K. Dasharatha Ramaiah

IN THE COURT OF THE HONBLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT:: ACHAMPET

FRIDAY DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019

PRESENT: SRI. KATRAGADDA DASHRATHA RAMAIAH

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ACHAMPET

O.S.No. 06 of 2013

Between: Sugoor Shanthikumar, S/o Mahesh @ Kummari Maheswaram, aged: 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o Mannanur Village of Amrabad Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist. …Plaintiff

And

1. Sugoor Mahesh @ KummariMaheshwarama(died), per L.Rs Defedants No.3&4.

2. Kotha Ramakrishna S/o Balaswamy, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Lingal village &mandal

3. SugoorParwathamma W/o late Maheswaram, Age: 40 years, Occ: Anganwadi worker, R/o Mannanur village of Amrabadmandal,

4. Smt.PampuramMaheswariW/oPampuram Shankar, Age: 29 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Dhandugadda Colony, Near SC Hostel, Kothakota village &mandal,

5. Smt. RasamollaRamulamma w/o Bakkaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Lingal village &mandal … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day 28.01.2019 in the presence of Sri.K.Venkataramana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.S.Gangaiah, Sri.G.Sudhakar & Md.Kousar Advocates for Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit instituted by the Plaintiff against the Defendants No.1 to 5 seeking Partition and Separate Possession of land mentioned as Item No.1 & 2 to an extent of Ac.3.21 gts & Ac.1.20 gts in Sy.No.691 total extent of Ac.5.01 gts situated in Lingal village & Mandal, Nagarkurnool Dist (Hereinafter referred as Suit schedule land) and to allot 2/3’rd share to the plaintiff.

2.This suit was filed initially filed by Smt.Parwathamma, mother of plaintiff representing him as natural guardian and after attaining majority, this suit was proceeded by plaintiff transposing his mother as Defendant No.3. The brief averments of the plaint are that originally the suit schedule land is part of actual extent of Ac.10.02 gts in Sy.No.691 owned by plaintiff’s great grand father Pentaiah who died intestate leaving his only son Chandraiah as his

Legal Heir, who also died interstate about 15 yrs back but during

Chandraiah’s life time the said land was equally partitioned into two parts between Chandraiah’s two sons namely Niranajan & Maheshwaram @ Mahesh i.e., Defendant No.1 herein. Thereafter they who got mutated their names in the year 2009-2010 till then the ancestral property I.e entire extent of

Ac.10.02 gts was in the name of Pentaiah in all revenue records. It is thus, the

Def.No.1 had acquired the suit schedule lands as his share in which plaintiff had right as coparcener to Def.No.1 being member of Hindu Undivided family.

It is submitted that as Def.No.1 addicted to bad vices, like debauching & alcohol, disputes cropped up with his wife Parwathamma i.e., Def.No.3 as such they started living separately since 10 yrs during such period Def.No.1 provide grains by cultivating the entire suit schedule lands. Whereas, Def.No.1 taking advantage of mutation in his name during plaintiff minority of, had tried to alienate an extent of Ac.1.20 gts to Def.No.2 but the same was objected by plaintiff’s mother demanding half share to plaintiff which was dodged by executing Registered Sale Deed No.174/2013 Dt:18.01.2013 to Def.No.2. On knowing the same, Def.No.3 once again approached Def.No.1 seeking partition and conducted panchayath but Def.No.1 paid deaf ear and unauthorizedly, illegally sold another extent of Ac.2.00 gts., to Def.No.5 during pendency of this suit vide Registered Sale Deed Doc.No.1545/2014. As

Def.No.1 died during pendency of this suit, Def.No’s 4 & 5 were impleaded as

Def.No.4 being Legal heir and Def.No.5 as purchaser of part of suit scheduled lands. Hence, the plaintiff filed this suit for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share in suit scheduled land against the Defendants.

3.After receiving the summons from this court, the defendants filed their written statement had denied all contentions in toto, except admitting that the suit scheduled land is ancestral property reiterating that original extent of

Ac.10.02 gts in Sy.No.691 belongs to plaintiff’s Great Grand father Pentaiah from whom the same was passed on to his son Chandraiah, in whose life time it was equally partitioned and mutated in the name of Def.No.1 & Nirajan. It is submitted that Def.No.1 never married Def.No.3 i.e., Parwathamma nor begotten plaintiff through Def.No.3 and that they are not members of Hindu

Undivided family of Def.No.1 nor they were in possession or enjoyment of suit schedule lands as mother of plaintiff i.e., Def.No.3 is legally wedded wife of another person residing in Padara village through who Def.No.3 begotten

Plaintiff. It is admitted in written statement that Def.No.1 had sold an extent of

Ac.1.20 gts to Def.No.2. Further, it is mentioned that Def.No.1 is having two daughters begotten from his first wife were not made parties to this present suit. The defendants in written statement alleged that about few years back

Def.No.1 and Def.No.3 went to Bombay and worked under same contractor, lived in one shed and taking advantage of the same the present suit was filed.

Therefore, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. On perusal of the pleadings this court settled the following issues;

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for division of suit schedule property into 2/3 rd share in suit scheduled property?

2. To what relief?

5.During the trial the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and five other witnesses as Pws.2 to 6 on his behalf but eschewed evidence of Pw5. Exs.A1 to A16 were exhibited on plaintiff's behalf. The Defendant No.2 & 5 were examined as Dws.1 & 2 and their friends as Dws.3 & 4. No document was marked on behalf of defendants.

6.In brief the evidence of plaintiff as Pw1 in his chief affidavit admitted his relationship with Def.No.4 as his sister who was born to Def.No.1’s first wife.

Pw2 maternal grand father and Pw3 brother in law of Def.No.1 had deposed in the same lines as that of Pw1 about marriage of Def.No.1 with Def.No.3 and giving birth to plaintiff apart from other connected facts. Pw4 and Pw6 deposed in the same lines about the marriage of Def.No.1 with Def.No.3, giving birth to plaintiff and later living separately due to some disputes.

During cross examination of Pw1 he deposed that he studied up to tenth class and he is residing at Kothakuntapally vg since his childhood. Pw1 deposed that he do not know that his mother Def.No.3 married another person prior to her marriage with Def.No.1. Pw1 further admitted that Def.No.1 had married another woman with whom Def.No.1 blessed with two daughters adding that

Def.No.1 had married his mother Def.No.3 after death of first wife. Pw1 specifically admitted that prior to filing of this suit Def.No.1 had sold some extent to Def.No.2 and during pendency an extent of Ac.1.20 gts to Def.No.5.

Pw1 admitted that he didn’t filed his birth certificate or any documents to show that Def.No.1 married his mother.

