K.Anitha

1 C.C.No.229/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLAREDDY, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT

Present: Smt. K. Anitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

Monday, the 16th day of March, 2020

C.C. No. 229 of 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Lingampet. …Complainant AND

A1: Degavath Amru, S/o. Somla, Age: 40 years.

A2: Degavath Badya, S/o. Ravujya, Age: 42 years.

(Both Caste: Lambada, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Rampally School Thanda of Lingampet GP and Mandal).

… A1 and A2

This case coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri G. Gopal Rao, the Learned Counsel for the Accused persons, upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

01. The accused persons are facing trial for the offence u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The Sub-Inspector of Police, of Lingampet Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging as follows:

The brief facts of the case are that, on 03-10-2014 during Dussehra festival the husband/Lw2 of the Lw1 went to Bodhan to their relative’s house and during his absence and by taking the advantage of her loneliness, the

A1 went to the house of the Lw1 and tried to outrage the modesty but the

Lw1 made hues and cries as such, the A1 absconded. On 04-10-2014 when her husband/lw2 returned to the thanda, the Lw1 disclosed about the same to her husband on which the Lw2 along with the Lw1 went to the house of 2 C.C.No.229/2019 the A1 and questioned about the same, upon which the A1 and A2 beat the

Lws 1 and 2 with sticks and threatened them with dire consequences. Thus, requested to take the action.

03. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Lw1/Degavath Phangi, the

Lw9/P. Rakesh, Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Lingampet had registered a case in Cr.No. 170/2014 u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal

Code and took up the investigation.

04. During the course of the investigation, the Lw9 examined and recorded thee statement of the Lws 1 and 2 and sent them to the Government

Hospital, Yellareddy for treatment. Later the Lw9 proceeded to Rampally

School thanda and examined and recorded the statements of the Lws 3 to 5.

Further the Lw9 secured the presence of the Lws 6 and 7 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of above punch witness and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. On 15-10-2014 on receipt of reliable information about the accused persons, the Lw9 along with staff proceeded to Rampally School Thanda and apprehended the accused persons and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. As such, the Lw9 affected the arrest of the accused persons and produced them

before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand.

05. After completion of the investigation, the Lw9 had filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian

Penal Code.

06. This Court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Codel Code against the accused.

07. On appearance of the accused persons copies of the documents as contemplated u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

3 C.C.No.229/2019

08. On 07-06-2016, the accused persons were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C for the offences u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code and the charge for the offence u/S. 324, 506 was framed against the accused persons and the substance of accusation was read over and explained to them. They denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

09. The prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4 on behalf of the prosecution evidence.

10. The learned APP has given up the evidences of Lws 3, 8 and 9 as such, their evidences are closed by this Court.

11. After closing of the prosecution evidence, section 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused persons is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence.

12. Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

13. Now, the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt?”

14. To prove the guilt of all the accused, the prosecution has to establish the fact that, on 03-10-2014 during Dussehra festival the husband/Lw2 of the Lw1 went to Bodhan to their relatives house and during his absence and by taking the advantage of her loneliness, the A1 went to the house of the

Lw1 and tried to outrage the modesty but the Lw1 made hues and cries as such, the A1 absconded. On 04-10-2014 when her husband/lw2 returned to the Thanda, the Lw1 disclosed about the same to her husband on which the

Lw2 along with the Lw1 went to the house of the A1 and questioned about the same, upon which the A1 and A2 beat the Lws 1 and 2 with sticks and 4 C.C.No.229/2019 threatened them with dire consequences. To substantiate the prosecution case, it has examined Pws 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

15. The Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that, at about 4 years back on one day a quarrel took place in between her family and the family of the accused persons and the said dispute was resolved at the intervention of the elders and the accused persons never beat her nor her husband and they never caught hold her to outrage her modesty and never threatened her and at the advice of the elders she went to the police station and lodged the complaint but she do not know its contents.

She was examined by the prosecution u/Sec.154 of Indian

Evidence Act, and his statement to the police was marked as Ex.P1.

