Sri K. Kusha

1

IN THE COURT OF VII-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this is the 24th day of April, 2012

PRESENT: K. Kusha, B.com, LL.M., VII. Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE NO.220 of 2011

Between:

The State of A.P represented through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Wardhannapet . …Complainant

AND

Madhukar Bangar, S/o Aba Bangar, 61 Yrs, Caste: Vanjari, Driver of the Car bearing No. AP.9.B.Y3734, R/o H.No.18-55-9, MES Colony, Alwal, Secunderabad.. …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.R.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for Accused and upon perusing the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Wardhannapet has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.92 of 2011 for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 8.6.2011 at 14.00 hours the complainant LW.1

Arepally Raju came to PS and gave written complaint stating that on 7.1.2011 at about 2030 hours while his father by name Arepally

Uppalaiah was coming by walk near Wardhannapet old bus stop in front of Dakshinamurthy 's welding shop, in the mean time Fiat car bearing No. AP.09.B7 3734 which was proceeding from Khammam towards Warangal in a rash and negligent manner with high speed 2 and dashed the pedestrian i.e. his father as a result of which his father tossed and fell down on the car's front glass and fell on the road and sustained severe injuries on fore head and left knee. In the mean time one Kondeti Suman. Md.Nayeem and Kondeti Srinu witnessed the incident and informed the icident, shifted to Ravinder

Reddy Hospital and later MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment for better treatment and requested for necessary action

3.On receipt of complaint from complainant, LW.10-M.Narsimha

Ramulu, ASI of Police has registered the crime and investigated the matter by recording the statement of defacto complainant, LW.2-

K.Suman, L.W.3-Mohd Nayeemuddin and LW.4-K.Srinivas, visited the scene of offence and drafted the crime detail form in the presence of mediators LW.6-B.Kumar and LW.7-G.Anandam, later proceeded to MGM Hospital, Warangal examined LW.5-Arepally

Uppalaia and recorded his statement and filed requisition to Medical

Officer to issue wound certificate. During the course of investigation,

LW.11-G.Srinivas Raju, SI of Police, Wardhannapet has took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by ASI of Police and found it on correct lines. After collecting injury certificate and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet.

4.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, case copies were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and examined under Section 251 Cr.PC and the substance of the accusation of the offence was read over and explained to him, for which he denied the 3 allegations leveled against him, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Exs-P1 to P7. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant,

PW.2 to PW.4 are eye witnesses to the incident, PW.5 is the injured and father of PW.1, PW.6 is the panch witness for CDF, PW.7 and

PW.8 are the investigating officers, PW.9 is the Assistant Professor,

Department of Radiology , who issued X-ray Report and PW.10 is the

Civil Assistant Surgeon who treated the injured LW.5 and issued medical certificate.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against himself in the evidence on record and pleaded false implication. However, no evidence was let-in in defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10.POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has to establish that the accused being the driver of lorry bearing No.

AP.09.By 3734 drove the same in rash and negligent manner endangering human life and thereby caused grievous injuries to the pedestrian by name Arepally Uppalaiah.

4

11.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 to PW.10.

12.In so far as, the injury to PW.5 is concerned there is no dispute.

13.Now the only aspect to be determined whether the accused by doing rash and negligent act has caused grievous hurt to

PW.5.

14.To establish above fact, the prosecution has placed the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 5, besides the evidence of PW.7 and

PW.8 the police officials.

15.PW1 is the son of injured/defacto complainant categorically deposed that on 7.6.2011 at about 8.30 p.m, LW.3

Mohd Naimuddin informed to him that his father Arepally Uppalaiah met with accident near old bus stop of Wardhannapet, immediately rushed to the place and found his father having injuries and also noticed a car bearing No. AP.09 3734. He further deposed that he also noticed the driver of the car and identified as accused and on the next day morning went to PS and gave Ex.P1.

16.PW.2 to PW.4 who claims to be eye witnesses to the incident also deposed that on 7.6.2011 at 8 p.m, they saw the accident where the accused being the driver of the car came from

Khammam in high speed and dashed the pedestrian Arepally

Uppalaiah who sustained grievous injuries.

5

17.PW.7 one of the investigating officer had deposed that on 14.6.2011 arrested the accused who voluntarily surrendered by confessing as to the crime.

18.PW.8 another investigating officer has deposed that on 8.6.2011 at 2 p.m, PW.1 came to PS and gave Ex.P1 complaint.

