Smt. K.Nickysha

Fair 1 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Karanjia Nickysha, II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First-Class Jagtial. Friday, the 08th day of May, 2026

CC No.187 of 2018

(Cr.No.66 of 2018 of P.S.,Gollapally)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Gollapally.

.... Complainant.

//AND//

Davu Jalapathi, S/o.Chinna Mallaiah, Age:38 years, R/o. Laxmipoor village of Gollapalli mandal.

…..Accused

* * * * * This case is coming before me on 08.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri. B. Ramesh, Advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Gollapally, has filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.66 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles

Act (hereinafter referred to as “MV Act”).

Fair 2 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.05.2016 at about 12:30 hours, the complainant, Vengaladasu Ramya, lodged a written complaint at Gollapally Police Station stating that she is a resident of

Laxmipoor village and ekes out her livelihood by doing beedi work. Her husband had gone abroad to Saudi Arabia for livelihood. She has two sons, namely Pranay and Ritwik. On 05.05.2018 at about 9:30 AM, she left her sons at home and proceeded to Jagtial on personal work.

While she was near Chilvakodur village at about 10:10 AM, one of her villagers, Dasari Rajitha, informed her over phone that her elder son,

Vengaladasu Pranay, had met with an accident. It was stated that her son had run away from home and reached the road, and at the same time, her villager, Davu Jalapathi, was proceeding to the village and drove his tractor bearing registration No.AP-15-AX-9316 in a rash and negligent manner with excessive speed and dashed against her son from the opposite direction. As a result, her son sustained severe bleeding injuries on his head. Noticing the same, her brother-in-law's sons, Vengaladas Rakesh and Vengaladas Venkatesh, shifted her son to the Government Hospital at Jagtial. The complainant also rushed to the hospital, where the doctors declared that her son was brought dead at about 10:50 AM. Hence, she requested necessary action.

Fair 3 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

3.On receipt of the complaint, LW.13 registered a case in Crime

No.66 of 2018 under Section 304-A of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the investigation, he examined LW.1 and recorded her statement at the police station. After completion of the entire investigation, LW.14/P. Kiran Kumar filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable under

Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act against the accused.

5.Upon appearance of the accused, copies of the documents relating to the case were furnished to him, as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6.The accused was examined under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., explaining the

Fair 4 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 incriminating material appearing against him. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the

IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act beyond reasonable

doubt.

POINT:-

11.The prosecution cited fourteen witnesses, out of whom it examined nine. PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the relative of the deceased. PW.3 is the grandmother of the deceased. PW.4 is the photographer. PW.5 is the panch witness for inquest. PW.6 is the panch witness for the crime details form. PW.7 is the eyewitness. PW.8 is the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the corpse of the deceased. PW.9 is the investigating officer who filed the charge sheet.

The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8.

12.PW.1 (V. Ramya) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at about 9:30 AM, she left her home for Jagtial on some work, leaving her two sons –

Pranay (aged 6 years) and Ritwik (aged 3 years) – at home. She reached Chilvakodur village around 10:10 AM. At that time, she

Fair 5 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 received a phone call from LW.6, who informed her that her elder son,

Pranay, had met with an accident caused by the accused by hitting him with a tractor bearing registration No. AP 15 AX 9316. She stated that her son sustained a severe bleeding injury on the left side of his head. She also claimed that she saw the incident. By the time she reached home, LW.2 and LW.3 had already shifted her elder son to the hospital. She went to the hospital, and at 10:50 AM on the same day, the doctors at the Government Hospital, Jagtial, declared her son as brought dead. On the same day, she lodged a report before Gollapalli

Police Station with regard to the incident. The witness identified her signature on the report, and the same was marked as Ex.P1. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she came to know the crime vehicle number from the police. She further admitted that she did not witness the incident. She denied the suggestion that she had left her children with her mother-in-law and that her elder son came out of the house crying for her. She further stated that her elder son was playing outside her house at that time. She admitted that there is a pathway from her house to the scene of offence. She denied the suggestion that her son came running and fell under the tractor driven by the accused, and that there was no negligence on the part of the accused. She further admitted that Ex.P1 was scribed by the

Fair 6 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 police and was taken at the hospital. She also admitted that she signed Ex.P1 when the police asked her to do so. She denied the suggestion that she does not know the facts of the case and that she is deposing falsely because the deceased is her son.