7.Pw2 in his cross admitted that he do not know how to read or write

English nor know what was mentioned in his chief affidavit but in re- examination Pw2 admitted that contents were explained to him in Telugu. Pw2 admitted that Def.No.3 is his daughter who married one Allaji R/o Amrabad who died within two months from their marriage, thereafter marriage of

Def.No.3 with Def.No.1 was performed in Lingal. Pw2 admitted that he lodged complaint against Def.No.1 for harassing his daughter but don’t have any document to prove the same. Pw2 admitted that Def.No.3 never filed any maintenance case against Def.No.1 nor got any crop share during his life time adding that Def.No.3, herself cultivated the crop which Def.No.1 used to take away for his bad vices. Pw2 specifically deposed that from past ten years

Def.No.3 is not cultivating the said lands which were cultivated by brother of

Def.No.1. Pw2 denied that Def.No’s 1 & 3 had live-in-relationship when they were in Hyderabad. During cross examination of Pw3, he admitted that plaintiff and Def.Nos.1 & 3 are his relatives. Pw3 specifically admitted that first husband of Def.No.3 died denying that plaintiff was begotten through

Def.No.3’s first husband. Pw4 admitted that he saw marriage of Def.No’s 1 & 3 which was performed about 23 years back and added that due to unbearable harassment of Def.No.1 his wife Def.No.3 moved to Mannanur village. Pw6 in his cross admitted that he do not know that Def.No.3 married another person prior to marrying Def.No.1. Pw6 admitted that Def.No.3 left the society of

Def.No.1 about ten years back. Pw6 deposed that he don’t know that Def.No.1 sold his land to Def.No.2 & 5 for his medical necessities and received total sale consideration from them.

8.In brief the evidence of Dws.1 & 2 apart from reiterating the contents of written statement had further deposed that Def.No.4 had relinquished her right of share in suit lands. Dw1 in his cross specifically admitted that he do not know that suit schedule lands are ancestral properties of Def.No.1 nor that plaintiff is Def.No.1’s son begotten through Def.No.3. Dw1 admitted that he do not know Def.No4 was born out of Def.No.1’s first marriage with

Satyamma and he cannot say the details of Def.No.1’s second daughter as he is not aware that Def.No.1 had two daughters. Dw1 deposed that he do not know that a panchayath was conducted in 2010 in which Def.No.1 executed terms of compromise in favor of Def.No.3 to give suit lands. Dw1 admitted that he never gave any notices to plaintiff or Def.No.3 before purchasing the suit lands nor he mention that plaintiff was begotten by Def.No.3 through his first husband. Dw2 in her cross admitted that suit lands were acquired by

Def.No.1 from his parents but not aware that Def.No.4 & Plaintiff are having equal rights over suit lands. Dw2 admitted that she do not know that suit is pending when she purchased suit lands. Dw2 deposed that she do not know

Def.No1 had two daughters from his first marriage nor she is aware that plaintiff was born to Def.No’s 1 & 3. Dw2 added that another daughter of

Def.No.1 died leaving Def.No.4 as his sole surviving daughter. Dw2 admitted that she do not know what was mentioned in her chief affidavit and she never mention that Def.No.3 married another person and begotten plaintiff but not with Def.No.1.

9.Dws.3 & 4 deposed in the same lines as that of Dws.1 & 2 about acquisition of suit lands from Def.No.1 during his life and executing registered sale deeds in favor of Dws.1 & 2 but denied the relationship of Def.No.1 & 3 who gave birth to plaintiff including that suit schedule lands are ancestral properties . During cross of Dw3 admitted that total extent of land in

Sy.No.691 is Ac.10.20 gts. Dws.3 & 4 admitted that Def.No.1 acquired suit lands from his grand father by name Pentaiah. Dw3 admitted that he do not know Def.No.1 married Def.No.3 after death of his first wife, begotten plaintiff through Def.No.3. Dw3 admitted that he cannot say names of two daughters of Def.No.1 nor as to where their marriages were performed. Dws.3 & 4 admitted that they do not know plaintiff was born to Def.No.1 through

Def.No.3 and they both executed a compromise deed about fifteen years back

before village elders. Dws.3 & 4 admitted that they don’t know that Def.No2 &

5 purchased suit lands without conducting proper inquiry nor issuing any public notice before such purchase. Dws.3 & 4 admitted that they are not aware that plaintiff and Def.No.4 are having equal rights in suit schedule lands which are their ancestral properties. Dws.3 & 4 deposed that they did not stated in their chief that Def.No.3 begotten plaintiff through another person but not with Def.No.1. Apart from above, Dw4 admitted that he cannot say suit survey number nor extent of land is about Ac.2.00 gts. Dw4 admitted that

Def.No.1 is having one daughter by name Maheswaramma and he was not present at the time of executing alleged sale deed.

10.Heard both sides. Point for consideration is;

Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for division of suit

schedule property into ½ share in suit scheduled property?

(a) On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents available on record it is observed that the suit scheduled lands situated in

Sy.No.691 to an extent of Ac.10.02 gts., was originally belongs to one

Pentaiah i.e., Great Grand father of Plaintiff from whom his son

Chandraiah acquired as his legal heir but both Pentaiah and

Chandraiah had died intestate without executing any will deeds relating to the above land. It is also evident that Grandfather of plaintiff by name Chanraiah had two sons namely Niranjan and

Maheswaram i.e., Def.No.1 herein, who partitioned the total extent of

Ac.10.02 gts equally as per oral family settlement during life time of

Chandraiah and got mutated their names in revenue records in the year 2009-2010. All the aforesaid facts were also corroborated with the documents filed, exhibited on behalf of plaintiff vide Exs. A1 to

A7 & A9 which include pahanis for the year 1981-82, 1995-96, 1997- 98, 2000-01, 2006-07 & 2009-10 and ROR. As it is clearly established by the plaintiff that the suit scheduled lands are his ancestral property which were acquired by his father Def.No.3 in which plaintiff is having equal right as coparcener which was also supported by witnesses examined from both sides and also that none of the defendant witnesses including Dws.1 & 2 never denied the aforesaid fact.

(b) Whereas, the prominent question to decide whether plaintiff is born to Def.No.1 & 3 and that Def.No.1 & 3 had indeed married with each other during subsistence of Def.No.1’s first marriage or not. It is noted that though initially the relationship of Def.No.1 & 3 was totally denied by defendants, thereafter it was labeled as “Live-in- relation” at Hyderabad to divert the actual relation between them. It is clear from the aforesaid evidence that both Def.No.1 & 3 had married different persons prior to their marriage but their spouses had died before their marriage, as plaintiff and Pw2 father of

Def.No.3 reiterated that Def.No.3 married one Allaji who died within two months of their marriage. Coming to first marriage of Def.No.1 none of the defendants had able to establish with whom Def.No.1 first marriage was performed as in Written statement it was mentioned as “Chittemma” but in chief of Def.no.2 & 5 it was stated as “Satyamma” creating suspicion as to first wife of Def.No.1. So, also defendants failed to elicit or establish that Def.No.1 is having two daughters out of his first wife which was consistently denied by plaintiff right from commencement of trial and the same was not negated by defendants 2 & 5 along with their witnesses admitted that Def.No.4 is the sole legal heir of Def.No.1 from his first wife.