Thereafter investigated the matter by recording the statement of defacto-complainant, PW.2 to PW.4 and examined the injured in the hospital and he further speaks that about conducting of scene of offence panchanama.

19.Ex.P1 is the complaint given on 8.6.2011 at 2 p.m,. the incident took place on 7.6.2011 at 8.30 p.m. There is a delay of more that 12 hours. PW.1 has explained the delay that because none was there to lookafter his father PW.5 in the hospital as such he did not give any complaint immediately after the accident. EX.P1 also disclose that the name of the driver of the crime vehicle, name of the eye witnesses. PW.2 to PW.4 categorically deposed that one car came from Khammam in high speed and gave dash to the pedestrian who was going to home by foot. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 that the accused car was coming from

Khammam side and proceeding to Warangal side. Ex.P5 CDF also discloses that the direction of the car. The incident took place on the left side of the road while proceeding to Khammam to Warangal side.

PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 who claims to be eye witnesses categorically deposed that the accused by driving the car in high speed the accident took place. PW.2 to PW.4 did not choose to apprehend the accused though he was there. PW.4 one of the eye witness further 6 states that the accused also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to PW.5 towards treatment. Though, the accident was not taken place without rash and negligent act. He further says that the accused was sent to home. If at all, the evidence of PW.4 is taken to be true and correct then the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 has to be ruled out with regard to the rash and negligent act on the part of the accused. Even otherwise, Pw.2 and PW.3 simply stated the accused car came in high speed and came in contact with the pedestrian (PW.5).

20. During the course of cross examination PW.3 says the injured (PW.5) was under the influence of alcohol at the time of accident. Pw.5 the injured himself also admits that occasionally he used to consume toddy. All the prosecution witnesses were suggested that the pedestrian (PW.5) came in contact with the moving car as he is under the influence of alcohol. The evidence of

PW.3 would suggest that how PW.1 has given complaint Ex.P1 after lapse of 12 hours. PW.1 also admits that the accused has paid an amount of Rs10,000/- towards medical expenses. PW.4 also says that the accused paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- . PW.1 was suggested that to extract more money from the accused Ex.P1 complaint was attended. If at all , PW.5 has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent act on the part of the accused, certainly PW.1 to PW.4 who were there would have apprehended the accused and produced before the PW.8 Investigating officer along with Ex.P1 complaint for necessary action. Though, the delay was explained but still it goes unsatisfactory. If at all, PW.1 was busy with attending medica attention to his father PW.5, then what about PW.2 7 to PW.4. Therefore, this Court feels that the prosecution is trying to suppress the origin of the manner of incident. It appears that the accident has not occurred as stated by PW.1 to PW.4 and PW.5.

21.The whole evidence of prosecution suffers with suspicion/doubt with regard to the manner of the accident. It is needless to emphasis that however suspicion is grave and strong but cannot substitute the place of legal proof, therefore benefit must be given to accused.

22.On careful consideration of the entire evidence that of

PW.1 to PW.10 coupled with Ex.P1 to P7, this court feels that this is a case where there is ample evidence with regard to the injury to

PW.5, but, in so far as rash and negligent act is concerned there is no acceptable evidence and thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC.

Consequently the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC and acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April,

2012).

Sd/- (K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – A.Raju-NIL- PW2 – Mohammed Nayeemuddin PW3 – K.Suman 8

PW4 – K.Srinivas PW5 – A.Uppalaiah PW6 -B.Kumar PW7 -G.Srinivas Raj PW8 -M.Narsimha Ramulu PW9 -Dr.T.Sreedevi PW10-Dr.Ravi Kiran

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex-P1 is the complaint of PW.1 Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex-P3 is the signature of PW.6 on CDF Ex-P4 is the FIR Ex-P5 is the CDF Ex-P6 is the Radiologist Report of PW.5 Ex.P7 is the Wound Certificate of PW.5

FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/- (K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL

IN THE COURT OF VII-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL

Friday, this is the 20th day of April, 2012

PRESENT: K. Kusha, B.com, LL.M., VII. Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE NO. 207 of 2011 Between:

The State of A.P represented through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Madikonda …Complainant

AND A1 Narra Papaiah, S/o Narsaiah, 40 Yrs, Mudiraj, Business A2 Narra Naresh, S/o Papaiah, 21 Yrs, Mudiraj, Student both R/o Madikonda village. …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.R.Bhasker Reddy, Counsel for Accused persons and upon perusing the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Madikonda has filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.81/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that on 18.6.2011 night LW.1 alone went to Peddakatta