13.PW.2 (V. Venkatesh) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at about 9:30

AM, PW.1 left home for Jagtial on some work, leaving her two sons –

Pranay (aged 6 years) and Ritwik (aged 3 years) – at home. The elder son of PW.1 met with an accident caused by the accused, who hit him with a tractor bearing registration No. AP 15 AX 9316. The boy sustained a severe bleeding injury on the left side of his head. PW.2 stated that he was in his house nearby when he heard children crying that the boy had been hit by the tractor. He went to the spot and saw the boy lying on the road. He and his younger brother (LW.3) took the boy to the hospital. At 10:50 AM on the same day, the doctors at the

Government Hospital, Jagtial, declared the boy as brought dead. On the same day, the case was registered at Gollapalli Police Station with regard to the incident. During cross-examination, PW.2 admitted that he did not mention in his statement recorded by police that he went to the spot after hearing the cries of the children. He further admitted that he did not know the accused or the crime vehicle when he was in his house. He further added that by the time he reached the

Fair 7 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 crime scene the vehicle was still there. He denied the suggestion that he came to know about the vehicle number from the police. He added that the crime vehicle is blue in colour. He admitted that he did not mention the colour of vehicle to the police. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as deceased is his relative.

14.PW.3 (V. Rajavva) deposed that about six years ago, on one day,

PW.1 had gone to Jagtial on some work. On that day, Pranay (elder son of PW.1) was playing on the street. At about 10:00 AM, the accused hit the boy with a tractor and ran it over him. As a result, the boy sustained a severe bleeding injury on the back of his head. PW.2 and LW.3 shifted the boy to the Government Hospital, Jagtial. He came to know that the boy survived only for an hour after the accident. The crime vehicle (tractor) was left at the place of the incident for about three days thereafter. Later, a case was registered against the accused. During cross-examination, PW.3 admitted that police examined him 3 days after the incident. She further admitted that she did not witness the incident. She further added that her house is about 50 feet away from the spot. She further stated that there is no pathway between her house and the place of the incident.

She further admitted that there are no other eye-witnesses other than her. She further admitted that the deceased boy went on to the road.

Fair 8 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

She further added that the deceased boy left her home one hour after his mother left. She denied that the boy ran on to the road crying for his mother. She further added that boy went to play. She denied that she was inside the house as she was taking care of the younger boy.

She further added that she was at the door holding the younger boy.

She denied that she is deposing falsely as the deceased boy is her grandson.

15.PW.4 (R. Narsinga Rao) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at about 10:30 AM, he received a call from Gollapalli Police Station to take photographs of a deceased boy at the Area Government Hospital,

Jagtial, who had met with an accident. He rushed to the hospital, took photographs of the deceased boy, made prints of the same, and submitted them to the investigating officer in the present case. The witness identified the photographs taken by him, and they were marked as Ex.P2 (four in number). During cross-examination, PW.4 admitted that he is not a certified photographer. He admitted that excepting capturing the photos on the request of the police he does not know any facts about the case.

16.PW.5 (E. Ganapathi) deposed that on 05.05.2018, while he was working in Jagtial, he received information that Pranay (the deceased), who is his nephew by relation, had met with an accident and his body

Fair 9 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 was shifted to the Government Hospital, Jagtial. He rushed to the hospital to see the body, where the Gollapalli Police conducted an inquest panchanama over the dead body from 1:20 PM to 3:20 PM in his presence and in the presence of LW.8. The witness identified his signature on the inquest panchanama, and the said panchanama was marked as Ex.P3. During cross-examination, PW.5 denied the suggestion that he does not know the contents of Ex.P3. He denied that he furnished his signature on EX.P3 only at the instance of police and that he his deposing falsely.