16. The Pws 2 to 4 who were cited as witnesses deposed that, they do not know any facts of the present case and they did not witness any incident.

They were examined by the prosecution u/Sec.154 of Indian

Evidence Act, and their statement to the police were got marked as

Exs. P2 to P4.

17. The Pws 5 and 6 who were cited as punch for the scene of offence panchanama deposed that, at about 5 years back on one day the police came to them and they obtained their signatures on some white papers and they did not ascertain for what purpose they obtained their signature and no person was present and nothing was seized in their presence. The

Ex.P5/Signature of the Pw5 on the Crime Detail Form, dated 04-10-2014 was got marked in the evidence of the Pw5.

They were examined by the prosecution u/Sec.154 of Indian

Evidence Act, in which they stated that, on 06-10-2014 the police conducted the Crime Detail Form and they seized two sticks in their presence.

5 C.C.No.229/2019

18. The evidence of Lws 3, 8 and 9 were given up by the prosecution.

Hence, their evidence was closed by this Court.

19. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

20. On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, after hearing to both sides and after careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, it is pertinent to note that, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case against the accused as the Pws 1 to 6 were turned hostile and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor had given up the evidences of the remaining witnesses. Moreover, there is no recovery of material objects. Hence, non supporting the case of against the accused leads to fatal to the prosecution case. In these circumstances this Court is of the view that, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered.

21. In the result, the accused persons are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec. 354, 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec. 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stands canceled subject to Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide

CPR No. 330/2014 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court on this the 16 th day of March, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: Pw1: Degavath Pangi Pw2: Degavath Anoosi Pw3: Malavath Ramani Pw4: Degavath Shankar Pw5: Degavath Kishan Pw6: Degavath Lachi

For Defence: NIL 6 C.C.No.229/2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex. P1: 161 Cr.P.C statement of the Pw1 Ex. P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw2. Ex. P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3. Ex. P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4. Ex. P5: Signature of the Pw5 on the Crime Detail Form, dated 04-10-2014

For Defence :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLAREDDY, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. K. Anitha,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLAREDDY, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT.

C.C.No. 104 of 2019

Tuesday, the 03rd day of March, 2020. Between:

The State of Telangana Through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Yellareddy. …Complainant.

And

1) Rajaram Ashok, S/o Sailu, Age: 29 yrs., Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Business, R/o Lingampet (V&M).

2) RajaramAlluravva, W/o Sailu, Age: 52 yrs., Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: House Hold, R/o Lingampet (V&M).

3) RajaramSrinivas, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 33 yrs., Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Business, R/o Devi Vihar of Devunipally, N/o Lingampet (V&M).

4) Kum. RajaramSujatha, D/Sailu @ Sayanna, Age: 30 yrs., Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Pvt. Teacher, R/o Lingampet (V&M).

…Accused Nos.1 to 4

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the complainant and Sri. N. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the learned counsel for the Accused Nos. 1 to 4, upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court has delivered the following judgment.

JUDGMENT

01. The Accused Nos. 1 to 4 facing trial for the offence u/Sec. 498(A) of

Indian Penal Code & Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

02. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellareddy Police Station has filed the charge sheet alleging as follows:-

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant /Lw-1 was performed with A1 on 05-10-2017 in a traditional manner. At the time of the marriage her parents presented cash of Rs. 9,11,000/-, 18 thulas of gold,

Rs. 1,50,000/- for purchase of clothes to the sister in law and other house hold articles total worth Rs. 22,00,000/- to the accused persons towards 2 dowry. After 3 months of the marriage the A1 started harassing the Lw-01 with demand to bring additional dowry of Rs. 35,000/- per month from parents house along with the remaining accused persons and he further threatened if the complainant will not fulfill the demand of the accused persons he will kill her and the A1 further warned the complainant not to come to the house without dowry or else they will commit suicide. Thus, requested to take the action.

