5. Upon careful perusal of Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws 1 to 5, all the statements were recorded by the investigating agency on different dates i.e., prior to the registration of report. When the said fact was put to PW.6/

Investigating Officer, he deposed in his cross examination that after giving report by PW.1, he recorded her Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement. When the learned counsel for accused posed a question regarding the examination of

P.W.1 prior to the registration of Ex.P1, he denied the same. Further, he admitted that as per Section 161 Cr.PC statement of PW.1, the date was mentioned as 04.09.2021. Further admitted by P.W.6 that he signed underneath Section 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.1 by mentioning the date as 04.09.2021. He also admitted that he examined PWs.2 to 5 on 05.09.2021 and recorded their Section 161 Cr.PC statements. He also admitted in his cross examination that P.W.1 neither in her report nor in her 161 Cr.PC statement stated that the accused beat her and threatened her to hand over the children.

P.W.6 admitted that P.W.4 stated before him as in Ex.D.1 and he deposed that he did not go to the house of PW.1 on the date of alleged incident.

17. Admittedly, the accused and P.W.1 are husband and wife. P.W.1 used to work as a staff nurse at Annadevarapeta as such she used to reside in

CC 1293/2021 9 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

a rented house by residing at Annadevarpeta and the accused also resided along with her in a rented house. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that there are similar disputes like the dispute in the case on hand between P.W.1 and accused. Upon considering Ex.P1 and evidence of PW.1, there are two different versions spoken by PW.1. Apart from PW.1, PW.2 stated that on the date of incident, himself, PW.1 and his son went to police station and PW.1 gave report to police, while in his cross examination, on one hand, he stated that himself and his son gave report to the police, on the other hand, he deposed that himself, his son and PW.1 signed on the report. Further stated that PW.1 gave report on 08.9.2021. While, PW.3 stated that he went to the police station, by that time PW.1 was present in the police station, earlier also PW.1 gave report against the accused. In his cross examination, PW.3 deposed that PW.1 informed him that the accused and his paternal aunt came to PW.1 and beat her and PW.1 further informed that after pushing them aside, she closed the door and made a call to him and also informed that the house owners were also not available, then on his advise, PW.1 made a call to the police, later he went to Tallapudi Police Station and caused enquiries with

PW.1. So, there are several inconsistencies in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3.

Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 5 are not trustworthy, as such their evidence is inconsistent and not corroborative with each other with regard to the offence under Section 448 of IPC.

18. So far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC is concerned,

P.W.1 mentioned in Ex.P.1 report that the accused beat her. Except that she did not mention in Ex.P.1 about the injuries sustained by her so also in her chief examination before this court. There is a developed version in the evidence of PW.1 in her cross examination that she sustained a bleeding injury on her left ear because of the act of accused, but she did not take any

CC 1293/2021 10 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

treatment from any hospital. P.W.1 also deposed that she obtained a photograph for her injury and handed over to the police. But in this case, PW.6 nowhere deposed about sending of PW.1 to any hospital immediately after registration of Ex.P.1. So also, P.W.6 deposed in his cross examination that he visited the scene of offence on 09.09.2021 and he has not found any visible injuries on P.W.1. P.W.6 also deposed that P.W.1 did not hand over any photograph to him. P.W.5 who is the vegetable vendor deposed in his evidence that on the date of incident, on hearing shouts from the house of

P.W.4, he went there and noticed that P.W.1 was weeping and informed that the accused is her husband and he beat her. He also deposed that he noticed an injury on the left ear of P.W.1. It is quite surprising to note that if really the victim/ P.W.1 sustained a bleeding injury as deposed by PW.1 and PW.5, then what prevented PW.1 to get treatment in the hospital and moreover P.W.6 did not send P.W.1 to any hospital for treatment. Moreover, P.W.6 did not file any photograph showing the injuries on PW.1 before this court for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, there are material latches on the part of the

Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation on proper lines. Upon careful perusal of the evidence of PW.1 and P.W.6, there is an inconsistent version deposed by them which gives rise to a doubt in the mind of the Court in connecting the accused to the offence under Section 323 of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the said offence.

19. So far as the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC is concerned, the prosecution shall establish that the accused threatened PW.1, such threat consisted of some injury to her person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of some one in whom he was interested. Moreover, he did so with intent to cause alarm to PW.1; or to cause PW.1 to do any act

CC 1293/2021 11 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

Though PW.1 stated in her evidence that the accused demanded her to hand over the children to him, otherwise, he would kill her, but on perusal of Ex.P1,

PW.1 gave report that as there is an apprehension of danger to her and her children in the hands of the accused. Nowhere in Ex.P1 report, PW.1 stated that the accused demanded her to hand over the children to him, otherwise, he would kill her. So, there is a developed version in the evidence of PW.1, which gives rise to a doubt in the mind of the court to connect the accused.

20. Apart from this, PW.1 also deposed that on the date of incident, the house owners were not present. In this regard, this court has to look in to the evidence of P.W.4 who is the house owner of P.W.1, which is very crucial to the case of prosecution. Unfortunately, P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. In his cross examination, P.W.4 deposed that he does not know the dispute between P.W.1 and her husband (accused). P.W.5 also admitted in his cross examination that whatever he stated about the incident in his chief examination, was not stated before the police. Therefore, the evidence of PW.5 cannot be believed. P.W.5 deposed that he came to know the dispute between PW.1 and her husband through PW.1 and came to know about the incident through P.W.1 only. Though PWs.4 and 5 deposed that they do not have personal knowledge about the disputes between P.W.1 and her husband (accused), but they came to know the same through PW.1 only.

Hence, they are not considered to be direct witnesses to the incident, as such their evidence need not be taken into consideration. P.Ws 4 and 5 though were cited as independent witnesses in the charge sheet, but their evidence did not reveal anything about the motive and intention of the accused in

CC 1293/2021 12 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

threatening the P.W.1 in case of not handing over the children by P.W.1 to him. There are several material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt for the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC.

21. Therefore, in view of the above detailed discussion, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 do not insipre any confidence on the Court to prove the offences against the accused leveled against him. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC and as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

22. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution:

PW.1 : Goda Nirmala Kumari PW.2: Nalla Ganesh PW.3: Nalla Samgamesh P.W.4: Cherukuri Bagarraju

CC 1293/2021 13 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

P.W.5: Menni Sattibabu P.W.6: G.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police.

For Defence: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Self scribed report of PW.1 containing the signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 161 Cr.PC. statement of PW4 Ex.P3 Original F.I.R. Ex.P4 Original Rough Sketch

Ex.D.1 Relevant underlined portion of 161 Cr.PC statement of P.W.4:

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Sd/- Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

CC 1293/2021 14 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Calendar Case No.1293 of 2021 (Cr.No.247/2021 of Tallapudi Police Station)

Date Offence :08-09-2021

Report or Complaint :08-09-2021

Apprehension of Accused :08-09-2021

Release on Bail Accused :--

Commencement of Trial :22-08-2022

Closure of Trial :11-04-2025

Sentence of Order :17-04-2025

Explanation of delay and remarks : After taking cognizance, copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Pws.1 to 6 are examined and Exs.P1 to P4 and Ex.D1 marked on prosecution side. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the matter was posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C and after having heard arguments on both sides, judgment pronounced.

Name of the Complainant:State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

Name of the Accused Goda Sagar Babu, S/o.Sanjeeva Rao, :Age 41 years, Parimpudi village, H/o. Koyyalagudem village and mandal. Nature of Offence:Under Section 448, 323 and 506 (ii) IPC.

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER :

CC 1293/2021 15 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)

-cum-I Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.17.04.2025.

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 506(ii) of IPC, and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

I.Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 1 CC747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONALCIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-

CUM-I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KOVVUR

Present : Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi, I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur. Monday, the 21st day of April, 2025.

C.C.No.747/2021

Between:

State, represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

...Complainant

and

Pulasala Phanindra, S/o. Nageswara Rao, Age 35 years, Vadalagunta village, Gopalapuram mandal, APSRTC Bus Driver No.E702067, Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0114. …. Accused

This case having come before me on 15.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri A.Satyanarayana, learned Advocate for the Accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.52/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. The allegations of the prosecution as arrayed in the charge sheet are here under:

The accused is resident of Vadalagunta village of Gopalapuram

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 2 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

mandal and he was the driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP29 Z 0114 at the time of incident. The deceased Modalavalasa Janardhana Rao was resident of Tirugudumetta village, Tallapudi mandal. The scene of offence is situated on SH-22, near to Ballipadu village, Tallapudi mandal.

On 26.02.2021 the deceased Modalavalasa Janardhana Rao went to Srikakulam to his relatives house. On 27.02.2021 while he was returning to his village Ballipadu, he boarded an APSRTC Bus bearing

No. AP29 Z 0114 at Rajahmundry to go to Polavaram, when the bus reached the scene of offence, at about 9 P.M., the deceased

Janardhana Rao requested the driver of the bus to stop the vehicle. By that time, the accused was driving the APSRTC Bus. Accordingly, the accused stopped the bus, while the deceased Janardhana Rao got down from the bus, at that time, the accused drove the bus with high speed, rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the deceased

Janardhana Rao fell down on the road and sustained an injury over his head and succumbed to death. Thereafter, LW.1/ Modalavalasa

Syamala, presented a report to Tallapudi police.