17.PW.6 (K. Rajesham) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at about 4:15

PM, when they were going home, the Gollapalli Police called them to the spot where the accident took place and asked them about the names of the residents around the place of incident. According to their narration, they drew a map of the scene and the surroundings. After the completion of the proceedings, they obtained his signature. The witness identified his signature on the crime details form, and the said form was marked as Ex.P4. During cross-examination, PW.6 admitted that his house is not close to the scene of offence. He denied that

PW.1 is his relative. He further admitted that PW.1 and him belong to same caste. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of incident, and that no panchanama was conducted in their

Fair 10 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 presence and that he is deposing falsely at the instance of PWs.1 and 2 as they belonged to the same caste.

18.PW.7 (D. Rajitha) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at 10:10 AM, when she was in front of her maternal home at Laxmipur, the deceased boy, Pranay (aged 6 years), was playing in front of his house on the road. At that time, the accused came on a tractor bearing registration No. AP 15 AX 9316 and hit the boy on the front side. The boy fell down and sustained a severe head injury. She called PW.1, the mother of the boy, and informed her about the incident. PW.2 and

LW.3, who were near the place of incident, took the boy to the hospital. On the same day, she came to know that the boy had succumbed to his injuries and died at 10:50 AM. Later, a case was filed against the accused. During cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that houses of Ragalla Laxmi, Enagandula Thirupathi are near the scene of offence. She further admitted that none of the aforesaid people were present at the place of incident. She admitted that in general during morning hours people are in their houses. She further added that apart from the aforementioned people no other persons gathered at the place of incident. She further admitted that her maternal home is not close to the scene. She further added that she saw the incident after she heard the sound. She denied that as her

Fair 11 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 house is not close she could not hear the sound or see anything. She admitted that to reach the main road form the house of PW.1 one has to go through a 3 feet road. She admitted that while walking on the 3 feet road one cannot see the vehicles coming on the main road. She further admitted that PW.1 was not in the village when she called her.

She further added that PW.3 informed her about the death of the boy and that she did not mention about it in her police statement. She denied that boy ran on to the road crying for her mother and fell down due to a mud obstacle. She further admitted that PW.1 is her relative.

She denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely as PW.1 is her relative.

19.PW.8 (K. Bheemesh) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at 3:30 PM, he received a requisition from the SHO, Gollapalli Police Station, to conduct a post-mortem examination over the dead body of a boy by name Vengaladas Pranay, aged 6 years. He conducted the post- mortem examination of the body from 3:40 PM to 4:40 PM and found the following injuries:

● Laceration of 8 x 1 x 1 cm at the left occipito-parietal region.

● Fracture of the left occipital bone.

● Fracture of the left parietal bone.

● Subdural haematoma noted in the left occipito-parietal region

Fair 12 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 measuring 8 x 4 cm.

● Intra-cranial bleeding at the occipito-parietal region measuring 3 x 3 cm.

He opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and intra-cranial bleeding. The witness identified the post-mortem examination report submitted by him, and the same was marked as

Ex.P5. During cross-examination, PW.8 stated that the chances of boy incurring injuries through an accidental fall are very minute. He denied that proper examination was not conducted and that he is deposing falsely at the instance of the police.

20.PW.9 (P. Kiran Kumar) deposed that on 05.05.2018 at 12:30 PM,

LW.1/PW.1 came to the police station and lodged a report (Ex.P1).

Based on the said report, LW.13 (B. Gajendar, Head Constable) registered a case in Crime No.66 of 2018 punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC, issued the FIR, and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW.13, along with PC-197, visited the Government Hospital, Jagtial, secured the presence of LW.7/PW.5 and LW.8 (Jetla Venkatesh), examined the dead body of the deceased, got photographs taken through LW.5/PW.4, and conducted an inquest over the dead body in their presence. Later, LW.13 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1/PW.1, LW.2/PW.2, LW.3 (Vengaladas