Cheruvu, Madikonda for attend calls of nature, on seeing alone A1 and A2 followed him at about 2030 hours abused him in filthy language and beat with sticks and caused injuries to his right hands wrist and left hand elbow, when he raised hue and cries, the Lws.2 to 4 rushed to scene, on seeing them A1 and A2 were abused them in filthy language and beat them with sticks and hands indiscriminately as a result of which LW.2 received injuries to his forehead, LW.3 received injuries to his lip and right hand elbow and

LW.4 received injuries on her stomach.

3.On receipt of said complaint, the LW.9 SHO ASI/1173 HAS registered a crime by investigating the matter and recorded the statement of LW.1 to LW.4 and referred them to MGM Hospital,

Warangal for treatment and wound certificate, visited the scene of offence at Peddacheruvukunta , examined the scene, incorporated all physical features of the scene in crime detail form in the presence of LW.6- and LW.7- , drawn rough sketch of the scene, secured the presence of LW.5 examined and recorded his statement.

Subsequently LW.10 SI of Police took up further investigation of this case, verified the investigation of HC found it on proper lines. On 21.6.2011 at 1100 hours he arrested A1 and A2 and produced them

before the Court for judicial remand. After receipt of medical

certificate and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Hence the Charge.

4.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC and on appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C, and on considering the material on record and upon hearing, a charge under Section 324 r/w 34 of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them, for which they denied the allegation leveled against them , pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs-P1 to P6.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against themselves in the evidence on record and pleaded false implication. However, they did not choose to examine any evidence in defence.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10.POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has to establish that the accused with a common intention has caused hurt to PW.1 to PW.3 and LW.3 K.Rajender with deadly weapons or by any other means?

11.The evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.1 to PW.8.

12.According to prosecution, A1 and A2 attacked the defacto- complainant/Injured K.Ramesh on 18.6.2011 at 8.30 p.m, while he went to attend calls of nature towards Peddakatta cheruvu meanwhile on hearing the cries PW.2, PW.3, LW.3 K.Rajender intervened but the accused also beat them and caused injuries. PW1 gave complaint at about 9.45 p.m. There is no delay in lodging the complaint. PW1 categorically deposed that at about 8.30 p.m, while going to attend calls of nature situated near Peddakatta cheruvu at that time A1 and A2 on seeing way laid and attacked with sticks and caused hurt on right hand wrist and left eye elbow when raised hue and cry PW.2, PW.3 and LW.3 K.Rajender who are parents came to rescue but the accused did not left them and also caused injuries.

PW.2 also stated that on hearing cries went there and found A1 and

A2 attacking PW.1 with sticks when intervened the accused also beat him

13. PW.3 also deposed in similar passion.

14.PW.4 and PW.5 who claims to be eye witnesses to the incident did not support and turned hostile. PW.6 also turned hostile. The prosecution did not choose to examine the medical officer Dr.K.Krishna Chaitanya who treated PW.1 to PW.3 and LW.3

K.Rajender. Police also filed report stating that the said medical officer has resigned from the service and whereabout are not known. Therefore, the evidence of LW.8 Medical Officer Dr.K.Krishna

Chaitanya has been closed. Thus, there is no corroborating evidence showing that PW.1 to PW.3 sustained injuries. Even the prosecution did not try to get mark the medical certificate by invoking provision U/Sec.294 of Cr.P.C.

15.PW.4 to PW.6 eye witnesses turned hostile and they went on saying that they have not witnessed any incident which took place in between PW.1 to PW.3 and accused.

16.PW.1 to PW.3 during cross examination has admitted that there are no street lights at the place of incident and it was dark. PW.2 and PW.3 admits that on the complaint given by A1 they were found guilty and were imposed fine by the Court. Pws.1 to 3 were suggested that since PW.2 and PW.3 paid fine and only to counter blast said case this complaint was given. PW.1 also admits that for the last seven years he is not staying in the village

Madikonda only on that day he has come to see her parents PW.2 and PW.3. The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is corroborating about the attack. PW.1 to PW.3 further says that the entire incident took place in a dark time. If such being the position, how could PW.1 to

PW.3 say which accused has beat and caused injuries. PW.1 further admits that one of his brother-in-law is SI of Police in Warangal

District. He further suggested that with the influence of said SI of

Police Ex.P1 complaint was foisted.