Basing on the report of LW.1/ Modalavalasa Syamala, LW.16/

G.Sathish, Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.52/2021 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.16/ G.Satish visited the scene of offence, got prepared scene observation report in the presence of LW.13/ Vallabhasetti Narayana Rao and LW.14/ Alluri

Rambabu and also prepared rough sketch. LW.16/ G.Satish held

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 3 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

inquest over the dead body of the deceased Janardhana Rao at

Community Health Center, Kovvur in the presence of inquestdars viz.,

LW.8/ Kolisetti Srinivas @ Doraji and LW.9/ Dirisipo Sudheer Kiran

Kumar and got prepared inquest report and sent the dead body of the deceased to Community Health Center, Kovvur for conducting postmortem examination.

On 01.3.2021 the accused came to the police station and voluntarily surrendered before LW.16/ G.Satish, accordingly, he served a notice under Section 41(A)(1) Cr.P.C on the accused. LW.16/

G.Satish sent a requisition to LW.11/ Ch.Venkata Ramana, Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Kovvur, to inspect the crime vehicle, accordingly,

LW.11/ Ch.Venkata Ramana inspected the crime vehicle and opined that accident was not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. LW.12/ Dr.P.Subhashini, Medical Officer, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Janardhana Rao and issued postmortem certificate with an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to “Shock and Hemorrhage due to head injury and injury to vital organ brain”. On receipt of postmortem examination certificate and on completion of investigation, LW.16/ G.Sathish, Sub

Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

4. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC.

5. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 4 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6. This court examined the accused under Sec.251 Cr.P.C.

explaining the substance of accusation to the accused in Telugu for the offence under Sec.304-A IPC, he denied the accusation leveled against him and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had cited 16 witnesses, out of which 8 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 8 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.8. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased

Modalavalasa Janardhana Rao. PWs.2 to 4 are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. PW.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. PW.6 is an Inquestdar. PW.7 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.8 is the Investigating Officer. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LWs.2 to 5 viz., Modalavalasa Apparao, Modalavalasa Dharmayya,

Modalavalasa Danesh, Pedada Rambabu, LW.9/ Dirisipo Sudheer

Kiran Kumar, LW.13/ Vallabhasetti Narayanarao. The prosecution filed death certificate of LW.10/ E.Venkata Rao. Hence, the evidence of

LW.10/ E.Venkatarao is closed.

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, this court examined the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the accused in Telugu, on that the accused denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Accused reported that he has no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 5 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

9. Heard arguments on both sides.

10. Now the point for determination before me is : “Whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

under Sec.304-A IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11. In order to prove the offence u/sec.304-A IPC, the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:

1. Whether the deceased Modalavalasa Janardhan Rao died due to the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? If so?

2. Whether the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle?

12. There is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased

Modalavalasa Janardhanrao who died in a bus accident. There is also no dispute that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident.

13. So far as the rash or negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle is concerned, perused the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.2 deposed that about one and half years back, on one day, himself, deceased Janardhana Rao,

LW.5/ Rambabu and LW.7/ Satyanarayana boarded a bus and got down in Rajahmundry bus stand, again, they boarded Polavaram bus to reach their respective villages, they boarded the bus after 7 p.m., while, the bus was reached to Ballipadu village, the deceased Janardhana

Rao requested the conductor to stop the bus, accordingly, the bus was

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 6 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

reached to Ballipadu village, the deceased Janardhana Rao requested the conductor to stop the bus, accordingly, the bus was stopped, without noticing whether passenger (deceased) got down from the bus, moved the bus towards front, as a result, the deceased fell down on the road from the bus. On hearing the sounds, he requested the driver to stop the bus, accordingly, bus was stopped, they got down from the bus and noticed that the deceased fell on the road and became unconscious, immediately, they informed the same to PW.1/ Wife of deceased by name Syamala. Then PW.1 came to the spot. Meanwhile, 108 ambulance came to the spot and the doctor declared that the deceased was dead. PW.2 deposed that he has not seen the driver of the bus at the time of the incident.

In his cross examination, he deposed that he has no idea whether he handed over the ticket to police or somebody. He further deposed that the bus on which they traveled on the date of incident, was having one door. He admitted that the bus is not having door to exist. He deposed that without noticing whether the deceased got down from the bus, the bus was moved. He deposed that the bus was stopped near the canal bridge. According to him, the bus was stopped immediately after crossing the canal bridge. He admitted that there is no door to the bus and there is only one way. He deposed that about 40 passengers were traveled in the bus.

14. PW.3 deposed that on 26.02.2021 the deceased Janardhana

Rao, himself, LW.5/ Rambabu and PW.2 Kantha Rao were returning to their respective villages after attending village Goddess celebration at

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 7 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

Srikakulam, they got down in Rajahmundry bus stand, they boarded one RTC Bus, when they reached Ballipadu village, the deceased

Janardhana Rao asked the conductor to stop the bus in Ballipadu center, then the bus was stopped. The driver of the RTC bus without noticing whether the deceased got down bus or not, moved immediately, as a result of which, the deceased fell down from the bus.

They raised shouts, then the bus was stopped, immediately, he got down from the bus and rushed to the deceased and noticed the deceased with an injury on the back of his head and died. They informed the same to the police and also wife of deceased. PW.3 identified that the accused who is standing in the dock was the driver of the bus at the time of incident. The RTC bus bearing registration

No.AP29 Z 0114.

In his cross examination, PW.3 deposed that they boarded

Pallevelugu bus from Rajahmundry to Tallapudi, there is no door to the said bus; and that the bus was stopped after crossing the canal bridge in Ballipadu village. He admitted that the canal bridge is height about 3 feets. He also deposed that the bus was stopped at 10 yards distance from the accident place. He did not hand over any ticket to the police.

He has no idea how many members traveled from Rajahmundry to

Tallapudi on the date of incident. He deposed that about 50 passengers were traveled in the bus on the date of incident.

15. PW.4 deposed that on 27.02.2021 at about 9 p.m., while he was going to his house on his motorcycle, when he reached near Ballipadu, one RTC Bus came on his back and proceeding ahead, he noticed that

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 8 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

the driver of the bus applied sudden breaks, result of which, one passenger from RTC bus fell on the road. The bus was stopped about 30 yards distance from the person who fell on the road. When he reached the said person, some passengers of bus were coming to the said person. He noticed the said person with bleeding injuries on the back of his head. By the time, he reached the spot, the injured person declared as dead. The Bus bearing No.AP29 Z 0114. He deposed that he could not identify the driver of the bus.

In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not see the name of the RTC bus, but he noticed it’s number. He further deposed that he saw that there is no door to the bus, and there is only one door way to board into the bus and it is infront of the bus. He admitted that at the time of incident, it was dark. He deposed that he noticed that one passenger from the bus was fallen on the road. Further deposed that at that time, he was present about distance of 30 meters. He also deposed that nearly 25 passengers got down from the bus and present at the spot by the time of his arrival to the spot.

16. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and PW.3, they along with deceased boarded the crime vehicle and when the deceased was getting down from the bus, the bus moved, then the deceased slipped from the bus and sustained head injury. Perusal of the evidence of

PW.3 would go to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident and he has witnessed the incident. P.Ws 2 and 3 further deposed that “the deceased requested the conductor

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 9 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

to stop the bus, accordingly the bus was stopped, without noticing

whether the passenger get down from the bus or not, moved the

bus towards front, as the result, he fell down on the road from the

bus”. The said evidence shows that at the request of the deceased, the driver of the bus stopped the bus, and the driver was not able to notice that whether the passenger get down from the bus. Apart from this, P.Ws 2 and 3 deposed that the time of incident was during night hours and also deposed that the bus i.e. crime vehicle was having only one door way and the passengers have to move through the said door only. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, the time of incident was at 11 p.m. Moreover, PW.4 admitted during cross examination that at the time of incident, it was dark and also admitted that there are several trees on both sides at the spot. Therefore, as the time of incident was at dark and moreover there are trees on both sides of the road, there is no possibility to any person coming towards scene of offence to witness the incident.