Fair 13 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

Rakesh), LW.4/PW.3, and LW.5/PW.4. After completion of the post- mortem examination, the body was handed over to the blood relatives of the deceased under proper acknowledgment. Thereafter, LW.13 visited the scene of offence at Laxmipur village, observed the scene minutely, and prepared the crime details form in the presence of LW.9 (Karre Mallaiah) and LW.10/PW.6. Subsequently, PW.9 took over further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW.13, finding it to be on proper lines. During the course of investigation, he issued a notice under Section 41-A of the Cr.P.C. to the accused with a direction to appear before Gollapalli Police Station, but the accused did not comply with the conditions of the said notice and did not appear at the police station. While efforts were in progress, on 07.05.2018 at 1:30 PM, PW.9 arrested the accused at Laxmipur village bus stop. Upon interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed to having committed the offence in the present case. Thereafter, PW.9 sent a requisition to LW.12 (A. Abhilash) to inspect the crime vehicle.

Accordingly, LW.12 inspected the crime vehicle and issued the MVI report. LW.11/PW.8 conducted the autopsy over the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to head injury and intra-cranial bleeding. After completion of the entire investigation,

PW.9 filed a charge sheet against the accused under Section 304-A of

Fair 14 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act. The witness identified the documents annexed in the charge sheet, and the following were marked as exhibits:

(i) Ex.P6 – FIR issued by PW.9.

(ii) Ex.P7 – Requisition prepared by PW.9 addressed to LW.12/A.

Abhilash.

(iii) Ex.P8 – MVI report issued by LW.12/A. Abhilash.

During cross-examination, PW.9 admitted that he did not verify the relationships among LWs 1 to 4 and 6 to 10. He further admitted that none of the persons whose names are mentioned in the sketch map of Ex.P4 were examined. He further admitted that date was not mentioned below the sketch map in Ex.P4. He further admitted that complainant’s signature was not obtained on item no.14 of Ex.P6. He admitted that one has to pass through a 3 feet passage from the house of PW.1 to reach the main road. He denied that he is deposing falsely to support the case of prosecution.

21.In evaluating the evidence placed on record, the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused in the present case is charged with offences punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV

Act. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must independently establish that the accused caused the death of the deceased by

Fair 15 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 driving the offending vehicle in a rash or negligent manner, and that he operated the vehicle without a valid driving license and insurance policy.

22.Regarding the charge under Section 304-A of the IPC, the foundational requirement is to prove the rash or negligent act of the accused. A meticulous perusal of the testimonies of PW.1 (mother of the deceased), PW.2 (relative), and PW.3 (grandmother of the deceased) reveals that they are not direct eyewitnesses to the accident. PW.1 and PW.3 explicitly admitted during their cross- examination that they did not witness the incident. PW.2 also admitted that he went to the spot only after hearing the cries of the children. Furthermore, PW.1 admitted that she came to know the crime vehicle number from the police and that the complaint (Ex.P1) was scribed by the police and signed by her at their instance.

Consequently, the testimonies of PW.1, PW.2, and PW.3 do not establish the crucial element of rash and negligent driving.

23.The prosecution's case primarily hinges on the testimony of

PW.7, who was cited as the sole eyewitness. However, the evidentiary value of PW.7 requires careful scrutiny. During her cross- examination, PW.7 admitted that she saw the incident only after she heard the sound. This admission indicates that she did not witness the actual impact or the manner in which the tractor was being

Fair 16 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 driven prior to the collision. Additionally, both PW.7 and the

Investigating Officer (PW.9) admitted the existence of a narrow 3-foot passage connecting the house of the deceased to the main road, and that one cannot see vehicles coming on the main road while walking on this passage. This topographical fact lends a degree of plausibility to the defence's theory that the young boy might have suddenly run onto the road, rendering the accident an unavoidable tragedy rather than the result of criminal negligence or rashness on the part of the driver.

24.Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (PW.9) admitted that none of the independent neighbors whose names were explicitly mentioned in the scene sketch map (Ex.P4) were examined. PW.7 also admitted that the neighbours whose houses are located near the scene of the offence were not present. The failure to examine available independent individuals, while relying exclusively on the testimonies of interested family members and relatives, creates an adverse inference against the prosecution's narrative.