(c) Further, plaintiff and his witnesses including his relatives examined as Pws.2 to 4, & 6 had specifically admitted that Def.No.1 had married Def.No.3 about twenty three years back and lead marital life and due to harassment of Def.No.1 his second wife Def.No.3 moved away from Def.No.1 and lived at Mannanur vg from past ten years which was not at all denied by any one of the witnesses examined by defence counsel as they all deposed that they do not know about marriage of Def.No.1 & 3, who gave birth to plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention here that Dws.1 to 4 specifically admitted that they did not mention in their chief that Def.No.3 had begotten plaintiff through another person but not Def.No.1 which itself casts cloud of suspicion as to their version that plaintiff never born to Def.No.1. In order to establish the fact that plaintiff was born to Def.No.1 & 3, he relied on certain documents which include plaintiff’s Bonafide Certificate,

Secondary School Certificate, Asdhar Card marked as Exs.A11, 12, 15 & 16 which clearly elicits that Def.No.1 is father of plaintiff and also relied on Exs.A13, 14 proving that Def.No.3 is legally wedded wife of

Def.No.1.

(d) In view of the aforesaid detailed discussion and admissions elicited through witnesses from both sides, it is established that suit scheduled lands are ancestral properties of plaintiff which were alienated by Def.No.1 without any valid title or right over the same to

Def.Nos.2 & 5 by executing two different sale deeds prior to institution of this suit and another one during pendency of this suit. It is also evident that none of the purchasers had discharged their duties tas caveat emptor to be vigilant inspite of being aware that the suit scheduled lands are ancestral properties as they themselves clearly admitted that no notice was issued prior to alleged purchases or executing the sale deeds which itself casts aspersions about their bonafide intentions. Further, it is also admitted fact including defendants witnesses that both plaintiff and Def.No.4 are having equal rights in the suit schedule properties.

In the light of the above discussion, it is clearly established that the suit schedule properties I.e item No.1 & 2 are ancestral properties of plaintiff which were alienated by Def.No.1 during his life time by executing registered sale deeds without having any right or title over the same and plaintiff being his legal heir begotten through Def.No.3 is having equal right over the suit schedule lands along with Def.No.4. Hence the issue No.1 is decided in favor of Plaintiff, Def.No.3 & 4 and against Defendant No. 2 & 5.

11.Issue No.2 : To what relief??

As issue No.1 is answered in favor of Plaintiff, Def.No.3 & 4 and against

Defendant No. 2 & 5 and in lieu of findings as aforesaid, the Plaintiff, Def.No.3 & 4 and against Defendant No. 2 & 5 are entitled for 1/3rd share each in suit scheduled properties.

In the result : In the result this suit is decreed with costs in favor of

Plaintiff and Def.No.3 & 4 by passing a preliminary decree allotting 1/ 3rd share each to Plaintiff, Def.No.3 & 4 out of the suit schedule properties by metes and bound after considering the good and bad qualities. The office is directed to prepare a preliminary decree in their favor.

Typed, dictated, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 22nd day of March 2019.

Junior Civil Judge Achampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW-1 :SugoorShanthikumarDW-1: Ramakrishna PW-2: ThotapallyParvathaluDW-2: K.Ramulamma PW-3: BoddupallyKashannaDW-3:ShaikSaidul Pasha PW-4: AppalaBalrajGoudDW-4: IngotiMallaiah PW-5: SugoorNiranjan PW-6: SugoorLaxmamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 :True copy of R.O.R Ex.A2 :True copy of pahani for the year 1981-82 Ex.A3 :True copy of pahani for the year 1995-96 Ex.A4 :True copy of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.A5 :True copy of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex.A6 :True copy of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.A7 :True copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 Ex.A8 : C.C of Registered Sale Deed No. 174/2013, Dt:25.1.2013 Ex.A9 :True copy of pahanidt:30.3.2013 on the name of Defendant No.1 Ex.A10 :True copy of pahani dt:30.3.2013 on the name of Defendant No.2 Ex.A11 : Original Bonafide certificate, dt:25.1.2013 Ex.A12 : Original Ration Card No.WAP144500100293 Ex.A13 : Election Identity card No. TES0431635 of Defendant No.3 Ex.A14 :Aadhar Card No.850421934505 of Defendant No.3 Ex.A15 :Aadhar Card No.241576786484 of Plaintiff Ex.A16 :Original Secondary School Certificate of plaintiff by name Shanthi Kumar vide H.T.No.1340123974.

FOR DEFENDANTS: - None -

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

Monday, this the 3rd day of December, 2018

Present: Sri K.Dasharatha Ramaiah, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

C.C. No. 73 of 2014

Between: The State represented through Sub Inspector, PS. Nagarkurnool. …Complainant

And

Medipally Sudhakar Reddy S/o Parvath Reddy, age 40 yrs, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Hire RTC bus Driver, R/o H.No.8-21, Kummera village of Tadoor mandal.

...Accused

Section of law: Section 304-A of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under 304-A of IPC and he is Convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.PC.

Accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 304-A of IPC. The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence U/sec 304- A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

This case is coming before me on 26-11-2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri Khaja Iftekaruddin and Sri B.Rajashekar Rao, Advocates, for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nagarkurnool has filed the charge 2 sheet in Crime No.236/2013 against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

2.The brief averments of the prosecution that on 6-11-2013 at 1800 hours the complainant came to PS and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 05-11-2013 at 5.30 am while he was brushing his teeth, mean time his mother/Smt.Jemmani Muthyalamma was proceeding to natural of call, while she was crossing the BT road one RTC bus coming from Nagarkurnool to Palem with high speed in a rash and negligence manner gave dash to his mother, resulting which his mother fell down on the road and sustained right leg bleeding injuries to and the bus driver abandoned the bus and fled away from there. Further he stated that he noticed the bus bearing No.AP22-W- 9512 and came to know the bus driver name as M.Sudhakar Reddy.

Thereafter he shifted his mother to government area hospital,

Nagarkurnool for treatment from where his mother was shifted to

Sridhar hospital, Santosh nagar, Hyderabad for better treatment, while undergoing treatment his mother succumbed to injuries at about 1.30 pm. Thus the complainant requested to taking legal action against bus driver.

3.Basing on the above complaint, PW.9 registered a case in Crime

No.236/2013 U/s. 304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused U/s. 304-A IPC.

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

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

6.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exhibits as Ex.P1 to P11 on 3 its behalf.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for defence and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.Now the point for determination is:‘whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

10. The learned counsel for the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 9 to establish the guilt of the accused person and mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 & 6 to 9. During chief of Pw1 apart from reiterating the contents of his complaint Ex.P1, he further deposed that on the day of incident, after the accident the driver of bus got down and left the spot and Pw1 can identify the accused who is the same person present in the court hall. Pws.2 & 3 categorically deposed that on the day of incident while they were in their house, they heard some noise and when they came out they saw the deceased was hit by one bus causing bleeding injuries on her leg, as such the deceased was shifted to Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool from there to Hyderabad for better treatment where deceased succumbed to injuries . Pw3 deposed that bus No. AP22 W 9512 was driven by one

Sudhakar Reddy. Pws.4 & 5, panch for scene of offence panchanama had turned hostile but Pw6 panch for inquest deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence at Hyderabad.