17. Coming to the evidence of PW.8 who investigated the case deposed that on 27.02.2021 at 9.15 p.m. on coming to know the incident, he visited the place of incident along with his staff and noticed the deceased and also found the crime vehicle at the spot, but he did not find the driver of the crime vehicle. Coming to his cross examination, he deposed that prior to the registration of the F.I.R, he visited the scene of offence. It is quite surprise to see that how an Investigating

Officer would visit the scene of offence prior to the registration of FIR even without making any entry in the general diary or case diary.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 10 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

Further deposed that his investigation reveals that the accident was occurred at about at 9 p.m. Therefore, there is a contra version deposed by PW.8 with regard to the happening of the incident. Moreover, Pws.2 and 3 also did not depose about the exact time of the incident except saying that the incident took place during night hours. Further, the evidence of PW.8 shows that on the next day of the time of incident, he visited the scene of offence and seized the crime vehicle. Ex.P.7 scene observation report shows that the crime vehicle was stationed towards

Tallapudi road. As per evidence of PW.8, he found the crime vehicle in the scene of offence but he did not find the driver of the crime vehicle in the scene of offence but he did not find the driver of the crime vehicle in the scene of offence but he did not find the driver of the crime vehicle by the time of his visit to the scene of offence. In this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the conductor of the bus who is a crucial witness and moreover the prosecution filed a memo along with death certificate of conductor. It is very important to note for every

Government vehicle the conductor of the vehicle has to maintain statistical and ticket accountal record (S.R.) which shows that the persons who were engaged with duty have to enter their details promptly in the said S.R. In this case, though PW.4 deposed that he noticed that on the date of incident the driver of the bus applied sudden breaks, result of which one passenger from the RTC Bus fell down and the bus was stopped about 30 yards distance. Coming to his cross examination, PW.4 deposed that he was present about distance of 30 meters. Therefore, there is an inconsistent version in the chief and

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 11 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

cross examination of PW.4.

18. Another contention of the learned counsel for accused is that that PWs.2 and 3 are planted witnesses by the prosecution and moreover, PWs.2 and 3 are relatives of deceased and they were travelling in the same bus. Pws.2 and 3 deposed during their chief examination that they along with deceased were returning after attending the celebrations of village goddess at Srikakulam village. If really, they were traveling along with deceased, definitely, both of them would depose that they witnessed the incident and also deposed about the driver of the crime vehicle. But PW.2 deposed that he has not seen the driver of the crime vehicle while PW.3 deposed that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle, hence, their evidence is not corroborating. Moreover, it is surprising to note that PW.8 did not seize any tickets from Pws 2 and 3. PW.8 did not examine any other passengers except PWs.2 and 3. Admittedly, another eye witness who was examined as PW.4 deposed that while he was going to Ballipadu, one RTC Bus came on his back and one person fell down from the bus.

The evidence of PW.4 is contrary to the evidence of PW.2 and 3 as they have deposed with regard to the place of incident in different versions. In this case, after perusal of the evidence of PW8 who investigated the case has not conducted proper investigation. In this case, after perusal of the evidence of PW.8 who investigated the case has not conducted proper investigation. PW.8 evidence is self contradictory. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4 are not trustworthy and their

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 12 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

evidence is not corroborating.

19. Now, coming to Ex.P.8/ S.R, the investigating agency has seized

Ex.P.8/ S.R. maintained by the conductor of the bus. Though, the conductor of the bus died, but the prosecution has produced the

S.R.Ex.P.8/S.R. shows that on the date of incident i.e., 27.02.2021 the bus was started and proceeding to Ballipadu at about 10.30 p.m., one passenger requested the conductor to stop the bus, while the bus was about to stop, the passenger came to the door of the bus and tried to get down from the bus without stopping the bus, and fell down on the road, though himself (conductor) and passengers requested the said person but he did not stop and got down from the bus and fell down on the road. Ex.P8/ S.R. further shows that the conductor and the driver of the bus stationed the bus and noticed the person, but he did not talk anything. Immediately, they informed the same to their higher authorities and also Tallapudi police. Ex.P.8 also shows that the remaining passengers in the bus confirmed that there is no rash or negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and they wrote the same on a paper and stated that there is no mistake on the part of the driver of the bus and further assured that they would state the same before any person. Therefore, Ex.P.8 clearly shows that on the date of incident, the deceased himself got down from the bus without stopping the bus and the remaining passengers also requested him to wait till the bus stops. Hence, it clearly shows that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, which does not help the case

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 13 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

of the prosecution. The investigating officer also failed to collect the letter given by the passengers to the conductor. Apart from this, none of the eye witnesses deposed about the rash or negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution failed to establish that the incident was occurred due to rash or negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

20. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 21st day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution:

PW.1 : Madalavalapu Syamala PW.2: Seepa Kantha Rao PW.3: Kuna Satyanarayna P.W.4: Kolisetti Srivivas @ Doraji P.W.5: Ch.Venkata Ramana P.W.6: Alluri Rambabu

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 14 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

P.W7: Dr.M.Koteswari P.W8: G.Satish For Defence: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Report, which contains my signature. Ex.P2 MVI Report. Ex.P3Scene Observation Report Ex.P4 Inquest Report Ex.P5 Postmortem Certificate issued by me Ex.P6Original F.I.R. Ex.P7Rough Sketch Ex.P8S.R. of the Bus

ExFor Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--- Nil -----

Sd/- Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 15 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Calendar Case No.747 of 2021 (Cr.No.52/2021 of Tallapudi Police Station)

Date Offence :27-02-2021

Report or Complaint :28-02-2021

Apprehension of Accused :27-02-2021

Release on Bail Accused : ---

Commencement of Trial :10-10-2022

Closure of Trial :11-04-2025

Sentence of Order :21-04-2025

Explanation of delay and remarks : After taking cognizance, copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. PWs.1 to 8 are examined and Exs.P1 to P8 on prosecution side. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the matter was posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C and after having heard arguments on both sides, judgment

pronounced.

Name of the Complainant:State, represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

Name of the Accused :Pulasala Phanindra, S/o.Nageswara Rao, Age 35 years, Vadalagunta (V), Gopalapuram (M), APSRTC Bus Driver

I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior 16 CC 747/2021 Division)-cum-I Addl.J.F.C. Dt.21.04.2025.

Magistrate, Kovvur,

No.E702067, Driver of APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP 29 Z 0114.

Nature of Offence:Under Section 304-A IPC

Plea of the Accused: Not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands in force for a period of six months as per Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi,

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Copy submitted to 1.The Hon'ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 1 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

PRESENT:- Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. Friday, this the 14th day of July, 2023

ORIGINAL SUIT No.56 OF 2019

Between:

1. Pydikondala Padmanabham,S/o.Late Ganiraju, Retired Employee, Resident of D.No.8-1-19,Near Ramalayam,Pathapeta, Kovvur,Kovvur Mandal.

2. Pydikondala Satyanarayna, S/o Late Ganiraju, Presently resident of D.No.70-29-1,R.H.Colony, Seethanagaram, Peda Gandyala,Visakhapatnam.

3. Pydikondala Suryakantham, W/o Padmanabham, Resident of D.No.8-1-19,Near Ramalayam, Pathapeta, Kovvur, Kovvur Mandal.

4. Chikkala Bapanamma, W/o Late Sesha Rao, Presently resident of D.no.18-16-5,Near Mayor House, 3rd Street, Lingampeta, Rajamahendravaram. …Plaintiffs

And

1.Sanivarapu Sri Hari @ Sri Hari Kurmam, S/o.Late Viswanadha Sarma, Lorry Driver by occupation, Resident of NadellavariStreet,Kovvur,Kovvur Mandal. …. Defendant ***** This suit coming on 12.7.2023, for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri K.S.S.G.V.R.Murthy, Learned Advocate for Plaintiffs, and Sri T.N.V.Ramana Murthy, Advocate for the Defendant; and upon hearing the arguments on plaintiffs side; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiffs filed this suit a) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and supporters from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the ABCD passage by the plaintiffs in any manner including putting up any door way into ABCD passage of the plaintiffs and also from interfering with EF drain shown in the plaint plan of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in any manner and in any way at any point of

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 2 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

time; b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to close the illegally made opening at X point of plaint plan within the time stipulated by the Hon‟ble Court failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get it done through the process of law; and c) for costs of the suit.

2.The averments in the Plaint, in nut shell are as follows:-

1) The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are absolute owners of the plot no.1 of the plaint plan property and they have been residing in the said plot as it is their ancestral property. The 3rd plaintiff purchased the plot no.2 of the plaint plan property under two registered sale deeds dt.17.8.1994 bearing documents No.1759 and 1760 respectively from one Medisetti Veera Raghavulu and

Konakalla Muthyalu and she has been in possession of the same along with the passage rights in ABCD of the plaint plan. The vendors of the 3rd plaintiff got the said property under a registered partition deed dt.01.8.1994 and they had sold the same to the 3rd plaintiff with passage rights in ABCD of plaint plan. The property shown in plot nos.2 and 3 of the plaint plan originally belonged to Kantamani people and they sold the same under a registered sale deed dt.28.7.1933 to the mother of 4th plaintiff by name Bandaru Veeramma along with passage rights in the ABCD private lane of the plaint plan and the same was clearly recited in the said sale deed. Hence, the lane in a width of 5.3 feet is absolutely belonged to Kantamani people and

Pydikondala people and they sold their passage rights to the mother of the 4th plaintiff and subsequent to her death, the 4th plaintiff and her brothers and sisters succeeded the same and they partitioned the said property under a registered partition deed of the year 1994. In the said deed also, it was clearly mentioned about the existence of ABCD passage of the plaint

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 3 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

plan and their passage rights and it was shown as their western boundary of plot nos.2 and 3 of plaint plan. Thus, the lane shown as ABCD is set apart by Kantamani people and

Pydikondala people i.e., ancestors of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and it is a private lane for all these years. There is also a drain constructed by the plaintiffs 1 to 3 on the western part of ABCD lane to let out their drainage water into the northern side municipal drain long back and they have been letting out the drainage water through the said drain into the municipal drain. The drain constructed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 is shown as EF in the plaint plan.