17.Therefore, the entire evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is interested one. All the witnesses admits that they were penalized by the Court on the complaint of A1. PW.4 to PW.6 who claims to be eye witnesses to the incident did not come forward to strengthen their testimony. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence their cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, only on the date of incident PW.1 has come to the village Madikonda to see the parents after lapse of seven days. If it is so, how the accused had a chance to attack him. Even otherwise, the enmity in between PW.2 and A1 and A2. Therefore, the admission of PW.1 to PW.3 that the incident took place in dark time goes to show that as to whether the accused really attacked and caused.

18.It is the case of the accused is that while PW.1 to PW.3 and LW3 K.Rajender trying to chase them and while attacking fell down and sustained injuries. PW.8 the investigating officer states that he did not examine any witnesses from Madikonda village. He further deposed that there is no Pochamma temple on the tank bund. He further says that he does not know whether the accused gave any complaint against PW.1 to PW.3 on the date of complaint of PW.1. PW.7 and PW.8 were suggested that the complaint given by the accused has been suppressed with the influence of one SI brother-in-law of PW.1, this case has been foisted. Non-examination of Medical Officer is fatal to the prosecution case since it failed to establish that Pws.1 to 3 sustained injuries. Therefore, the entire evidence of prosecution has to be viewed with suspicious/doubt whether A1 and A2 attacked PW.1 to PW.3 in dark time which is on the Peddakatta cheruvu (tank bund) where there are no street light.

19.It is settled that however suspicion is grave and strong but cannot takes the place of legal proof, the benefit which is accrued should be given to the accused.

20.On careful consideration of the entire evidence that of

PW.1 to PW.8 coupled with ExP1 to P6, this court feels that prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

21In the result:- A1 and A2 are found not guilty of the offence punishable U/Sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC and acquitted

U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands discharged.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2012).

Sd/- (K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – K.Ramesh-NIL- PW2 – K.Nagaiah PW3 – K.Vanamala PW4 - D.Raju PW5 - G.Goutham PW6 - P.Venu PW7 - S.Venkatesh PW8 - A.P.Komurelly

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex-P1 is the complaint of PW.1 Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex-P3 is the signature of PW.5 on CDF Ex-P4 is the signature of PW.6 on CDF Ex-P5 is the FIR Ex.P6 is the CDF

FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/- (K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF VII-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this is the 24th day of April, 2012

PRESENT: K. Kusha, B.com, LL.M., VII. Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

CALENDER CASE NO. 218 of 2011 Between:

The State of A.P represented through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Madikonda …Complainant

AND A1 Katukuri Sharath Babu, S/o Komuraiah, 40 Yrs, Madiga A2 Naskuri Bobbili Raju, S/o Cheralu, Age:20 Yrs, Madiga A3 Katukuri Kamalakar, S/o Yellaiah, 22 Yrs, Madiga A4 Katukuri Raju, S/o Dudaiah, 27 Yrs, Madiga All R/o Narsimhulagudem Village …Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for State/Complainant and of Sri.B.Rajendra Kumar, Counsel for Accused persons and upon perusing the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Madikonda has filed charge sheet against the accused persons in Cr.No.97/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 290, 323, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that about 30 years back the father of LW.1 by Venkata

Swamy purchased 16 guntas land from Thokala Narayana Reddy since then father of LW.1 enjoying the said land, installed bore well and cultivating crops. While situation stood like wise, his father sold his land to A1 without his knowledge, on came to know this, on 2.7.2011, evening he went to the house of A1 and asked him as to why purchased the said land from his father without his knowledge, in this regard some altercation took place, later he returned back to his home. Keeping the above incident in mind, A1 with the assistance of A2 to A4 came to his house on the same night at about 2200 hours and illegally trespassed into the house and abused

Venkata Swamy, L.Rena, L.Rajashekar and L.Eshwar in filthy language and beat them with hands as to why questioned them about purchase of land from his father and threatened him with dire consequence that they will kill all the family members, if again raise any problem.