11.Whereas, the other prosecution witness Pw.7, MVI inspector deposed that on 11.11.2013 he received requisition from Police

Nagarkurnool for inspecting bus bearing No.AP22-W9512 and on inspection he found no mechanical defects in the said crime vehicle but the fitness certificate was not valid on the date of accident and issued Ex.P7. Pw8 the doctor who conducted autopsy had issued Ex.P8 4

PME report that cause of death is due to multiple injuries. Pw9 the investigating officer in this case had reiterated all the contents of his investigation and charge sheet. Basing on the above the prosecution argued that the guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt as the eye witness Pw1 had narrated about occurrence of the accident identifying the accused present in court hall had driven the crime vehicle bus in a rash and negligent manner while deceased was crossing the road, hence prayed to convict the accused for the offences U/sec 304-A of IPC.

12. On the other hand learned counsel for the accused argued that accused never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 9, wherein the defacto complainant/Pw1 in his cross admitted that it was dark as it was about 5.30 am and distance between his house and road is about 50 to 60 meters. Pw1 specifically deposed that Ex.P1 was scribed by one Gopal

Reddy adding that the same was scribed on his dictation. Pw1 also admitted that he cannot say bus number nor he knew the contents of

Ex.P1. Pws.2 & 3 also admitted that it was dark as time was about 5.30 am. Pw2 admitted that police didn't examined her at Osmania

Hospital, Hyderabad and she inquired with conductor about the name of bus driver which was stated before police. Pw7 admitted that he inspected crime vehicle at Nagarkurnool PS and he didn't filed requisition received from police before this court. Pw8 denied that he issued Ex.P8 without conducting any PME. Pw9 during his cross examination admitted that Pw1 came to PS along with complaint. The counsel for the accused submitted that, in view of the material discrepancies, hostility and omissions from the evidence of Pws.1 to 9, it is evident that the accusations made against the accused were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

13.After careful perusal of material and the evidence placed on record through Pws.1 to 9 this court made following observations while determining the point that whether the accused had committed the offences U/sec 304-A of IPC which is proved beyond all reasonable doubt by the prosecution or not; 5

In the given case in hand, it is pertinent to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case in three different stages to deduce whether the accused had committed the alleged offence under section 304-A of IPC i.e., (i) about the occurrence of the accident, (ii) cause of accident is due to rash and negligent act of the bus driver and (iii) identity of the accused person I.e whether, is he the same person who committed the accident causing the death of deceased.

(a) At first, the occurrence of the incident as narrated by the eye & Circumstantial witnesses Pws.1 to 3 in their chief is that on 05.11.2013 at about 5.30 am while the deceased I.e mother of Pw1 was crossing road to attend nature calls while Pw1 was brushing his teeth standing in front of his house, at the time deceased crossing road, the crime vehicle gave dash to the deceased as a result she sustained fracture injuries to her legs, who was shifted to Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool for treatment from where she was shifted to one Sridhar Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment but deceased succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment which was not negated by the defence counsel at any point of time which itself clearly establishes about the occurrence of the accident as alleged by the prosecution at the scene of offence.

(b) It is pertinent to mention here that as per the version of

Pw1, eye witness and son of the deceased woman, that incident occurred while he was brushing his teeth in front of his house, who saw bus came in rash and negligent manner, gave dash to his mother while she was crossing road to attend nature call and thereafter the bus driver got down from the bus and fled away. It is noted that the prosecution witnesses Pws.1 to 3 deposed that they came to know the details of bus driver through conductor of the bus which clearly elicits that the details as mentioned by them as is Sudhakar reddy are accused had drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident which is clearly corroborated by Pw1 identifying the accused person as the same person who drove the bus on the date of incident. The

Defence counsel though able to elicit that Pw1 is not aware as to 6 the contents of his complaint Ex.P1 as the same was scribed by one Gopal Reddy cannot be considered as fatal in the light of

Pw1 admission that the Ex.P1 was scribed on his dictation.

(c)The contention of defence counsel that the accused did not drive his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as Pws1. to 3, the eye and circumstantial witnesses admitted that the incident occurred at about 5.30 am and it was dark at that time cannot absolutely rule out the negligent driving of bus by the accused as the same point imposes additional onus on the accused to be more cautious while driving in such early hours in places where public have easy access to road. Further it is pertinent to mention here that as per evidence of Pw7, MVI inspector who deposed that the crime vehicle fitness certificate is not valid on the date of incident also corroborates with the negligence of accused to ensure renew fitness certificate of crime vehicle though there are no mechanical defects resulting the accident.

The death of deceased is due to multiple injuries which was also corroborated by Ex.P8. PME report issued by Pw8 and also by

Pw6 who deposed that police conducted inquest panchanama in his presence cogently establishes the cause of death is due to

Road Traffic Accident.

(e) The most important point to decide the guilt of the accused is, whether the accused is the same person, who drove the crime vehicle I.e bus bearing No. AP 22 W 9512 was clearly made out by the evidence of Pw1 who deposed that it was accused who got down from the bus after accident and fled away from the scene was no where negated by the defence counsel. The contention of defence counsel that the discrepancies like non examination of passengers or conductor of crime vehicle will not have any fatal impact on the prosecution case. The defence counsel did not elicit any points in contradiction to the prosecution evidence about pointing of guilty at the accused and that he is the same person who drove the crime bus and responsible for the accident as the prosecution had established the chain of occurrence of incident 7 and subsequent circumstances after the incident.

In the light of aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the occurrence of the incident as narrated by prosecution witnesses was corroborated by other material available on record, that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused while driving bus bearing No.AP 22 W 9512 causing death of the deceased due to fatal injuries was established by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused found guilty for the offences under sections 304-A IPC is convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 03rd day of December, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

Accused present and on questioning him about the quantum of sentence to be imposed accused submitted that he is the only person to take care of his old aged mother and his two daughters who all are dependent on him for their livelihood. The accused reported that there is no other case pending before this court or any other court against him.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case considering the circumstances of the accused, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to take lenient view on the accused. Hence, as accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 304-

A of IPC, the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence U/sec 304-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

As the accused had not undergone any remand during the pendency or trial as such no period set off as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C.

The accused was informed about his right of appeal before Hon’ble 8

Sessions Court and also to get free Legal Aid from the Hon’ble

Chairman, Mandal Legal Services Authority, if he has no means to engage legal counsel.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 3rd day of December, 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW.1 Jemmani Nagaiah

PW.2 Jemmani Laxmamma

PW.3 Kum.Jemmani Nagasaramma

PW.4 Madagani Balaswamy

PW.5 Madupu Neelaiah

PW.6 Bonasi Venkataiah

PW.7 T.Goverdhan Reddy, MVI.

PW.8 Dr.K.Parvathi,

PW.9 Md.Khaleel Ahmed, ASI of police.

Defence:-None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the complainant.

Ex.P2 is the signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW.4.

Ex.P3 is the signature on rough sketch map.

Ex.P4 is the signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW.5.

Ex.P5 is the signature on rough sketch map.

Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama.

Ex.P7 is the MVI report.

Ex.P8 is the PME report.

Ex.P9 is the FIR.

Ex.P10 is the inquest panchanama.