Except ABCD lane, there is no other way from northern side municipal road to reach their properties and they have been using the same without any obstruction or objection from anybody including the predecessors-in-title of the defendant‟s property for more than 80 years.

2) It is further averred that the property shown in plot nos.4 and 5 of the plaint plan are originally in a single plot and it belongs to Sanivarapu Viswanadha sarma who is the father of the defendant. There used to be a tiled house in the plot nos.4 and 5 of the plaint plan belonged to the defendant‟s father and there are municipal roads on the west and north of the said property and their main entrance and Simhadwaram is into the western side municipal road since from the beginning and there is also a doorway into the northern side municipal road for the backyard site i.e., presently plot no.5 of the plaint plan. There is a compound wall all along east of the property of the defendant‟s family as shown in the plaint plan and there are no openings into the eastern side private lane of the plaintiffs at any point of time for more than 80 years, and the access to the defendant‟s family is always into the western side and northern side municipal roads. The defendant or his predecessors-in-title in plot nos.4 and 5 have no right, title or interest in the ABCD lane of plaint

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 4 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

plan, as it is belonged to the plaintiff‟s ancestors.

3) It is further averred that recently, the brother of the defendant has started constructing the house in plot no.4 of the plaint plan and plaintiffs came to know that the plot no.5 was given to the defendant. The defendant always has been residing in the rented houses for more than 20 years and presently residing in Gowthami Nagar of Kovvur. About three days back, in the absence of plaintiffs, the defendant highhandedly and illegally removed part of the eastern side compound wall of his site at X point of the plaint plan and closed the drain shown as

EF of plaint plan with the removal material and caused obstruction to the free flow of the drain water through the EF drain into the northern side municipal drain and proclaiming that he would put up an opening/ door way in the eastern side wall at

X point of the plaint plan and entered into ABCD private lane of the plaint plan and the defendant has no manner of right. The defendant is having rowdy elements and to show his illegal acts photos are filed along with CD. Immediately, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 raised the matter before elders, and the elders directed him to close the eastern wall at X point, but the defendant did not heed their word and openly said that he would put up a door at X point of the plaint plan into ABCD private lane of the plaintiffs and no one can resist the same. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff without seeking declaration that ABCD lane is a private lane of plaintiffs and filing suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable under law, when the plaintiffs contended that ABCD is a private lane, the plaintiff cannot file the suit for injunction without getting their right of exclusiveness declared in ABCD lane.

a) Defendant contended that the plaintiffs cannot

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 5 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

restrain him from making opening in his own property and that he has got every right to move through the ABCD passage, which is not at all a private lane and it is a public passage. The property of defendant and his brother was partitioned between themselves under a registered partition deed dt.15.1.2014. In the said partition, the eastern side 95 square yards of share fell to the share of the defendant, while the western side fell to the share of his brother. The brother of the defendant has got direct access to the western side road, where as the defendant got access to the eastern ABCD passage, which is public passage.

The plaintiff‟s have no right to claim it as a private passage.

b) ABCD lane is exclusively belong to Kantamani people and Pydikondala people. The plaintiffs constructed the drain without the knowledge of the defendant, whereas the house wall of the defendant is effected by the rain water let out by the plaintiffs, for which the defendant disputed the plaintiffs.

When the properties are divided between the brother‟s of the defendant this defendant, who has got eastern side bit and who has got access to the ABCD lane for not less than 30 to 40 years.

Since the time of this father freely moving in ABCD passage all these years got a descriptive right and the plaintiffs‟ by filing mere suit for injunction cannot restrain the defendant from enjoying his house property.

c) The defendant never caused any obstruction to the free flowing of the drain water. In fact the elders i.e. Bommidi

Rajkumar and Singuluri Suresh admonished the plaintiffs‟. The plaintiffs have got access to south side also and they falsely pleaded that they have only access to northern side. Thus, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor for trial:

1. Whether ABCD is a private lane and it is in existence since 80 years and by the time of partition dt.01-08-1994

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 6 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

among vendors (M.V.Raghavulu & K.Mutyalu) of 3rd plaintiff? 2.Whether the 3rd plaintiff got passage rights in ABCD private lane of plaint plan from his vendors under registered sale deeds dt.17.08.1994 vide Doc.No.1759and 1760?

3. Whether 4th plaintiff mother acquired passage rights in respect of ABCD under Registered Sale deed dt.28.07.1933?

4. Whether said ABCD private lane is set apart by Kantamani and Pyidikondala people?

5. Whether ABCD is the only lane to plaintiff to reach their properties from northern side Municipal road?

6. Whether there are any openings into eastern side private lane of plaintiffs?

7. Whether the defendants always access to road through Western and Northern side Municipal roads?

8. Whether plaintiff able to prove that defendants has no title right or interest in ABCD lane?

9. Whether the plaintiff is able to prove that defendants high handedly and illegally removed part of eastern compound wall at X point shown in plaint plan and closed „EF‟ drain into northern side Municipal drain?

10. Whether defendant made alleged proclamations that he will fix opening/door way in eastern side wall at „X‟ point and enter into ABCD lane?

11. Whether ABCD is a public passage?

12. Whether defendant has right to access in ABCD passage as per recitals in Registered Partition Deed dt.15- 01-2014 and it is in usage by him from 30 to 40 years?

13. Whether plaintiffs have alternative passage way to southern side?

14. Whether mere suit on injunction not maintainable in respect of ABCD passage without seeking declaration?

15. Whether plaintiffs able to prove their right title and interest over ABCD passage?

16. Whether plaintiffs able to prove they are possession and usage of ABCD lane by the date of filing this suit?

17. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of Permanent Injunction?

18. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of Mandatory Injunction?

19. To what relief?

5. On behalf of Plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and also examined Kola Hanumantha Rao and

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 7 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

Moganti Gangadhar Rao as P.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.A.1to A.4. On behalf of the defendant, no witness is examined and no documents are marked. As P.Ws 1 to 3 were not cross examined by the defendant, in spite of availing sufficient opportunities, the cross examination of P.W.1 is treated has „NIL‟. After filing chief affidavit of P.W.2, the learned counsel for defendant represented across the bench that party may be called and defendant remained absent. Hence, the cross examination of P.Ws 1 to 3 is treated as Nil. Despite several opportunities availed by the defendant, he did not choose to appear before this Court. As the defendant is not showing any interest to proceed with his contest in the suit, the evidence of the defendant is closed.

6. At the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs reported that arguments may be treated as heard.

Defendant remained absent in spite of availing sufficient opportunities.

7. ISSUES No.1 to 18:- (1) To establish the case of plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4.P.W.1 had deposed in Chief on par with the averments in the Plaint.

When the matter was posted for Cross Examination of the PW.1, the Learned Counsel for the Defendant initially took some adjournments. When the suit was coming for cross examination of PW.1, on 06.02.2020, the defendants counsel reported that the party may be called, accordingly the defendant was called and remained absent. Hence, the cross examination P.W.1 is recorded is treated as nil on 06-02-2020.

(2) P.W.2 who is having his house near the plaint schedule property, examined as P.W.2. He deposed in his chief examination that the disputed lane is set apart by the

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 8 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

predecessors-in- title of plaintiffs‟ since long back for ingress and egress from the northern municipal road into their houses and they have been enjoying the same jointly by all the plaintiffs‟.

The disputed lane is the private lane of plaintiffs and their inmates and the defendant has nothing to do with the same. He further deposed that the old house of the defendant‟s family facing west and the main door it way is into their western side main road and there is another doorway in to the northern side road from the backyard site of the defendant‟s family. He further deposed that there is no door way opening of the compound wall of the defendant in the present disputed lane, which is situated on the east of the compound wall of the defendant‟s property.

Further deposed that there is a drain on the western side of the disputed lane for letting out the sewage water from the house of plaintiffs. Further deposed that before filing of the suit, the defendant highhandedly closed the said drain with bricks and earth and highhandedly removed eastern side compound wall of his site and proclaimed to put up the door way into the eastern side private lane of the plaintiffs‟ and the plaintiffs disputed the same. Further he deposed that the plaintiffs are being old persons unable to resist the illegal threats and acts of the defendant and the lane shown in the plaint plan is the absolute private lane of plaintiffs. As such the defendant or his predecessors-in-title have no right or title and they never enjoyed the said lane and their way is always on their north and west.

(3) P.W.3 also filed his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. He deposed on the same lines of P.W.2.