03 Basing on the complaint lodged by the Lw1/Rajaram Ramitha, the

Lw13/B. Kamalakar, Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Yellareddy has registered a case in Crime No. 22/2019 for the offence u/Sec. 498-Aof Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3, 4 and6 of Dowry and Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the course of Investigation the Lw13 on 08-03-2019 the Lw13 proceeded to Lingampet village and secured the presence of the

Lws 8 to 11 who are the Panchayath elders and examined and recorded their statements. On 13-03-2019 the A1 voluntarily appeared himself before the police station as such, the Lw13 served the Notice U/s. 41-A Cr.P.C to the accused. On 18-03-2019 on reliable in formation about he accused the Lw13 proceeded the Lingampet Village and affected the arrest of the A1 and on interrogation the A1 confessed to have committed this offence. As such,

Lw10 affected the arrest of their A1 and produced him before the Hon’ble

Court for judicial remand. On further on 22-03-2019 the A2 to A4 were surrendered themselves before this Court. .

04. After filing the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable u/Sec. 498(A) of Indian Penal Code & Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act against the accused persons.

05. On appearance of the accused persons copies of the documents as contemplated u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

3

06. On 16-09-2019, the accused persons were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence punishable under section u/Sec. 498-

Aof Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act was framed against the accused and the charge for the offence U/s. 498-A IPC and Sec. 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Act, is framed against the accused persons and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to them.

Having understood the same, the accused persons denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07. The prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 7 on behalf of the prosecution evidence and got marked Exs. P1 to P8.

08. After closing of the prosecution evidence, Sec. 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused persons is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence.

09. Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused persons.

10. Now, the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.

3 and 4 of Dowry and Prohibition Actbeyond reasonable doubt?”

11. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has established the facts that the A1 who is husband of the Pw-1 started harassing her both mentally and physically and with a demand to bring additional of Rs.

35,000/- per month from her parents house along with A2 to A4 and subject the Pw-1 to cruelty. To substantiate the prosecution case it has examined

Pws 1 to 7 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8.

12. The Pw-1 is the defacto complainant deposed that on 05-10-2017 her marriage was performed with the A1 and soon after the marriage she joined the conjugal society of the A1 in her matrimonial house. Thereafter some 4 petty disputes arose in between her and a1 to A4 and at the intervention of the elders the disputes were resolved and at their advice she lodged the private complaint against the accused persons but she do not know its contents. Ex.P-1 is her signature complaint, dt: 06-03-2019. As such the pw-1 was examined by the learned APP u/sec. 154 of Indian Evidence Act and her statement to the police was got marked as Ex.P-2.

13. The Pws 2 & 3 who are the parents of the Pw-1 and Pws 4 to7 who were cited as village elders deposed as per similar version of the Pw-1 during the chief examination. As such they were examined by the learned

APP u/sec. 154 of Indians Evidence Act and their statements to the police were got marked as Ex.P3 & P8 respectively.

14. The learned APP has given up the evidences of the Lws 5 to 8, 12 &13, as such their evidences are closed by this Court.

15. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

16. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and on perusal of the entire material record available it is pertinent to note that, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the case against the accused persons with regard to the harassment muted out by the Pw-1 in the hands of accused persons during her stay in her matrimonial house and also with regard to the dowry harassment as all the witnesses were turned hostile. Moreover the prosecution has given up the evidences of Lws 5 to 8, 12 & 13 as such their evidences are closed by this court. Hence non supporting by any of the prosecution witness leads to the fatal to the present case. In view of the above circumstances the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of all the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

17.In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences u/Sec. 498(A) of Indian Penal Code & Sec. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

5

Accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands canceled subject to Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 03 rd day of March, 2020.

Judicial magistrate of first class,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad district.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Pw-1: Smt. RajaramRamitha

Pw-2: GurlaAnjaiah.

Pw-3: Smt. GurlaSuvarna.

Pw-4: MarriBalaiah. Nil

Pw-5: BollaramSailu.

Pw-6: Rajaram Ashok.

Pw-7: Tailor Venkatesham.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P-1: Signature of Pw-1 on complaint, dt: 06-03-2019.

Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-1.

Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-2.

Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-3. Nil Ex.P-5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-4.