9

Ex.P11 is the scene of offence panchanama

Defence:- Nil-

Material Objects marked -NIL –

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

10

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

CC.No. 73 of 2014

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No.73 of 2014 2Name of the PS:Telkapally 3Section of law :304-A of IPC. 4Crime number :236/2013 5Name and description :Medipally Sudhakar Reddy S/o of accused Parvath Reddy, age 40 yrs, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Hire RTC bus Driver, R/o H.No.8-21, Kummera village of Tadoor mandal. 6Date of offence :05-11-2013 7Date of complaint :06-11-2013 8Date of apprehension:05-11-2013 9Released on bail:05-11-2013 10Commencement of trial:29-08-2012 11Close of trial :10-11-2018 12Date of judgement:03-12-2018 13Reason for delay :The prosecution witness has not produced by the police within time.

14Sentence of order :Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under 304-A of IPC and he is Convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.PC.

Accused is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C. for offences under Section 340-A of IPC. The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence U/sec 304-A of IPC. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

Copy submitted to: The hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Copy to: The Superintendent of police, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT :: NAGARKURNOOL

MONDAY DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

PRESENT: SRI.K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH Junior Civil Judge, Achampet FAC Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool

OS.No. 281 of 2017

Between:

1. Manda Laxmi W/o Thirupathaiah, age 40 yrs, Occu: house hold,

2. Peddapulla Sandhyarani W/o P.Krishna, age 38 yrs, Occu: house hold, Both are R/o H.No.41-225/4, Wanaparthy town & District.

.... Plaintiffs

AND

1. Peddapulla Balaswamy S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 55 yrs, Occu: Agril.,

2. Peddapulla Venkatswamy S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 38 yrs, Occu: Agril.,

3. Peddapulla Niranjan S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 40 yrs, All are R/o Peddapalli village of Telkapally mandal.

4. Pullasi Sunitha W/o G.Bhaskar, age 29 yrs, Occu: House hold, R/o Door No.401, Plot No.7475, Vishwa homes, Sriramnagar, behind Botanical gardens, Kondapur post, Serilingampally mandal, R.R.District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on this day on 03.12.2018 in the presence of Sri S.Shyamprasad Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 4 remained exparte upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs filed this suit for Partition and separate possession 1/6th share against the defendants No.1 to 4 relating to the lands situated in Sy.No.275/1A to an extent of Ac.1.09 gts, Sy.No.275/RU to an extent of Ac.0.18 gts , Sy.No.276/AA to an extent of Ac.0.24 gts,

Sy.No.276/U to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts, Sy.No.351/2 to an extent of

Ac.0.21 gts, Sy.No.403/2 to an extent of Ac.0.07 ½ gts, Sy.No.404 to an extent of Ac.1.03 gts, Sy.No.423 to an extent of Ac.0.07 gts,

Sy.No.424 to an extent of Ac.0.05 gts and an extent of Ac.0.35 gts in

Sy.No.425 situated in Peddapally village of Telkapally Mandal of

Nagarkurnool Dist (Hereinafter refereed as Suit Schedule Properties which is more clearly depicted in the suit schedule).

2. The brief averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs,

Defendant No.1 to 3 and mother of Defendant No.4 by name Late

Alivela who all are children of one Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla

Chinna Balaiah who got agricultural lands i.e., suit schedule properties as the same being ancestral property leaving plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs. Whereas, plaintiffs No.1 & 2 who were promised to give them their due share out of suit schedule properties during his lifetime of their father late Boya Chinna Balaiah and after death of Boya Chinna Balaiah but plaintiffs demanded for partition of suit schedule properties into six equal shares but the same was postponed by defendants No.1 to 3 under one pretext or the other. It is submitted that finally on 27.10.2017 plaintiffs demanded for partition but defendants bluntly refused for the same and plaintiffs recently came to know that defendants No.1 to 3 are going to alienate suit schedule properties by creating false and fabricated documents to devoid the plaintiffs share. In the aforesaid circumstances, having no other go to protect the legitimate share of plaintiffs in respect of Suit

Schedule properties, this present suit was filed claiming his 1/6th share and separate possession of Suit Schedule properties from the defendants No.1 to 4. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants No.1 to 4 had received the summons from this court but failed to appear before this court to contest the suit either in person or through their counsel, as such Defendant No.1 to 4 were set exparte.

4.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.2 got herself examined as Pw1 and Exs.A1 to A11 were exhibited on their behalf.

5.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material records.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Now the point for determination is;

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for Partition and separate possession of 1/6 th share in suit scheduled properties as prayed for or not?

The Plaintiff No.2 herself examined as Pw-1, and deposed her

Chief in accordance with the contentions of plaint by filing the ROR and

Pahanies for the year 2017-18 of above mentioned survey numbers which clearly shows that the suit scheduled lands are in the name of

Late Boya Chinna Balaiah i.e., father of plaintiffs, Defendants No.1 to 3 and grandson Defendant No.4 which were marked as Exs.A1 to A11 and the same was not denied by defendants who failed to contest the suit either by filing written statement or through any counsel, which can be said that the Plaintiffs evidence has remained unchallenged and uncontested. Further, as the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have not put forth their case for which an adverse inference can be drawn against them which clearly makes out a prima facie case that the Plaintiffs are having 1/ 6th share in suit schedule properties. Hence, in order to protect the right, title and interests of the Plaintiffs of their legitimate share, it is necessary to grant partition of the suit schedule properties allotting their respective 1/ 6th share to the contesting parties.

Hence, the Point is answered in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the defendants No.1 to 4.

In the result, the Suit is decreed preliminarily with costs in favor of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and Defendants No.1 to 4 are directed to divide suit lands into 6 (six) equal shares by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities, and allot one such share to the Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 by putting them in separate possession of the same after division by metes and bounds.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 21st of January 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Appendix of Evidence: Witnesses Examined:

For the plaintiff: For the defendant:

Pw1 : P.Sandhayarani -None-

Documents marked for the plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is CC of ROR

Ex.A2 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.275/A1

Ex.A3 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.275/RU

Ex.A4 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.276/A

Ex.A5 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.276/R

Ex.A6 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.351/2

Ex.A7 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.403/2

Ex.A8 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.404

Ex.A9 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.423

Ex.A10 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.424

Ex.A11 is CC of pahani for the year 2017-18 in Sy.No.425

Documents marked for the defendant:-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

PRELIMINARY DECREE

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL.

MONDAY DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2019

PRESENT: SRI.K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH Junior Civil Judge, Achampet FAC Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool

OS.No. 281 of 2017

Between:

1. Manda Laxmi W/o Thirupathaiah, age 40 yrs, Occu: house hold,

2. Peddapulla Sandhyarani W/o P.Krishna, age 38 yrs, Occu: house hold, Both are R/o H.No.41-225/4, Wanaparthy town & District.

.... Plaintiffs

AND

1. Peddapulla Balaswamy S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 55 yrs, Occu: Agril.,

2. Peddapulla Venkatswamy S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 38 yrs, Occu: Agril.,

3. Peddapulla Niranjan S/o Late Boya Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, age 40 yrs, All are R/o Peddapalli village of Telkapally mandal.