(4) Now, it is relevant to look into Exs.A.1 to A.4. Ex.A.1 is the Original Registered Sale Deed dated 17-08-1994 under

Document No.1759,Ex.A.2 is the Original Registered Sale Deed

dated 17-08-1994 under Document No.1759 in the name of 3rd

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 9 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

plaintiff,Ex.A.3 is Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 28-07-1933 executed by Kantamani people in the nameof mother of 4th plaintiff in respect of plots 2 and 3 of plaint plan,Ex.A.4 is the photos along with C.D.

(5) Exs.A.1 to A.3 shows that the plaint plan property consisting of 3 plots and plot numbers 2 and 3 were purchased to the mother of 4th plaintiff along with passage rights in ABCD private lane from the plaint plan property. While Ex.A.4 shows about the existence of ABCD passage. As the plaintiffs have successfully established their possession over the schedule property and ABCD passage rights, and as the conduct of the defendant in not cross examining P.Ws 1 to 3 and when the matter was coming for his evidence, would show that he has avoided entering into witness box intentionally. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendant, to the effect that the pleas taken by him in his Written Statement, are false.

(6) It is clear that if the relief of Permanent Injunction, as sought for by the Plaintiffs, is not granted, then, there is every likely hood of the Defendant obstructing the possession of the

Plaintiffs over the Plaint Schedule Property, and in such an event, irreparable loss will be caused to the Plaintiffs. The Prima facie case and the balance of convenience are also in favour of the Plaintiffs. So, the essential ingredients for granting

Injunction are in favour of the Plaintiffs, and in order to protect their possession over the Plaint Schedule Property, they are entitled for Permanent Injunction against the Defendant, as prayed for.

(7) Though the Defendant had contended in his Written

Statement, about the access to the ABCD passage which is a public passage, but the defendant did not choose to enter into the witness box to depose his case by way of adducing his

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 10 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

evidence and to put forth his contentions. All the documents which are relied upon by the plaintiffs are establishing the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and by the time of filing of the suit the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the plaintiffs approached the court with clean hands. In order to disprove the same, the defendant could come to the court to prove his case. Hence, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 are remained unchallenged and un discredited.

(8) So far as the relief of mandatory injunction is concerned, though the defendant pleaded in written statement that the defendant has got every right to move through the

ABCD passage, which is not at all the private lane and it is the public passage. He also pleaded that the property of himself and his brother was partitioned under the registered partition deed

dated 15-01-2014, in which the defendant got eastern side 95

Square yards while the western side fell to his brother, wherein the defendant has got access to the eastern side ABCD passage.

Furthermore, ABCD lane is exclusively belongs to kantamani people and pydikondala people. But no evidence was let-in by the defendant to prove his case. The defendant also failed to shake the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 by way of their cross examination. Despite issues were framed with regard to the existence and usage of ABCD passage, both parties have not turned up before this court to prove their respective contentions.

(9) In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiffs are entitled for granting of perpetual injunction against the Defendant and the plaintiffs became successful in establishing the alleged interference caused by the defendant in the alleged plaint plan property. The plaintiff also successfully establish their claim with regard to the mandatory

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 11 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

injunction to close the illegally made opening at “X” point of plaint plan, as the defendant is unable to produce any satisfactory evidence to that effect. Accordingly, issues are answered.

8. ISSUE No.19:- To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:

1) The defendant, his men, agents and supporters are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of ABCD passage to the plaintiffs in any manner including putting up any door way into the ABCD passage of plaintiffs and also from interfering with

EF drain shown in the plaint plan of plaintiffs 1 to 3 in any manner and in any way at any point of time.

2) The defendant is hereby directed to close the illegally made opening at X point of the plaint plan by way of mandatory injunction within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff are at liberty to get it done through the process of the law at the expenses of the defendant.

3) Each party shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 14th day of July,

2023.

Sd/-Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

P.W.1 : Pydikondala Padmanabham P.W.2 : Kola Hanumantha Rao.

P.W.3: Moganthi Gangadhara Rao

IAJCJC, Kovvur. 12 OS.NO.56 OF 2019,

Date:14-07-2023.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1: Original Registered Sale Deed dated 17-08-1994 under Document No.1759 in the name of 3rd plaintiff. Ex.A2: Original Registered Sale Deed dated 17-08-1994 under Document No.1760 in the name of 3rd plaintiff, Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 28-07-1933 executed by Kantamani people in the name of mother of 4th plaintiff in respect of plots 2 and 3 of plaint plan. Ex.A4: Photos along with C.D.

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

None

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

Nil.

Sd/-Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOVVUR.

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 1I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, W.G.DT:

KOVVUR

PRESENT: Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S. Devi, I Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

Friday, the 29th day of December, 2023.

O.S.No.131 of 2021

Between:

Matcha Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Posi Babu, Properties & Housewife, Door No.1-5, Near Sluice (Lakulu), Seetampeta, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.District. …Plaintiff

And

1. Attili Annapoorna, W/o. Sreenu, Housewife & Properties, Door No.2-11, Seetampeta, Kovvur Mandal, W.G.District.

2. Attili Subhashini,D/o.Sreenu, Protection, Door No.2- 11,Seetampeta, Kovvur Mandal, W.G..District. (2nd Defendant being minor, represented by her Guardian and Mother Smt.Attili Annapoorna i.e., 1st Defendant herein) …Defendants

This Suit is coming before me on 19.12.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.V.V.Surya Narayana, learned Advocate for plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and 2 are exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 19.10.2020 directing the defendants to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.2,83,471/- or the amount arrived at as per the actual sale consideration arrived at on measurements and execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the plaintiff in terms of the sale agreement and put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property within the time

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 2I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

stipulated by the Hon’ble Court and in default, giving the plaintiff the liberty to have done the same through due process of law. OR

IN THE ALTERNATIVE For refund of the advance sale consideration and pay Rs.2,25,600/- to the plaintiff with subsequent interest on the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- at 24% per annum from the date of suit till realization, creating a first charge over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The Case of the Plaintiff, as per the averments in the

Plaint, in brief, is as follows:-

The 2nd defendant is the daughter of the 1st defendant and being the mother and natural guardian, the 1st defendant is representing the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant offered to sell the plaint schedule property representing that it is her self-acquired property got by virtue of registered settlement deed dt.02.1.2020 bearing Document No.8/2020 and the same is in her exclusive possession and enjoyment. The 1st defendant is intending to sell the same for her necessities. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.4,83,471/- (Rupees Four lakhs Eighty Three Thousand Four hundred and Seventy One only).

The plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) to the 1st defendant towards sale consideration on 19.10.2020, and having received the said amount, the 1st defendant executed an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on the even date itself. The remaining balance sale consideration of

Rs.2,83,471/- is agreed to be paid within three months i.e., by 18.1.2021. At the time of execution of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant agreed that she would produce her original title document and get the land measured as per her title document and arrive at the exact sale consideration as per the measurements and

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 3I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

receive the balance sale consideration as per the extent arrived at after the measurements and executed a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or her order at the expenses of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant informed that the plaint schedule property is an undisputed property. With the said terms, the 1st defendant has executed the agreement of sale dt.19.10.2020 in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the agreement of sale to the plaintiff.

Even the plaintiff is ready with the balance sale consideration and registration expenses within three months and has been requesting the 1st defendant to show her original title document and get the land measured as per the document and receive the balance of sale consideration as per the exact extent arrived at after measuring the property and execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But the 1st defendant has been postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Though the plaintiff intimated the 1st defendant that she is always ready and willing to perform her part of contract i.e., to pay the balance of sale consideration as per the measurements and obtain the regular sale deed at her expenses and demanded the 1st defendant several times, the 1st defendant is not coming forward for taking measurements of the schedule property as per title document and failed to show her original title document to the plaintiff and evading the plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff has got issued a legal notice dt.12.3.2021 to the 1st defendant demanding her to bring her original title document and get the land measured as per her document and receive the balance sale consideration as per the actual extent of the land and execute a regular registered sale deed

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 4I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

in favour of the plaintiff at the expenses of the plaintiff in pursuance of sale agreement dt.19.10.2020 and deliver possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff. Having received the notice, the 1st defendant got issued a reply notice on 20.3.2021 through her counsel with all false and untenable allegations. The allegations in the reply notice are that the 1st defendant when she borrowed amount from the plaintiff, the plaintiff obtained signatures of the 1st defendant on empty stamp papers etc., are totally false and the 1st defendant created the said story with ulterior motive. The plaintiff came to know that subsequent to the execution of agreement of sale, the 1st defendant developed an illegal intention and the 1st defendant executed a sham, nominal and collusive registered settlement deed dt.23.1.2021 in favour of her daughter who is the 2nd defendant herein in respect of the plaint schedule property.