Ex.P-6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-5.

Ex.P-7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-6.

Ex.P-8: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw-7.

Judicial magistrate of first class,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad district.

1 CC 128 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

YELLAREDDY, NIZAMABAD DISTRICT

Present: Smt. K. Anitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

Monday, the 30th day of December, 2019

C.C. No. 128 of 2019

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Gandhari. …Complainant AND

A1: Nijjani Sailoo, S/o. Bhumaiah, Age: 67 years, Caste: mudhiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-64/1, Pothangal Kalan of Gandhari Mandal.

A2: Nijjani Sairam, S/o. Sailoo, Age: 27 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No. 1-64/1, Pothangal Kalan of Gandhari mandal.

A3: Nijjani Srinivas, S/o. Sailoo, Age: 25 years, Caste: Mudhiraj, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-64/1,Pothangala Kalan, Gandhari Mandal.

…A1 to A3

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and P. Pandari, the Learned Counsel for the accused persons, upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

01. The A1 to A3 are facing trial for the offence u/Sec. 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

02. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhari police station has filed the charge sheet against the accused persons alleging as follows:

The brief facts of the case are that, on 08-06-2019 at 17:00 hours the

Lw1/Nijjani Ramesh, came to the police and lodged the complaint in which she stated that, on 08-06-2019 at 05:30 hours the Lw2 who is the father of the Lw1 woke up and came out from home and found that, one of his 2 CC 128 of 2019 neighbor A1 was tying his cattle to the wall of the Lw1, upon which the Lw2 objected for the same and then the said person picked up quarrel with the

Lw2. Meantime his sons i.e., A2 and A3 came there and the A1 beat him with stick on the head of the Lw2 and the A2 and A3 beat him with hands due to which the father of the Lw1 i.e., Lw2 sustained blood injuries. Hence, requested to take the action against the accused.

03. Basing on the complaint lodged by the Lw1/Nijjani Ramesh, the Lw9/P.

Satyanarayana, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Gandhari has registered a case in Crime No. 74/2018 for the offence U/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and took up the investigation. During the course of Investigation on 09-06-2019 the Lw9 visited to the scene of offence and examined and recorded the statements of the Lws 3 to 5 and later the Lw9 secured the presence of Lws 6 and 7 and conducted the scene of offence panchanama in their presence and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. Further the Lw9 issued the Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice upon the accused persons with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble. Court as and when summoned.

04. After filing the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offence punishable U/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused persons on29-06-2019.

06. On appearance of the accused persons copies of the documents as contemplated u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., are furnished to them.

07. On 18-12-2019, the accused persons were examined u/s. 239 of

Cr.P.C and a charge for the offence punishable under section 323, 324 r/w of Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused and the charge for the offence U/s. 324 r/w 34 is framed against the accused persons and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused persons denied the charge, pleaded not 3 CC 128 of 2019 guilty and claimed to be tried.

08. The prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 5 on behalf of the prosecution evidence and got marked Exs. P1 to P6.

09. The learned Assistant Prosecution has given up the evidences of Lws 6 to 9 as such, their evidences are closed by this Court.

10. After closing of the prosecution evidence, section 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence.

11. Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused persons.

12. Now, the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence u/Sec. 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code beyond reasonable doubt ?”

13. POINT:-

To prove the guilt of all the accused persons, the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/s. 323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

14. To substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution examined the

Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P6. The Pw1 deposed that, at about four months back on one day a quarrel took place in between the accused and

Pw2 and the said dispute was resolved at the intervention of the elders and the accused persons did not beat the Pw2 at any point of time and the Pw2 sustained injuries while he was working and at the advise of the elders he went to the police station and lodged the complaint but he do not know its contents. The Ex.P1 is his signature on the complaint, dated 08-06-2019 4 CC 128 of 2019 was got marked in his evidence, the Pw2 who is the injured person and the material witness here in deposed similar to the version of the Pw1, the Pws 3 to 5 who were cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Deposed that, they do not know any facts of the present case and they did not witnessed any incident and they were examined by the learned APP U/s. 154 of Indian

Evidence Act and their statements to the police were marked as Exs.P2 to P6 respectively.