4. Pullasi Sunitha W/o G.Bhaskar, age 29 yrs, Occu: House hold, R/o Door No.401, Plot No.7475, Vishwa homes, Sriramnagar, behind Botanical gardens, Kondapur post, Serilingampally mandal, R.R.District.

...Defendants

Claim:- Suit for Partition of the suit schedule properties into SIX equal shares by metes and bounds in between the plaintiff and D1 to D4.

-o0o-

Date of Presentation:31-10-2017 Date of Institution:31-10-2017 Cause of action:27-10-2017 at Peddapally village of Telkapally mandal. Value of the Suit:The Suit is valued for Rs.3,56,250/- and its 2/6th share of the plaintiffs comes to Rs.1,18,750/- and 3/4th share comes to Rs.89,625/- on which a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under Section 34 (2) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act. * * * * This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Shyamprasad Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and the defendants remained exparte upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered DOTH ORDER AND DECREE as follows:-

1.That the suit of the plaintiffs be and hereby is decreed preliminarily with costs in favor of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and Defendants No.1 to 4 are directed to divide suit lands into 6 (six) equal shares by taking into consideration the good and bad qualities, and allot one such share to the Plaintiffs No.1 & 2 by putting them in separate possession of the same after division by metes and bounds.

2.That Defendants do pay a sum of Rs.2529/- towards costs of the suit.

Given under my hand the seal of this Court, this the 21st day of January, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet. FAC. JCJ. Nagarkurnool.

Particulars of the Cost

Sl.Defendants ParticularsPlaintiff No.

1.Stamp on plaint200-00Set exparte

2.Stamp on Vakalat2-00-

3.Stamp on Process122-00-

4.Stamp on Exhibits11-00-

5.Pleader’s Feel-- -

6.Miscellaneous Fee 2194-00 - Cost memo filed TOTAL: 2,529-00 -

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool.

NOTE:- The parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all documents (exhibits) which they may wish to preserve as the records will be liable to destroy after three years from this date.

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

That the land in Sy.No.275/1A to an extent of Ac.1.09 gts,

Sy.No.275/RU to an extent of Ac.0.18 gts , Sy.No.276/AA to an extent of

Ac.0.24 gts, Sy.No.276/U to an extent of Ac.0.28 gts, Sy.No.351/2 to an extent Ac.0-21 gts., Sy.No.403/2, Ac.0-07 ½ gts., Sy.No.404, Ac.1- 03 gts., Sy.No.423 Ac.0-07 gts., Sy.No.424 Ac.0-05 gts., Sy.No.425,

Ac.0-35 gts., all the above lands stands in the name of Late Boya

Chinna Balaiah @ Peddapulla Chinna Balaiah, situated at Peddapalli village of Telkapally Mandal.

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet. FAC. JCJ. Nagarkurnool

FORM NO. 8

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT NAGARKURNOOL.

OS.NO. 281 OF 2017

Between: Mandla Laxmi and others …. Plaintiffs

And

Peddapulla Balaswamy and Others … Defendants (Valuation of immovable property Under Section 10 of the APCF & SV Act)

1.Sl. Item of Immovable ONE property

2.Registration District and Mahabubnagar, Nagarkurnool. Sub-District

3.Taluk, Village Property Peddapalli village of Telkapally where property is locatedMandal.

4.Survey No./Sub Divisional Sy.No.275/1A, Sy.No.275/RU Number/House No.Sy.No.276/AA, Sy.No.276/U Sy.No.351/2, Sy.No.403/2, Sy.No.404, Sy.No.423 Sy.No.424, Sy.No.425,

5.ExtentAc.1.09 gts, Ac.0.18 gts , Ac.0.24 gts, Ac.0.28 gts, Ac.0-21 gts., Ac.0-07 ½ gts., Ac.1-03 gts., Ac.0-07 gts., Ac.0-05 gts., Ac.0-35 gts.,

6.Class of lands wet/dryDry

7.Rent value of the land--

8.Market value of the Rs.3,56,250/- land/H.No.

9.Value for the purpose of The Suit is valued for Rs.3,56,250/- and court fee and jurisdiction its 2/6th share of the plaintiffs comes to with the provision of law Rs.1,18,750/- and 3/4th share comes to under which it is valuedRs.89,625/- on which a fixed Court fee of Rs.200/- is paid under Section 34 (2) of A.P.C.F & S.V. Act.

10.Remarks --

Dt: 21-01-2019 Sd/-

Plaintiffs Through

Sd/-

Plaintiff’s Counsel // True Copy //

Superintendent, JCJ Court, Nagarkurnool.

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

Monday, this the 07th day of January, 2019

Present: Sri K.Dasharatha Ramaiah, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

C.C. No. 322 of 2013

Between: The State represented through Sub Inspector, PS. Bijinapally. …Complainant

And

C.Shyamsundar Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, age 36 yrs, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Driver of Car bearing No.AP29-AG-1974, R/o Indrakal village of Tadoor mandal.

...Accused

Section of law: Section 304-A of IPC

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court:Found not guilty

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under 304-A of IPC and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me on 03-12-2018 for final hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri M.Srinivas Guptha, Advocate, for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Bijinapally has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.101/2013 against the accused alleging offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC.

2

2.The brief averments of the prosecution that on 04-06-2013 at 1000 the defacto complainant came to PS and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 30-05-2013 at about 1300 hours, deceased by name Panuganti Kurumamma came to Lingasanipally gate for proceeding to market of Bijinapally and while she was crossing road for boarding bus but at the same time one car bearing No.AP29-AG- 1794 came in a rash and negligent manner from Bijinapally side had given dash to her, as a result the Kurmamma sustained severe multiple bleeding injuries to her hands, legs, head and face.

Immediately Pw1 called 108 Ambulance and shifted her to government area hospital, Nagarkurnool from there to Government headquarters hospital, Mahabubnagar, where the injured was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, while undergoing treatment on 03-06- 2013 at about 2000 hours she died. As such the complainant requested to taking legal action against the car driver.

3.Basing on the above complaint, Pw.9 registered a case in Crime

No.101/2013 U/s. 304-A of IPC and during his investigation, he examined, recorded the statements of Pws.1,2,5 & 6 and visited scene of offence, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws.3 & 4. During further investigation, Pw9 visited

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, where he conducted Inquest panchanama in the presence of same panchas and subjected the deceased body to PME examination. Later the case file was handed over to Pw10, who apprehended the accused on 15.07.2013 and remanded to judicial custody and examined Pw7. During further investigation Pw10 received PME report and MVI reports from Pw7 &

Lw8. After completion of investigation Pw10 filed charge sheet against the accused U/s. 304-A IPC.

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

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.PC.

3

6.The accused was examined under section 251 Cr.PC for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined PW.1 to PW.10 and marked Exhibits as Ex.P1 to P15 on its behalf.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C for explaining the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for defence and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.

10.Now the point for determination is:‘whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the above said offence?