The 1st defendant has no manner of right to transfer the plaint schedule property in favour of the 2nd defendant and the alleged registered settlement deed is a fraudulent document and it is not binding on the plaintiff and no way effect the rights of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. As the 1st defendant failed to perform her part of contract, the plaintiff is entitled to seek for specific performance of agreement of sale dt.19.10.2020 or in alternatively for refund of advance money paid by her with interest at 24% p.a., from the date of sale agreement with a first charge on the plaint schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons of the 1st defendant issued through court and registered post were returned with an endorsement as “Refused”, hence, the service against the 1st defendant was held sufficient service. But, the 1st Defendant did not choose to file vakalat on his behalf. Hence, the 1st defendant was set exparte on 25.11.2021.

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 5I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

The 2nd defendant being minor, Kum.M.Srivalli, Advocate is appointed as a Court Guardian vide I.A.112/21 to represent on behalf of the 2nd defendant and the matter was posted for written statement of 2nd defendant, even then she did not choose to file written statement. On 20.1.2023 the Court Guardian filed a memo stating that the summons issued to the 1st defendant on behalf of the 2nd defendant being minor was returned as refused and the same is considered. Later, the Court Guardian was directed to return the warrant. Hence, the plaintiff was directed to take steps against the 2nd defendant. On 14.2.2023 the Court Guardian returned the warrant along with memo. Later I.A.373/23 under

Order 32 Rule 12 r/w Section 151 CPC filed to declare the 2nd defendant as major and the same was allowed on 30.6.2023 and summons were issued to the 2nd defendant, but the summons were returned with an endorsement “left without instructions”, this court ordered fresh summons to the 2nd defendant through court and registered post. Later, batta for 2nd defendant filed with delay petition and the same is allowed. Thereafter, I.A.1038/23 under

Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC filed and the same was allowed and publication was filed on 08.12.2023. On 08.12.2023 the 2nd defendant was called absent, no representation, hence, the 2nd defendant was set exparte and the matter was proceeded further.

4.During exparte evidence, on behalf of the Plaintiff,

P.Ws.1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked.

5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff represented that the matter may be treated as heard. Hence, the arguments on plaintiff side is treated as heard and posted for judgment.

6. Now, the Point for Consideration iswhether the

Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of the Specific Performance

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 6I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

of the Suit Agreement of Sale, or for the alternative relief of

the Refund of the Advance Sale Consideration from the

Defendant, or for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the

Defendant together with subsequent interest, as prayed for

by him?

7. POINT:- [a] To establish his Case, the Plaintiff had examined herself as PW.1, and the Attestor of Ex.A1 as PW.2. Both PWs.1 and 2 had deposed in their respective Chief Affidavits, on par with the averments in the Plaint, regarding the transaction under the Suit

Agreement of Sale in Ex.A1. Since the Defendants had remained

Ex-parte to the Proceedings of this Suit, it can be said that the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 had remained unchallenged and undiscredited. On account of the conduct of the Defendants, in remaining Ex-parte to the Proceedings of the Suit, inspite of receiving the Suit Summons, an adverse inference can be drawn against the Defendants, to the effect that they had admitted the entire case of the Plaintiff, and that they have nothing to put forth as a contest for the same.

[b] Now, it is relevant to look into Exs.A1 to A4. Ex.A1 is the Suit Agreement of Sale, dated 19.10.2020, executed by the 1st Defendant, in favour of the Plaintiff, in respect of the Plaint

Schedule Property. As seen from the recitals in the said Agreement of Sale in Ex.A1, the Defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property with absolute rights; and the Sale Price was fixed at Rs.4,83,471/- and an advance amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 towards part of consideration; and the balance amount was agreed

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 7I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

to be paid within three months, and then, the Defendant No.1 will execute a Registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff. In the

Schedule therein, an extent of 130 sq.yards in Survey No.195/3B was sold within the Specific boundaries. It was attested by Jetti

Bangarayya [PW.2] and A.Trimurthulu, and it was drafted by the

Defendant No.1 and the same was typed in a computer. So, the

Agreement in Ex.A1 would show that the burden was fixed upon the

Plaintiff to measure the Property, and then, pay the balance Sale

Consideration. As seen from the Plaint, the Plaintiff had remained silent, regarding the measurements and extent of the Plaint

Schedule Property, which are to be taken by her, as per the Suit

Agreement of Sale in Ex.A1.

[c] Ex.A2 is the Office Copy of the Legal Notice, dated 12.3.2021, issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1, demanding her for receipt of the balance Sale Consideration of

Rs.2,83,471/-, and for execution of the Registered Document. In

Ex.A2 also, nothing is mentioned with regard to the measurements of the Plaint Schedule Property. Ex.A3 is the Served Copy of reply notice dt.20.3.221 got issued by the 1st defendant through her advocate. As seen from Ex.A3, it was mentioned that the defendant no.1 agreed to produce the original title document and get the land measured as per title document and arrive at the extent and receive the balance of sale consideration and register the sale deed in favour of the Defendant No.1. Ex.A4 is the Certified Copy of

Registered Settlement Deed dt.23.1.2021 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant. On perusal of the same, it shows that the Defendant No.1 settled the schedule property in favour of her daughter i.e., Defendant No.2.

[d]It is clear that even though Ex.A1 had specifically

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 8I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

burdened the Plaintiff, with the aspect of measuring the Property shown in the Schedule therein, and then, paying the Sale

Consideration. The evidence of PW.1 would make it clear that she did not make any such attempts, for getting the Plaint Schedule

Property measured, and that she has come forward to pay the balance of Consideration, by calculating the extent of 130 sq.yards itself, and valued the same accordingly, and arrived at the balance

Sale Consideration of Rs.4,83,471/-. The recitals in Ex.A1 would show that without measuring the Plaint Schedule Property, it is not possible to arrive at the balance of Sale consideration. Apart from

Exs.A1 to A4, the Plaintiff did not file any Document, to show that the Defendant No.1 is actually in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 130 sq.yards of site. Likewise, though the Plaintiff had expressed her readiness and willingness to pay the balance Sale

Consideration, she did not deposit the balance Sale consideration

before the Court, to show the same. Further, even in the Legal

Notice, a particular date or period was not specified, demanding the

Defendant to come and execute and register a Sale Deed in her favour.

[e]Upon considering the entire circumstances of the

Case, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of the Specific Performance of the Suit Agreement of Sale in Ex.A1, and that the Plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of refund of advance Sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-, along with the interest, from the date of Suit Agreement of Sale in Ex.A1, as prayed for by him.

[f] In view of the above discussion, this Court concludes and holds that the Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of the Specific Performance of the Suit Agreement of Sale; and that

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 9I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of return of advance Sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- along with interest, and costs of the

Suit, in accordance with law.

Hence, the Point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the Suit, regarding the relief of Specific

Performance of the Suit Agreement of Sale, is hereby dismissed, and the Suit is decreed with Costs by granting alternative relief of refund of Advance Sale Consideration amount, by directing the

Defendants to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the Plaintiff, along with subsequent interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the

Suit till the date of realization on the Advance Sale Consideration of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 29 th day of December, 2023.

Sd/-Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S. Devi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

Plaintiff: Defendants:

PW1: Matcha Vijaya Lakshmi NIL

Documents marked

For plaintiff:

Ex.A1 Original Agreement of Sale Dt.19.10.2020 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff Ex. A2 Office Copy of Legal Notice dt. 12.03.2021 got issues by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant. Ex. A3 Original Served copy of the reply notice dt.20.03.2021 sent by the 1st defendant through her advocate. Ex. A4 Certified copy of the Registered Settlement Deed

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 10I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

dt.23.01.2021 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant.

For Defendant:-NIL-

Sd/-Smt.Jonnapalli B.T.S. Devi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur.

O.S.No.131 OF 2021 11I A.J. C.J. Court, Kovvur.

Fair Judgment

O.S.No.43 OF 2019

Dt. 03.01.2020

Part – I

O.S..No.43 OF 2019 1 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Plaint presented on 24.06.2019 and filed on 25.06.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PITHAPURAM.

PRESENT: Ms. C.K. Gayathri Devi,

Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram.

Friday, the Third [3rd] day of January, 2020.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.43 OF 2019

Between :

Chodisetti Nagasuri, S/o. Baburao, Hindu, aged 52 years, Business, resident of Door No.3-223, S.Annavaram Village, Tuni Mandal, East

Godavari District, Aadhar No.906649216961. Phone No.9440351968.

… PLAINTIFF.

And

Velaga Narasalakshmi, W/o. Suribabu, aged 38 years, Hindu, Door No.3- 198, Housewife, S.Annavaram, Tuni Mandal, East Godavari District, presently residing at near Kshatriya Kalyana Mandapam, Bank Colony,

Tuni Municipality, East Godavari District, Phone No.7075124172.

… DEFENDANT.

*****

This Suit is filed by the Plaintiff, seeking Specific Performance of the Suit Agreement of Sale, dated 08.03.2019, by directing the

Defendant to execute a Regular Sale Deed in his favour within the time prescribed by the Court, by receiving the Balance of Sale Consideration from him, and in the case of the default of the Defendant to execute a

Regular Registered Sale Deed in his favour, then, to execute the Sale on behalf of the Defendant in his favour upon deposit of balance of Sale

Consideration amount before the Court, and in the alternative, for refund of advance Consideration amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of Agreement of Sale till the realization, with compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff for the breach of terms and conditions of Agreement of Sale, and for Costs of the Suit.