15. Heard on both sides and perused the record.

16. On perusal of the entire material record and after hearing on both the sides it is pertinent to note that, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons in the present case as none of the prosecution witnesses i.e., the Pw1 who is the defacto complainant and the Pws 2 to 5 did not support the case of the prosecution as they turned hostile. Though the Learned Asst. Public Prosecution cross examined them, nothing have been elicited from them in support of it and they denied having stated to the police as in Exs.P2 to P6 and the evidence of the Investigation Officer/Lw9 was not adduced by the prosecution and the case property vide CPR No. 153 of 2019 was not marked as such, the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused persons in the present case. Accordingly, the point is answered.

17. In the result, the A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/s.

323, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted u/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any shall stands canceled subject to Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property vide CPR No. 153 of 2019 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of

December, 2019.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

5 CC 128 of 2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMIEND

For Prosecution:

Pw1: N. Ramesh Pw2: N. Pedda Narsaiah Pw3: N. Anitha Pw4: N. Sailoo Pw5: N. Narayana

For Defence:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of the Pw1 on the complaint, dated 08-06-2019 Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 EX.p6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5

For Defence :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

1 C.C. No. 109 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, YELLAREDDY,

NIZAMABAD DISTRICT

Present: Smt. K. Anitha,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

Tuesday, the 22nd day of September, 2020

C.C. No. 109 of 2020

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Yellareddy. …Complainant

AND

Mohammed Rahamathullah, S/o Khaleelullah, Age: 35 yrs., Caste: Muslim, Occ: Agril., R/o H.No. 5-4-63, New Abadi Colony of Yellareddy Village & Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming for fnal hearing before me in the presence of the Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and Sri Mohd. Naveed Parvez, the Learned Counsel for the accused person, upon hearing and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following Judgment.

J U D G M E N T

01.The accused is facing trial for the ofence u/Sec. 354 (A), 506, 290 of

Indian Penal Code.

02.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yellareddy police station has fled the charge sheet against the accused persons alleging as follows:

The brief facts of the case are that, at about 8 years back, due to a quarrel, the Complainant’s husband leaved her and went to Hyderabad and since then she is living along with her two children and by taking advantage of the same, since 10 months the accused used to follow her and if she talks with anyone he is spreading the rumors about her character and further if she talks with anyone he threatened her to kill. At about 2 months back the accused caught hold her hand with wrongful intention and when the Lw1 told him not to follow her but the accused did not listened to her and he 2 C.C. No. 109 of 2020 used to abuse her in most flthy language. Thus, requested to take the action.

03.Basing on the complaint lodged by the Lw1/Jareena Sulthana, the Lw-5/

K. Swetha, Sub Inspector of Police, PS, Yellareddy has registered a case in

Crime No. 75/20208 for the ofence u/Sec. 354 (A), 506, 290 of Indian Penal

Code. During the course of Investigation the Lw-5 examined and recorded the statement of the Lws 1 to 4. On 12-05-2020 the Lw-5 served the Notice

U/s. 41-A Cr.P.C upon the accused. As such, Lw-5 afected the arrest of the accused and enlarged him on bail after obtaining sufcient surety on 04-06-2020.

04.After fling the charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the ofence punishable under section u/Sec. 354(A), 506, 290 of Indian Penal Code against the accused.

05.On appearance of the accused copies of the documents as contemplated u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C., are furnished to him.

06.On 18-09-2020, the accused was examined u/s. 239 of Cr.P.C and a charge for the ofence punishable under section u/Sec. 354(A), 506, 290 of

Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused and the charge for the ofence U/s. 354(A) of IPC, is framed against the accused and the substance of accusation is read over and explained to him. Having understood the same, the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

07.The prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 3 on behalf of the prosecution evidence and got marked Exs. P1 to P4.

08. After closing of the prosecution evidence, section 313 Cr.P.C examination of the accused is dispensed with as there is no incriminating 3 C.C. No. 109 of 2020 material available in the prosecution evidence.