11. The learned counsel for the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 10 to establish the guilt of the accused and mainly relied on the evidence given by Pws.5, 8 to 10 as all other prosecution witnesses had turned hostile including the defacto complainant. During examination in chief of Pw1, he deposed that while he was going to kummera vg, he saw deceased lying on the road with injuries at Lingasanipally and he informed her husband Pw5 and ambulance over phone. Pw1 further deposed that from the scene of offence, deceased was shifted to

Nagarkurnool Hospital for treatment. Pw1 specifically deposed that he haven't witnessed the accident nor he knew anything about the accident. Pw2 husband of deceased turned hostile deposing that Pw1 didn't inform him anything about crime vehicle and he don't know the reason for the death of his wife. Pws.3 & 4 who acted as panch for inquest and scene of offence and Pws.6 & 7 circumstantial witnesses had turned hostile. Pw5, the father of deceased deposed that one car came in rash and negligent manner and gave dash to deceased as a result the deceased succumbed to injuries at Gandhi Hospital, 4

Hyderabad where deceased but in contra, Pw5 deposed that he cannot say registration number of crime vehicle. Pw8 deposed that he issued

MVI report Ex.P10 after inspecting the crime vehicle and Pws.9 & 10 the investigating officers reiterated the entire contents of the charge sheet about the investigation done by them.

12.On the other hand learned counsel for the defense strenuously argued that accused never committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the same cannot be elicited by the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses Pw1 to Pw10. Further it was argued that all other witnesses Pws.1 to 4, 6 & 7 i.e eye witnesses and panch witnesses had turned hostile and nothing corroborative evidence was elicited by prosecution except relying on Pw5, who during his cross admitted that he was examined after 10 days of incident and he didn't state the crime number nor as in Ex.D1 before police. Pw1 in cross admitted that he signed on Ex.P1 at instance of police for compensation amount. Pw8 admitted that he examined crime vehicle at Police station but not at scene of offence. Pw9 admitted that he did not mention crime vehicle number in Ex.P12. The counsel for the accused argued that as it is evident that the allegations on the accused person were not proved nor supported by any independent witnesses as such the accusations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. Hence, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and acquitted.

13.On careful perusal of the entire material available on record and the depositions of Pw1 to Pw10, it is observed that none of the prosecution witnesses had deposed in corroboration with the version of prosecution as to the occurrence of the incident as Pw1 himself deposed in chief itself that he did not witness the accident nor he knew about crime vehicle details but he lodged Ex.P1 at instance of police for compensation. In addition to that, Pws. 2 & 5 I.e husband and father of the deceased also turned hostile, except deposing as to receiving of information about the occurrence of incident from Pw1 and as admitted by Pw5 they filed this case only for compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that all independent eye, circumstantial witnesses or panch witnesses examined as Pws.3,4,6 & 7 had turned hostile deposing against the case of prosecution nor deposing 5 anything in corroborative as to the identity of the accused or crime vehicle which caused the accident. In view of the material available on the record and admissions by the main material witnesses it is evident that the evidence of Pws.1 to 10 is not helpful to the prosecution in any manner to establish the identity of the accused person to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, considering the material available in this case, I’ am of the considered opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

Under sections 304-A of Indian Penal Code and acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C and the accused is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7th day of January, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Prosecution:

PW.1 Palle Balaswamy

PW.2 Panuganti Krishnaiah

PW.3 Polle Chandramouli

PW.4 Panuganti Mallikarjun

Pw.5 Karre Chinnaiah

PW.6 Panuganti Venkataiah

PW.7 Y.Prabhakar settee

PW.8 T.Goverdhan Reddy, MVI.

PW.9 Md. Ibrahim, Head constable.

PW.9 P.Kishan Naik, SI of police.

Defence:-None- 6

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex.P1 is the complaint.

Ex.P2 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.2.

Ex.P4 is signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW.3.

Ex.P5 is signature on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P6 is signature on scene of offence panchanama of PW.4.

Ex.P7 is signature on inquest panchanama.

Ex.P8 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.6.

Ex.P9 is the 161 CrPC statement of PW.7.

Ex.P10 is the MVI report.

Ex.P11 is the FIR.

Ex.P12 is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P13 is the inquest panchanama.

Ex.P14 is the PME report.

Defence:-

Ex.D1 is portion of 161 CrPC statement of Pw.5.

Material Objects marked -NIL –

Judl. Magistrate of First class,

Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

7

Tabular Form with Judgment

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT NAGARKURNOOL

CC.No. 322 of 2013

1Calendar Case No.: CC.No.322 of 2013 2Name of the PS:Bijinapally 3Section of law :304-A of IPC. 4Crime number :101/2013 5Name and description :C.Shyamsundar Reddy S/o Ram of accused Reddy, age 36 yrs, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Driver of Car bearing No.AP29-AG-1974, R/o Indrakal village of Tadoor mandal.

6Date of offence :30-05-2013 7Date of complaint :04-06-2013 8Date of apprehension:15-07-2013 9Released on bail:15-07-2013 10Commencement of trial:13-08-2018 11Close of trial :19-11-2018 12Date of judgement:07-01-2019 13Reason for delay :The prosecution witness has not produced by the police within time.

14Sentence of order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC, and he is acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond and surety bonds of the accused if any shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Judl. Magistrate of First class, Achampet. FAC. JMFC. Nagarkurnool.

Copy submitted to: The hon’ble I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Copy to: The Superintendent of police, Nagarkurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT :: ACHAMPET

Present: SRI.K.DASHARATHA RAMAIAH Junior Civil Judge,

Achampet.

Tuesday, Dated 19 th day of March 2019

O.S.No. 16 of 2017

Between:

Gudi Arjun S/o late G.Krishnaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ:Agril., R/o Komatikunta village of Lingal Mandal.

.. Plaintiff

And

1. Gudi Narsaiah S/o late G.Ramachandri, Age: 64 years.

2. Gudi Shankaraiah S/o late G.Ramachandri, Age: 62 years,

3. Gudi Laxmaiah S/o late G.Ramachandri, Age: 60 years,

4. Gudi Bhagavanthu S/o late G.Ramachandri, Age: 58 years,

5. Gudi Yugender S/o G.Narsaiah, Age: 30 years,

6. Gudi Saibabu S/o G.Narsaiah, Age: 28 years.

7. Gudi Ramesh S/I G.Narsaiah,age: 26 yers, All Occ: Agril., R/o Komatikunta village of Lingal mandal.

…. Defendants

This suit is coming for final hearing on this day 07.03. 2019

before me in the presence of Sri.G.Venkateshwar Rao & B.Jeevan Kumar,

Advocate for plaintiff and Sri.A.Arjun rao & Sri.P.Sattaiah, Advocates for defendants, upon hearing both counsels, perusal material on record and matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit for Perpetual Injunction is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants restraining them from interference in peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect lands situated in Sy.No.43/Ru to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., & Sy.No.43/A to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., situated in Komatikunta vg of

Lingal Mandal of Nagarkurnool Dist. (Herein after referred as Suit Scheduled property for brevity).

02. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is:-

That the plaintiff and Def.No.1 to 4 are agnates and Def.No.5 & 6 are sons of Def.No.1. That the suit schedule property is an ancestral property of plaintiff’s father G.Krishnaiah who died long back, after his death the plaintiff succeeded the suit schedule property which were mutated in all revenue records, got issued Pattadar passbook, title deed from Tahsildar

Office, Lingal and continuing in possession till date. Whereas, defendants being adjacent land owners had demanded plaintiff to leave cart way through middle of the suit schedule property and on plaintiff’s refusal, all defendants bore grudge against him though they are having no right or title over the suit lands had came over suit scheduled property on 10.04.2017 created nuisance by obstructing the plaintiff who was getting ready for cultivation which was successfully restrained by plaintiff with the help of neighbors but defendants along with their supporters while leaving the suit scheduled property threatened plaintiff to occupy by coming with more force in a day or two, as such the plaintiff apprehends danger to his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit scheduled property. Hence, this suit.

03.After receipt of summons from the court, Defendants filed their detail written statement denying all contentions made against them in toto and further submit that the land in Sy.No.43/A to an extent of Ac.9.00 gts., situated in Komatikunta vg was originally belong to one Chinna Bachanna i.e., grandfather of plaintiff & Def.No.1 to 3. It is submitted that after death of

Chinna Bachanna the entire land was mutated an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., each in the name of his wife Smt.Chintalamma and three sons (Ramachandraiah,

Narsimha & Krishnaiah) and after their death, the share of Ramachandraiah (Ac.2.10gts.,) was mutated in the name of plaintiff, with which the another share to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., of Smt.Chintalamma was also got mutated by plaintiff without any valid document as defendants reside in Hyderabad even though Defendants & wife of late Narsimha also got right over the share of Smt.Chintalamma. It is further submitted that share of Late Narsimha ought to have mutated in the name of his wife Lingamma who is still alive but the same was mutated in the name of plaintiff’s brother Devendram without any valid document. The defendant do submit that an extent of

Ac.9.00 gts., in Sy.No.43/A is cultivated jointly without any parition by both plaintiff, defendants 1 to 5 and Smt.Lingamma as they all have rights over the said land being ancestral property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs, as the plaintiff filed the same mis-representing and suppressing the real facts to occupy the suit schedule property from the defendants.

04.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have settled for trial; (1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property?

(3) To what relief?

05.During the trial the plaintiff examined himself as Pw1 and Tokala

Ramulamma & Devaiah as Pws.2 & 3. Marked Exs.A1 to A6. As plaintiff counsel had failed to produce Pws.2 & 3 even on giving ample time and opportunity, even on allowing IA.No.217/18 recalling Pws.2 & 3, they were not produced causing delay as such this court was constrained to close plaintiff evidence. On behalf of Defendants they chose not to put forth any evidence on their behalf, hence defendants evidence was closed.

06.In brief the evidence from plaintiff side through Pws.1 to 3 in their chief affidavits is on the same lines as averred in the plaint reiterating the entire contents and documents on which the plaintiff relied upon. During cross, Pw1 admitted that his grand father Buchanna is having three sons

Ramchandraiah, Narsiah and his father G.Krishnaiah and after death of his grand father an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., in Sy.No.43/A was mutated in the names of his three sons and wife Chintalamma. Pw1 do admitted that all brothers of his father and Chintalamma died and Narsimha who is issue less had left his wife Lingamma as legal heir. Pw1 admitted that land of

Ramchandraiah was transferred in the name of Def.No.1 to 3 and that

Lingamma, Def.No.1 to 3 are having equal share in land of Chintalamma I.e grandmother of plaintiff. Pw1 admitted that an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., in

Sy.No.43/A belong to Lingamma was mutated in the name of his brother

Devendram. Pw1 specifically admitted that he along with Def.No.1 to 3, his elder brother Devendram are jointly cultivating total extent of Ac.9.00 gts., as per their understanding without partitioning it by metes and bounds.

07.Heard both sides.

08.Issue Nos.1 & 2 : In order to adjudicate the matter in dispute, it is just and necessary to discuss both Issues No.1 & 2 together; (1) Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint scheduled property?

(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants?

(a)On perusal of the record and documents marked on behalf of plaintiff, it is noted that the actual total extent of land in

Sy.No.43/A is about Ac.9.00 gts., which originally belongs to one

Chinna Bachanna i.e., grandfather of plaintiff & Def.No.1 to 3, after his death, the said land was mutated in the name of his wife Smt.Chintalamma and three sons namely Ramachandraiah,

Narsimha & Krishnaiah to an extent of Ac.2.10 gts., each. The actual dispute crops after their death, as the share of

Ramachandraiah i.e., Ac.2.10gts along with the share of

Smt.Chintalamma (grandmother of plaintiff) was mutated by plaintiff in his name without any valid document even though the remaining legal heirs i.e., Lingamma w/o Late Narsaiah and

Def.No.1 to 3 are having equal share in that land.

(b)More so, it is specifically admitted by plaintiff that the share of Late Narsimha which should have mutated in the name of his living wife Lingamma was mutated in the name of plaintiff’s brother Devendram without any valid document. In contra to his own pleadings, Plaintiff had admitted without any hesitation that the land in Sy.No.43/A to an extent of Ac.9.00 gts., is jointly cultivated by him along with his elder brother Devendram and

Def.No.1 to 3 as per understanding without any partition by metes and bounds till date. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff apart from admitting that the suit schedule property was mutated in his name without any valid document, the same reflects through Exs.A1 to A6 in which no mode of acquisition mentioned except that plaintiff as pattadar.

(c) As it is evident from the record that plaintiff had misrepresented the facts of acquisition and mode of possession over the suit scheduled property even going to an extent of mentioning the defendants as his adjacent land owners, of which none of them were mentioned as adjacent land in the schedule of property annexed to the plaint. It is well known principle that plaintiff had to approach court with clean hands and without suppressing the real facts as to any legal right or liability of any facts which he asserts. In the present suit plaintiff had approached this court with unclean hands and failed to show that he got prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favor as the same was sufficiently negated by defendants consistently eliciting cogent evidence through plaintiff himself.

In the light of the above discussion, it is clear and evident that plaintiff had failed to establish that he is exclusively in possession, enjoyment over suit schedule property as on the date of filing of this suit and that the defendants are interfering in his peaceful possession and enjoyment, therefore the Issue Nos.1 & 2 are decided in favor of defendants and against the plaintiff.

9.Issue No.3 : If so, to what relief?

As issue Nos.1 & 2 were answered accordingly in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff and in lieu of above detailed discussion, this suit is dismissed with costs.

In the result : In the result the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed, dictated, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 19th day of March 2019.

Junior Civil Judge Achampet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTs:

PW-1 : Gudi Arjun - None -

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex-A1 : Original pattadar pass book of plaintiff Ex.A2 : C.C. of RO.R. Ex.A3 : C.C. of pahani of Sy.No.43/AA for 1425 Fasli Ex.A4 : C.C. of Pahani of Sy.No.43/Ru for 1425 Fasli Ex.A5 : C.C. of pahani of Sy.No.43/AA for 1426 Fasli Ex.A6 : C.C. of Pahani of Sy.No.43/Ru for 1426 Fasli

FOR DEFENDANTS: - None –

Junior Civil Judge, Achampet