Value of the Suit

Value of the Suit as per Agreement for 21 Cents at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per cent is Rs.22,05,000-00

On this a Court Fee of Rs.24,526/- is herewith paid under

Section 39 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

O.S..No.43 OF 2019 2 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Alternative relief is :

Advance amount paid is Rs.2,50,000- 00

Interest thereon from 08.03.19 to 24.6.19 @ 24 % is Rs. 17,500- 00

Rs.2,67,500-00

On this a Court Fee of Rs.5,176/- is payable under Section 20,Sch.I Art.1(b) (c) of APCF &SV Act.

As Court Fee is paid on higher relief of Specific Performance, separate Court Fees need not be paid on alternative relief.

The Cause of action for the Suit arose at Annavaram Village, on 08.03.2019, when the Defendant executed Agreement of Sale, dt.08.03.2019, in favour of the Plaintiff within one month Fifteen days from the date of Agreement of Sale, i.e., dt.23.04.2019, the Plaintiff ready with balance Sale Consideration and registration expenses, started demanded the Defendant to come and register the Plaint Schedule

Property infavour of Plaintiff but the Defendant protracting to register the same, later the Plaintiff when demanded the defendant through elders to come and register the Schedule Property but the Defendant protracting to register the same by receiving balance Sale consideration from the

Plaintiff, on dt.31.05.2019, when the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant through Legal Notice to come and register the Schedule Property by receiving balance Sale consideration from the Plaintiff, within the jurisdiction of this Court.

This Suit, coming on 23.12.2019, for Hearing before me, in the presence of Sri Y.V.N.Murthy, Sri Salugu Krishna Sekhar and Smt.

A.Vijaya Lskshmi, Advocates for the Plaintiff, and the Defendant having been set Ex-parte for her non appearance before the Court, inspite of receiving the Suit Summons; and upon hearing the Advocates for the

Plaintiff; and upon perusing the entire material available on record, and upon having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and Decree as follows:-

1. That the Suit be and the same is hereby dismissed, regarding the relief of Specific Performance of the Suit

O.S..No.43 OF 2019 3 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

Agreement of Sale and payment of Compensation amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- to the Plaintiff; and

2. That the Suit be and the same is hereby decreed, granting alternative relief of refund of Advance Sale Consideration amount,

3. That the Defendant be and the same is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,67,500/- to the Plaintiff along with subsequent interest at 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the Suit till the date of realization on the Advance Sale Consideration of

Rs.2,50,000/-; and

4. That the Defendant do also pay to the Plaintiff a sum of

Rs.18,378/- being Costs of the Suit bearing her own costs.

PLAINT SCHEDULE IS ATTACHED HERETO.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 3rd day of January, 2020.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff For Defendant Rs. Rs. Stamp on Plaint 5,176-00 ---

Stamp on Vakalat 2-00 ---

Process Fees 100-00 --- 13,000-00 Advocate’s Fees --- (as claimed) Typing Charges 100-00 ---

No Costs Memo is

TOTAL Rs.18,378-00

filed

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PITHAPURAM.

O.S..No.43 OF 2019 4 S.C.J. Court, Pithapuram.

DECREE

O.S.No.43 OF 2019

Date:- 03.01.2020.

PART-I

1CC948/2021 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Dt.24.04.2025. Division) -cum- I Addl.J.F.C.

Magistrate, Kovvur.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONALCIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION)-CUM-I

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: KOVVUR

Present : Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi, I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Thursday, the 24th day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case No.948/2021

Between: State, represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

...Complainant

And

1) Kondeti Nageswararao @ Nagayya, S/o.Doraiah, Age 50 years, D.No.2-143, Main road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Statute, Inuganti vari peta, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District.

2) Kondeti Srinivas, S/o.Doraiah, Age 48 years, Near Rajiv Gandhi Statute street, Inuganti vari petal, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District

3) Kondeti Venkata Chalam, S/o.Doraiah, age 56 years, Inuganti vari peta, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District.

4) Kondeti Charan Sai Bhagavan, S/o Srinu, Age 23 years, Inuganti vari petal, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District …. Accused No.1 to 4.

This case having come before me on 21.04.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K.Panakalu, learned Advocate for the Accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.211/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. The allegations of the prosecution as arrayed in the charge sheet

CC 948/2021 2 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

are here under:

On 28.08.2020 LW.1/ Yallamilli Nagaraju and some others drove their cattle (53 buffaloes and 8 cows) to Godavari river for grazing, at that time, the river water was decreased. By that time, A.1 to A.3 and others drove the cattles of LW.1/ Nagaraju and others to Tallapudi lanka fields beyond Godavari river. The Godavari river water floating is heavy. Due to heavy water, the cattle were washed in Godavari river. They have caused enquiries about the cattle but no clues. Thereafter, LW.1/ Nagaraju and others went to Seethanagaram police station and Seethanagaram police registered a case in Crime

No.299/2020 under Sections 341, 427 of IPC and the same was transferred to

Tallapudi police station as per orders of Superintendent of Police, West

Godavari District vide C.No.5675/C.1/2020 and reregistered the case and took up further investigation. LW.17/ G.Satish, Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi police station re-registered the case and took up investigation.

L.W.17/ G.Satish visited the scene of offence examined LWs.1 to 16/

Yellamilli Prasad @ Pandu, Eta Kotti Suresh, Chapala Gangadhar, Kora Veera

Venkata Siva Satyanarayana, Kolli Issak, Yallamilli Raju, Yallamilli Bobi,

Yallamilli Somaraju, Tanneru Krishnarjunarao, Koppula Nagaraju, Koppula

Satyanarayana, Koppula Venkatrao, Siddhala Ganeswararao, Kottapalli

Bujjiyya and Satyam Koteswararao and recorded their statements, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch. LW.17/ G.Satish conducted enquiries about the occurrence of offence by A.1 to A.3, at that time, A.4 was not present there. Then, LW.17/ G.Satish served a notice on the accused under

Section 41(A)(1) Cr.PC. On completion of investigation, LW.17/ G.Satish filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 427 r/w 34 IPC.

3. This case was taken on file against the accused for the offence

CC 948/2021 3 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

punishable under Sec.427 r/w 34 of IPC.

4. On appearance of the accused before this court, copies of documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. This court examined the accused under Sec.251 Cr.P.C. explaining the substance of accusation to the accused in Telugu for the offence under

Sec.427 r/w 34 of IPC. They denied the accusation leveled against them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had cited 17 witnesses, out of which 13 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 13 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P.4. The learned APP has given up the evidence of

LW.13/ Koppula Venkatrao, LW.14/ Siddhala Ganeswara Rao, LW.15/

Kottapalli Bujjiyya and LW.16/ Satyam Koteswararao.

7. After closure of the prosecution evidence, this court examined the accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating evidence deposed by prosecution witnesses to the accused in Telugu, the accused denied the incriminating evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses. Accused reported that they have no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination before me is: “Whether the

prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Sec.427 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

10. Point:

In order to prove the offence under Section 427 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that the accused persons committed mischief causing damage to the buffaloes and cows belonging to PWs.1 to 12.

CC 948/2021 4 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

11. PW.1 to PW12 are victims in this case and they are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. PW.13 is an Investigating Officer. PW.1 deposed that on 28.08.2020 at about 11 a.m., himself and 12 others from the village drove their buffaloes and cattle to lanka area for grazing, all the accused drove their buffaloes and cattle in deep water of Godavari canal on boats, on noticing the same, he raised shouts, after 15 minutes, all the accused returned, when he questioned them about their act, they replied to go and complain to anybody. He deposed that though he waited for 2 or 3 hours but buffaloes are not returned. Then all of them went to Seethanagaram police station and presented a report by signing on the report. He further deposed that after causing enquiries, Seethanagaram police informed that they have no jurisdiction, as such the report may be presented to the Tallapudi police

Station. He further deposed that he has no information about the buffaloes.

12. PWs.2 to 12 deposed that they have driven their buffaloes into

Godavari canal to graze in lanka area, at that time, the accused drove the cattle into Godavari canal, when they questioned the accused, they replied to go and inform to any one. Thereafter, all of them along with PW.1 went to

Seethanagaram police station and presented a report to police. They have searched for their buffaloes but in vain.