09.Heard the arguments of the Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused.

10.Now, the point for determination is:-

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the ofence u/Sec. 354-A, 506, 290 of Indian Penal Code

beyond reasonable doubt?”

11. POINT:-

To prove the guilt of all the accused, the prosecution has to establish the fact that, the Pw1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the accused as he spreading the rumors that she having illegal contacts, if she talks with anyone, caught hold her hand with wrongful intention, threatened her to kill her if she talks with anyone and abused her in flthy language.

To substantiate the prosecution case, the prosecution examined the

Pws 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4.

12.The Pw1 who is the defacto complainant deposed that on at about 5 months back a quarrel took place in between her and accused and the dispute was resolved in the presence of elders and at their advice she went to police station and lodged the complaint but she do not know its contents.

Ex.P1 is her signature on the complaint, dated 16-04-2020 was got marked in her evidence.

She was examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor u/S. 154 of Indian Evidence Act and her statement to the police was got marked as

Ex.P2

13.The Pws 2 and 3 who are the parents of the Pw1 deposed as per the version of the Pw1.

4 C.C. No. 109 of 2020

They were examined by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor u/sec.

154 of Indian Evidence Act and their statements to the police were got marked as Exs.P2 and P3 respectively.

14.The Assistant Public Prosecutor given up the evidences of Lws 4 & 5 as their evidence are closed by this Court.

15.Heard on both sides and perused the record.

16.On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, and after careful scrutiny of the material available on record it is pertinent to note that, none of the prosecution witness supported the case against the accused as the Pws 1 to 3 were turned hostile and they failed to deposed that the Pw1 was subjected to cruelty in the hands of the accused as he spreading the rumors that she having illegal contacts, if she talks with anyone, caught hold her hand with wrongful intention, threatened her to kill with dire consequences if she talks with anyone and abused her in flthy language.

Moreover the Assistant Public Prosecutor given the evidences of Lws 4 & 5 as such their evidences are closed by this Court.

17.Hence, non supporting of any of the prosecution witnesses leads to fatal to the prosecution case and hence the beneft of doubt goes to the accused.

18.In view of the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly this point is answered.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the ofence u/Sec.

354 (A), 506, 290 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec.

248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds if any shall stands canceled subject to Sec. 437 (A) Cr.P.C.

5 C.C. No. 109 of 2020

Typed by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

court on this the 22 nd day of September, 2020.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMIEND

For Prosecution:

Pw1: Smt. Jareena Sulthana. Pw2: Smt. Bipaasha. Pw3: Sri. Abdul Raheem.

For Defence:

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Signature of the Pw1 on the complaint, dated 16-04-2020. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

For Defence :

NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED :

NIL

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

1 OS 01 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT YELLAREDDY.

Present: Smt. K. Anitha,

Junior Civil Judge,

Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

Monday, the 12th day of October, 2020

OS No. 01 of 2020

Between:

Golla Siddaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-18, Lingareddypet Village of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District.

…Plaintif

AND

Golla Balaiah, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Lingareddypet Village of Yellareddy Mandal, Kamareddy District.

…Defendant

This suit is coming on before me on this the 12th day of October, 2020 for hearing in the presence of Sri. N. Srinivas Rao, Advocate for the Plaintif and the Defendant remained exparte and after hearing the counsel for the Plaintif and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

01.This suit is fled by the Plaintif u/Sec. 26 Order VII Rule 1 of Civil

Procedure Code against the Defendant.

02.The brief facts of the plaint are that, the Plaintif is the owner and possessor of the Suit Schedule Property i.e, the Agricultural land in Sy.no.

231/7 admeasuring Ac.2-00 which is situated in the shivar of Lingreddypet

Village of Yellareddy Mandal bounded by North: Lad of Edigi Chinnamaiah,

South: Vagu, East: Land of Sathevva and East: Land of Vasantha. The suit

Schedule Property stands in the name of the Plaintif since more than 26 years and that the above land is a assigned land which was issued by the

Government in the year 1993 and since then the Plaintif is in possession of the suit schedule property and he fled the following documents to prove his ownership i.e., Ex.A1: Original Telangana Pattedar Passbook vide Khatha No.