3.On receipt of said complaint, the LW.9.S.Venkatesham, SI of

Police registered a crime by investigating the matter and recorded the statement of Venkata Swamy, L.Rena, L.Rajashekar and L.Eshwar, visited the scene of offence at Narsimhulagudem village, examined the scene, incorporated all physical features of the scene in crime detail form in the presence of LW.7-P.Prabhaker

Reddy and LW.8-B.Sridhar , drawn rough sketch of the scene, secured the presence of LW.5-V.Kumaraswamy and LW.6-V.Komala examined and recorded their detailed statement. On 7.7.2011 at 0730 hours he arrested A1 to A4 and produced them before the

Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Hence the Charge.

4.This case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 290, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and on appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused were examined under Section 251 Cr.PC and the substance of the accusation of the offences was read over and explained to them, for which they denied the allegations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P3.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.PC, for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against themselves in the evidence on record and pleaded false implication. However, they did not choose to examine any evidence in defence.

8.Heard arguments from both sides.

9.Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

10.POINT:

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution invariably has to establish that the accused with a common intention has voluntarily caused hurt to Vekata Swamy ,

L.Rena, L.Rajeshekar and L.Eshwar and also threatened with dire consequences.

11.The evidence available on record is the sole evidence of

PW.1 who is none other than the police official.

12. The prosecution did not choose to examine the defacto- complainantL.VekataSwamy/victim,LW.2L.Rena,LW.3

L.Rajashekar and LW.4 L.Eshwar who are said to be other victims in the hands of the accused though even after availing unwarranted time since 28.10.2011. The prosecution even did not try to secure their presence by invoking provision U/Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C. It appears that the prosecution is not interested in getting the presence of the victim. Similarly, the prosecution also did not choose to examine eye witnesses B.Kumaraswamy. Thus, the evidence left on records is the evidence of PW.1 investigating officer who deposed about the line of investigation and laying of charge sheet. Even according to him none of the proposed prosecution witnesses as stated supra received injuries. Ex.P1 is the complaint of LW.1 which has no bearing since author was not examined. The evidence of

PW.1 goes to shows that the accused confessed about the crime and even if it is true still inadmissible in evidence in view of ridder

U/Sec.25 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Therefore, the evidence of

PW.1 is not helpful to prove the charges against the accused. There is no incriminating evidence.

13.Thus, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of charges against A1 to A4. Consequently the accused are entitled for acquittal.

14.In the result:- A1 to A4 are found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.448, 290, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and acquitted U/Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands discharged.

(Dictated to Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2012).

Sd/-(K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 – S.Venkatesham-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex-P1 is the complaint of PW.1 Ex-P2 is the FIR Ex.P3 is the CDF

FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-(K.KUSHA),

VII-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

WARANGAL.

Tuesday, this the 4th day of March, 2014.

Present :- Sri K.Kusha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No.776 of 2013

Between:-

Siddoju Mallaiah … Plaintiff

And

1. Musuku Krishna kanth

2. Musuku Ramakrishna

3. Musuku Shanthi

4. Budde Venkateshwarlu

5. Allam Balanagamma … Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Manoher Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction.

2.The defendants 1 to 50 though made appearance through P.

Sadasiva Rao, but did not chose to file written statement within the statutory period including period U/s 148 of CPC, as such, right has been forfeited.

3.To prove suit claim, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW1 and deposed that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0.33 gts., forming part of Sy.No.478/B of Vangapahad village of Hasanparthy Mandal and thereafter, sold away land to an 2 extent of Ac.0.20 gts., to Musuku Kistaiah by retaining the remaining land to an extent of Ac.0.13 gts and enjoying the same peaceably.

4.He further deposed that the defendants 4 and 5 who purchased lands in adjacent survey numbers from Defendants 1 to 3 are trying to interfering into the suit schedule property without having any title, right or interest.

5.The plaintiff in support of said evidence, also got marked Exs.A1 to A12 which are pahani patrikas right from the year 1985-86 to 2006-

07. The plaintiff did not chose to file the pahani patrikas for the subsequent years till filing of the suit in the year 2013. The plaintiff also did not examine the person by name Musuku Kistaiah to whom an area of Ac.0.20 gts sold to him. Exs.A1 to A12 documents shows that the plaintiff is in possession of Ac.0.33 gts of Sy.No.478/B. There is no evidence showing that the plaintiff is in possession of Ac.0.13 gts., of land in Sy.No.478/B which is the suit property. The plaintiff did not chose to file any concrete piece of evidence showing that the suit schedule property has been retained after selling land to Musuku

Kistaiah.