13. PW.13 is an Investigating Officer. He deposed that basing on a memo received from Superintendent of Police, Eluru about the registration of

FIR in Crime No.299/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 427 of IPC of Seethanagaram Police Station, he re-registered FIR in Crime

No.211/2020 for the offences under Sections 341, 427 of IPC of Tallapudi

Police Station. He contacted SHO, Seethanagaram Police Station and

CC 948/2021 5 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

obtained the details of PW.1. He further deposed that on the same day, he along with PW.1 went to the scene of offence, he observed the scene and prepared rough sketch, examined all the witness and recorded their statements. Further deposed that on 17.08.2021 A.1 to A.4 came to the Police

Station and surrendered before him, then he served a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. Seethanagaram Police informed him about missing of some buffaloes, then he caused enquiries about missing of buffaloes and cows, but the same were not traced out. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During cross examination, PW.13 admitted that he did not mention in the 2nd page of the charge sheet that A.4 was not involved in the case. He deposed that witnesses informed him about the tracing of some of the buffaloes and cows. He admitted that during the months from June to August, the area of lanka flooded with water. He deposed that none of the witnesses informed him that 13 members in one boat and drove the buffaloes into

Godavari canal for cattle purpose and also did not inform that all the accused persons drove the cattle into Godavari canal. PW.13 also deposed that except

PW1 no other witness stated in their 161 Cr.P.C statements that the accused drove the cattle into Godavari Canal on boat. PW.13 deposed that there are no stones or boundaries in Godavari lanka area to show that the scene of offence comes to their jurisdiction.

14. Upon perusal of the evidence of PWs.1 to 12, their evidence is corraborating in their chief examination, but there is an inconsistency in their cross examination. Ex.P1/ Report given to Seethanagaram police station which was given by PW.1 and others shows that on 28.08.2020 they have driven the buffaloes and cows into lanka area for grazing purpose, at that time,

CC 948/2021 6 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

the accused drove the cattle on boats into Godavari river, due to heavy floating of the water, the cattle were not traced out. But on perusal of Ex.P1, PWs.1 to 12 did not specifically state about how many cows and buffaloes they lost.

Moreover, P.Ws.1 to 12 in their respective cross examinations deposed that they have no landed properties and the accused also have no properties.

PW.1 stated in his evidence that “I have not informed to the police that we

followed the buffaloes and cows into Godavari canal. I including 12

members were present at the time of offence. About 5 or 6 p.m., we

returned to Godavari bund from lankas on our boats”. If this is the case,

PW.1 would have informed the same to the police about the accused and happening of incident on 28.8.2020. Further, PW.2 admitted that during the month of August, there are no crops. PW.2 and PW.9 stated that the police did not examine them that they went to graze the cattle into Godavari canal. PW.4 and PW.8 admitted that July, August and September months are rainy seasons and as such there is floating of water in Godavari canal. He further admitted that some of lankas will be drowned due to heavy rains. PWs.5 to 7 deposed with different versions. PW.8 admitted that “on the date of incident we did not give report to the police.” If really, the incident was happened on 28.8.2020, they would give report to the police on the same day. But there is a contra evidence spoken by PW.8. PW.9 deposed during his cross examination that they about 12 persons drove their cattle into Godavari canal, by that time,

Godavari river was in floating and they went on a boat. PW.9 admitted that there are no crops during the rainy season. PW.11 deposed that the accused drove the cattle on the western side of Godavari canal, by that time, there were no crops. PW.11 further deposed that on the date of incident, half of the persons knowing the swimming drove their cattle into Godavari canal and remaining persons who do not know the swimming drove on their boats.

CC 948/2021 7 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

PW.12 admitted that there are no crops in the lanka area at the time of incident. He further admitted that all cattles were grazing in lanka area at one place.

15. All the witnesses i.e, PWs.2 to 12 deposed that they went on boats into lanka area, but none of the owners of the boats were examined by the investigating agency to prove the incident, if really the incident had taken place. PWs.1 to 12 did not state before the police that they drove the cattle into Godavari river on boats. But coming to the cross examination, PW.4 admitted that he stated to the police that they entered into lanka areas along with buffaloes on boats. PW.9, PW11 and PW.12 also deposed the same.

After considering the said evidence, the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 are not consistent and corroborative with each other, and therefore there are different inconsistent versions deposed by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the happening of incident and the offence committed by the accused.

16. Coming to the evidence of PW13/Investigating Officer, after re- registering the F.I.R, he proceeded to the scene of offence along with PW.1, examined the same and prepared rough sketch. He deposed during cross examination that witnesses informed him about the grazing of some of buffaloes and cows. He admitted that during the months from June to August, the areas of lankas are flooded with water. PW.13 also deposed that none of the witnesses informed that all the accused persons drove the cattle into

Godavari canal. Further PW.13 deposed that except PW.1 no other witnesses stated in their 161 Cr.PC statements that the accused drove the cattle into

Godavari river on boat. PW.13 deposed that there are no stones or boundaries at Godavari lanka area to show that the scene of offence comes to their

CC 948/2021 8 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

jurisdiction and he himself imagined that the scene of offence comes to jurisdiction. The evidence of PW.13 is inconsistent with the evidence of PWs.1 to 12 with regard to the driving of cattle by the accused into Godavari canal on the date of incident. PW.13 did not register the case directly and basing on the orders of Superintendent of Police, Eluru, he re-registered the F.I.R. which was already registered by Seethanagaram police. Moreover, PWs.1 to 12 have deposed that there is no political rivalry between them and the accused.

There are material omissions in Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of all the witnesses and there is a developed version in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 12. When the scene of offence is a Godavari river, there used to be a mansoon season during the months from June to

September and there is a heavy floating of the river during the said season, and as per the case of the prosecution, the incident was happened in the month of August. Hence, one cannot drive the cattle into Godavari canal directly during the said rainy season. Apart from this, all the prosecution witnesses deposed about the non-availability of crops during the month of

August, 2020. If there is no crop, the cattle are not in a position to eat grass.

Therefore, the date and place of offence itself is doubtful. Moreover, during the rainy season, all the lanka fields are drowned and there is no possibility for cultivation of crop in the said season.

17. Another contention of the learned counsel for accused that the prosecution has shown Accused No.4 by mentioning in the charge sheet as “accusation is not proved.” If really any accusation is found, the investigating agency ought to have mentioned the name of accused no.4 against the column of the accused in charge sheet. But the investigating agency without explaining anything about the accusation leveled against Accused No.4, just

CC 948/2021 9 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

arrayed him as an accused in the charge sheet. But, on perusal of Ex.P.1, the names of accused no.1 to 4 were mentioned by PW.1 in his report. But, the investigating agency has mentioned the name of accused no.4 as not proved the accusation for the reasons best known to them. Moreover, the investigating agency has not conducted proper investigation with regard to the tracing out of the buffaloes and cows. Seethanagaram police who initially registered the case was not examined by the prosecution. There are several material omissions or contradictions in the case of prosecution. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 427 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

18. In the result, the accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 427 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on computer, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2025. Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution:

PW.1 : Yellamelli Nagaraju PW.2: Yallamilli Prasad @ Pandu

CC 948/2021 10 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

PW.3: Etakotti Suresh P.W.4: Chapala Gangadhar P.W.5: Kollia Isasac P.W.6: Yellamilli Bobby P.W.7: Yellamilli Somaraju P.W.8: K.Veera Venkata Siva Stayanarayna P.W.9: Yellamilli Raju P.W.10:T.Krishnarjuna Rao P.W.11: K.Nagaraju P.W.12: K.Satyanarayana P.W.13: G.Satish,S.I. of Police.

For Defence: -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1 Report Ex.P2 FIR in Crime No.299/2020 of Seethanagaram P.S. Ex.P3 Original FIR in crime No.211/2020 of Tallapudi P.S registered by PW.13 Ex.P4 Original Rough Sketch

For Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Sd/-Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)- cum-I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

CC 948/2021 11 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Calendar cases tried by the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Calendar Case No.948 of 2021 (Cr.No.211/2020 of Tallapudi Police Station)

Date Offence : 28.08.2020 Report or Complaint : 28.08.2020

Apprehension of Accused : --- Release on Bail Accused : --- Commencement of Trial : 14-11-2023 Closure of Trial : 16-04-2025 Sentence of Order : 24-04-2025

Explanation of delay and remarks : After taking cognizance, copies were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Pws.1 to 13 are examined and Exs.P1 to P4 marked on prosecution side. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the matter was posted for Section 313 Cr.P.C and after having heard arguments on both sides, judgment pronounced.

Name of the Complainant : State, represented by its Sub Inspector of Police, Tallapudi Police Station.

Name of the Accused : A-1 Kondeti Nageswararao @ Nagayya, S/o.Doraiah, Age 50 years, D.no.2- 143, Main road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Statute, Inuganti vari peta, Muggulla (V),Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District. A-2 Kondeti Srinivas, S/o.Doraiah, Age 48 years, Near Rajiv Gandhi Statute street, Inuganti vari peta, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District A-3 Kondeti Venkata Chalam, S/o. Doraiah, age 56 years, Inuganti vari peta, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District

CC 948/2021 12 I Addl.Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum-

I Addl.J.F.C. Magistrate, Kovvur, Dt.24.04.2025.

A-4 Kondeti Charan Sai Bhagavan, S/o Srinu, Age 23 years, Inuganti vari petal, Muggulla (V), Seethanagaram (M), E.G.District Nature of Offence : Under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of the Accused : Not guilty. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER :

In the result, the Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 427 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt. Jonnapalli B.T.S.Devi

I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kovvur.

Copy submitted to

The Hon'ble I Additional District & Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.