2 OS 01 of 2020 357 and vide Passbook No. T12220090202, Ex.A2: Meeseva I-B ROR, dated 02-01-2020, Ex.A3: Meeseva Pahani, dated 02-01-2020 vide Fasli No. 2019 and Ex.A4: Original Final Patta Certifcate vide its No. 330/93, dated 29-01- 1993 issued by the MRO, Yellareddy. He further contended that, on 30-12- 2019 while the Plaintif is doing agriculture work in his suit schedule property, the Defendant illegally tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Plaintif over the suit schedule property with the help of his well-wishers. But, the Plaintif resisted the illegal interference of the

Defendant but while leaving the suit schedule land, the Defendant threatened him with dire consequences that by hook or crook will dispossess the Plaintif from the suit schedule property at any point of time. Thus, the

Plaintif having the apprehension of the same and he was constrained to fle the present suit.

03.The Defendant though received the summons of this Court, failed to appear nor fled the written statement as such he was set exparte.

04. Now the point for consideration is :-

1. Whether the Plaintif is entitled for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed?

2. To what relief?

05.Heard

06.POINT No. 1:-

To prove the suit, the Plaintif examined himself as Pw1 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A4 i.e., the Ex.A1 is the Original Telangana Pattedar Passbook vide

Khatha No. 357 and vide Passbook No. T12220090202, Ex.A2 is the Meeseva

I-B ROR, dated 02-01-2020, Ex.A3 is the Meeseva Pahani, dated 02-01-2020 vide Fasli No. 2019 and Ex.A4 is the Original Final Patta Certifcate vide its

No. 330/93, dated 29-01-1993 issued by the MRO, Yellareddy

07.The oral evidence of the Pw1 coupled with the Ex.A1 to A4 shows that 3 OS 01 of 2020 the possession and enjoyment of the Plaintif over the suit schedule property.

Despite receipt of the summons by the Defendant, he did not appear before the Court nor fled written statement and he was set exparte. Thus the

Plaintif have established his legal right and his exclusive possession having the relief of Perpetual Injunction as on the date of the fling of the present suit. As well as the Plaintif claiming the relief of Perpetual Injunction established that the breach of obligation or infringement of legal right. He also showed that there was a violation of his legal right by the act complained of an act is carried into afect which will result into infringement of his legal right and his possession was invaded by the Defendant who has not title of the what so ever, without possessing any legal right, interfered in his possession. Thereby, it can be held that the Plaintif has proved the essentials of Perpetual Injunction by producing oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly the point is answered.

08.POINT No. 2:-

In the result, the suit is decreed by granting Perpetual Injunction in favor of the Plaintif and against the Defendant and his henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaintif over the suit schedule property. In the circumstances of the case that, there is no order as to cost. IA pending if any shall stands closed.

Suit Schedule Property

All the agricultural land in Sy.No. 231/7, admeasuring Ac.2-00 gunts,

SCW, situated in the shivar of Lingampet Village of Yellareddy Mandal, bounded by :-

North: Land of Edigi Chinnamaiah

South: Vagu

East: Land of Sathevva AND on

West: Land of Vasantha

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected

4 OS 01 of 2020

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of

October, 2020.

Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintif :

Pw1: Golla Siddaiah

For Defendant :

NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintif :

Ex.A1: Original Telangana Pattedar Passbook vide Khatha No. 357 and vide Passbook No. T12220090202. Ex.A2: Meeseva I-B ROR, dated 02-01-2020. Ex.A3: Meeseva Pahani, dated 02-01-2020 vide Fasli No. 2019 Ex.A4: Original Final Patta Certifcate vide its No. 330/93, dated 29-01-1993 issued by the MRO, Yellareddy

For Defendant :

NIL

Junior Civil Judge, Yellareddy, Nizamabad District.