6.In a suit for perpetual injunction, it is for the plaintiff to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience much less possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Exs.A1 to A12 are the documents right from 1985-1986 to 2006-07. But, the plaintiff, did not filed subsequent documents in order to show that still he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

Thus, the plaintiff failed to make out any prima facie case. The plaintiff cannot take any advantage of non-filing of written statement 3 by the defendants. The plaintiff is duty bound and obligation to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and hardship so as to grant the relief of perpetual injunction, which is based on equity.

The evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A12 does not make out the aforesaid principles. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief of perpetual injunction.

6.In the result, the suit is dismissed.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of March, 2014.)

sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW-1 : Siddoju Mallaiah- Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 : Original memo issued by the Tahasildar, Hasanparthy under RTI Act. Ex.A2 : CC of pahani patrika for the year 1985-86 Ex.A3: CC of pahani patrika for the year 1995-96 Ex.A4: CC of pahani patrika for the year 1997-98 Ex.A5: CC of pahani patrika for the year 1998-99 Ex.A6: CC of pahani patrika for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A7: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2000-2001 Ex.A8: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2002-03 Ex.A9: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2003-04 Ex.A10: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2004-05 Ex.A11: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2005-06 Ex.A12: CC of pahani patrika for the year 2006-07 For Defendants:

- Nil -

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

//True copy//

1 O.S.No.209/2010

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

WARANGAL.

Wednesday, this the 26th day of February, 2014.

Present :- Sri K.Kusha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Warangal.

O.S.No.209 of 2010

Between:-

1. Nagapuri Kumaraswamy

2. Garlapati Surender Reddy … Plaintiffs

And

Godasi Srinivas … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Ramanakar Raj, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of Sri P. Surender Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

This is a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction.

2.The brief facts of the plaintiff case as set out in the plaint are that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit plot, having purchased the same through registered Sale Deed vide document No.1950/90, dt.13.8.1990. Thereafter, sold away the same to second plaintiff on 20.2.2010 through an Agreement of Sale for family needs and necessities. The defendant son of Godasi Mallaiah original land owner started interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Accordingly, an attempt was made on 21.2.2010 and thus, not allowing to construct compound wall. Thus, sought relief of perpetual injunction.

2 O.S.No.209/2010

3.The sole defendant has resisted the above averments by way of written statement by denying and inter-alia submitted that his father is the absolute owner and possessor of entire land in Sy.No.935 and 936 to an extent of Ac.0.20 gts and the same was never sold to anybody through GPA Holder nor attested by him.

4.The defendant further submits that previously, the plaintiff, along with N. Sudhakar and T. Rajalaxmi filed O.S.No.292/1994 on the file of II Addl. Junior Civil Judge's Court, Warangal for rectification of survey numbers from 935 and 936 to survey numbers 945 and 946 in the Sale Deeds vide document No.1950/90, 1949/90 and 1954/90 against Godasi Mallaiah and N. Venkateswamy and that the suit was dismissed for default on 13.3.1997. The plaintiff never constructed any compound wall around the suit plot, now trying to occupy the same under the guise of present suit and thus, there is no cause of action and suit is liable to be dismissed.

5.Based on the above pleadings, this Court has settled the following issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the defendant herein has filed memo on 8.10.2010 stating that in view of settlement outside the court, he has executed a Deed of Rectification vide document No.3635/2010, dt.10.5.2010 in respect of suit survey number, as such, the suit may be decreed in favour of the second plaintiff alone. The plaintiff has received notice and made an endorsement of no objection.

3 O.S.No.209/2010

7.Perhaps, the plaintiff by virtue of said memo has not lead any evidence in support of above issues. The plaintiff counsel urged that in view of memo filed by the defendant, there are no triable issues except decreeing the suit infavour of the second plaintiff.

8.The plaintiffs has sought the relief for perpetual injunction against the defendant in respect of suit schedule plot admeasuring 262.46 square yards denoted with plot no.12 situated in Sy.No.945 and 946. The memo filed by the defendant further goes to show that he has executed a Rectification Deed vide document No.3635/10, dt.10.5.2010 and also sought to decree the suit. Thus, the memo by itself goes to show that the defendant has made an admission for grant of injunction. Therefore, the plaintiff no.2 is entitle for

Judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC.

9.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed restraining the defendant permanently from interfering into the peaceful enjoyment of the plaintiff no.2 over suit schedule property. However, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after her transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of February, 2014.)

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- Nil -

Sd/-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.