25.The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, though clear, does not cure the defects in the ocular testimonies. The Medical

Officer (PW.8) detailed the severe head injuries and intra-cranial bleeding in the Post-Mortem Examination report (Ex.P5) and opined that the chances of such injuries resulting from a simple accidental

Fair 17 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018 fall are minute. While this medical opinion firmly establishes the cause of death as a severe vehicular impact, it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that medical evidence is merely corroborative.

It can establish the factum of the accident, but it cannot, by itself, establish the identity of the driver or the critical element of rash and negligent driving. In the absence of reliable eyewitness testimony detailing the manner of driving, the medical evidence alone is insufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 304-A of the IPC.

26.To establish the offences under Sections 181 and 196 of the MV

Act, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused drove the vehicle without a valid driving license and without a valid insurance policy. However, the prosecution failed to bring any substantive oral or documentary evidence on record, nor did it examine any competent official from the concerned transport authority to substantiate these allegations. In the absence of legally proved evidence, the charges under the MV Act do not withstand scrutiny.

27.Consequently, upon evaluating the entire evidence, the admissions of the material witnesses regarding their inability to witness the actual manner of driving, the lack of direct evidence to prove rashness or negligence, the non-examination of independent neighbours, and the absence of proof regarding the statutory MV Act violations indicate that the evidence does not proceed on proper lines.

Fair 18 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences under Section 304-A of the IPC and Sections 181 and 196 of the MV Act. The accused is therefore entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

28. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 181 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, he is ACQUITTED under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by stenographer grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8 th day of May, 2026.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

:: Appendix of Evidence::

:: Witnesses Examined ::

For Prosecution:

Prosecution Name of witnesses Description Witness No.

Complainant/Mother of PW-1 V.Ramya deceased

PW-2V.VenkateshRelative(Elder brother) of deceased

Fair 19 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

PW-3 V.RajavvaGrand Mother of the Deceased

PW-4R.Narsinga RaoPhotographer

PW-5E.GanapathiPanch witness for Inquest

PW-6K.RajeshamPanch witness for CDF

PW-7D.RajithaEye Witness

PW-8K.BheemeshDuty Medical Officer

PW-9P.Kiran KumarInvestigating Officer

For Defense: -- Nil --

::Exhibits Marked::

For Prosecution:

Description of the

Exhibit No. Proved by/Attested by

Exhibit

Ex.P1 Report PW1

Ex.P2 4-Photographs PW4

Ex.P3Inquest panchanamaPW5

Ex.P4 Crime Detail Form PW6

Ex.P5PME report PW8

First Information Report Ex.P6PW9 issued by PW.9

Fair 20 of 20 CC No.187 of 2018

Requisition prepared by Ex.P7Pw.9 addressingPW9 Lw.12/A.Abhilash

MVI report issued by Ex.P8PW9 Lw.12/A.Abhilash

For Defense: -- Nil --

Material Objects Marked: -- Nil --

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

Fair 1 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Karanjia Nickysha, II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Jagtial. Monday, the 18th day of May, 2026

CC.No.1999 of 2021

(Cr.No.182 of 2021 of PS. Pegadapalli)

Between:- State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., Pegadapalli.

...Complainant.

AND

A1.Kundella Komuraiah, S/o.Gopal, Age:46 years, R/o.Pegadapalli village. A2.Gattu Kishan, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:56 years, R/o.Pegadapalli village. A3.Nedari Shekar, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:28 years, R/o.Pegadapalli village.

...Accused No. 1 to 3

* * * * * This case is coming before me on 18.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri M. Rajesh Praveen, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 3; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following judgment:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Pegadapalli, has filed a charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Cr.No.182 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 16.11.2021 at 1:30 PM,

LW.1/complainant (Nedari Rajaiah) went to the police station and lodged a

Fair 2 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 written complaint in Telugu stating that he is a resident of Pegadapalli village and is the president of a fish industrial cooperative society having 46 members. All the society members are engaged in fish farming in

Eggalakunta pond, which is located on the outskirts of Pegadapalli village.

On 15.11.2021 at 9:45 AM, his fellow villagers and society members, namely accused Nos.1 to 3, were committing theft of fish. One Regula and Shiraveni

Sudharshan, who are members of the society, went to the said pond, saw the same, and informed him accordingly. Immediately, LW.1/complainant along with other society members went to Eggalakunta pond and caught hold of the above said three persons along with the fish and nets. He stated that there was a delay in filing the petition because they waited to call the above said three persons in the presence of elders. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the above said persons as per law.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, LW.9 (K. Swetha) registered a case in Cr.No.182 of 2021 under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined LW.1/complainant at the police station and recorded his statement. Thereafter, LW.9 visited the scene of offence on the outskirts of

Pegadapalli village, secured the presence of LW.2 to LW.6, examined and recorded their statements, conducted panchanama of the scene of offence, and incorporated the same in the crime details form in the presence of LW.7 and LW.8. After completion of the investigation, LW.9 (K. Swetha) filed a

Fair 3 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3.

5.Upon appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3, copies of the documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6.The accused no.1 to 3 were examined under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.

Charges for the offences punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC were framed, read over, and explained to them in Telugu. The accused Nos.1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P3.

8.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and they denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution as well as the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3. Perused the entire material available on record consisting of both oral and documentary evidence.

Fair 4 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1

to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section

511 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT :

11.The prosecution cited nine witnesses, out of whom it examined six witnesses (PW.1 to PW.6). PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 and PW.3 are the eyewitnesses. PW.4 and PW.5 are the panchas for the Crime Details Form.

PW.6 is the investigating officer. The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P3.

12.PW.1 (LW.1/N. Rajaiah) deposed that in the year 2021, he was the president of the Mudiraj fishermen co-operative society. The society has a fish pond and 46 members. On one day in the same year at about 9:30 PM, accused Nos.1 to 3, without the consent of the society members, entered the pond and started catching fish. LW.2 and LW.3 saw them and informed him.

He rushed to the pond and saw accused Nos.1 to 3 installing a pipe, separating a portion of the pond, and catching fish. LW.4 to LW.6 also witnessed the same. When confronted, the accused did not heed their words and stated that they could do whatever they liked. During cross- examination, PW.1 stated that he had been working as president of the society for four years. Accused Nos.1 to 3 are also members of the society.

There is only one fishermen society in their village, which is a registered society. The society rules prescribe a stipulated period for catching fish,

Fair 5 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 during which the pond was off-limits to all members for a period of two months. Signatures of several available members were obtained. The village has four fish ponds in total, all under the control of their co-operative society. He stated that since they brought accused Nos.1 to 3 out of the pond at 9:30 PM, they knew that they were catching fish. He denied the suggestion that he did not see them. He admitted that LW.2 is not a member of their society and also admitted that a criminal case was filed against him.

He denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 3 never entered the pond nor tried to catch any fish.

13.PW.2 (LW.2/R. Chandu) deposed that on 15.11.2021 at about 9:30 to 10:00 PM, accused Nos.1 to 3, without the consent of the society members, entered the society pond and started catching fish. He and LW.3 saw them and informed PW.1 about the same. There upon, PW.1 along with other elders rushed to the pond and saw accused Nos.1 to 3 installing a pipe, separating a portion of the pond, and catching fish. When questioned, the accused did not heed the words of the elders and refused to accept their words. During cross-examination, PW.2 stated that he is not a member of the fishermen co-operative society in Pegadapalli and identified that it is his mother's native place. He was near the pond on that day because he and

LW.3 had gone to the field adjacent to the pond, where their machine had gotten stuck. He stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 are members of the said society but did not know whether they had filed a criminal case against the society. He denied the suggestion that, not being a member of the society, he

Fair 6 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 adopted wrong means of accusing accused Nos.1 to 3 by informing about them to the elders in order to obtain membership. He stated that he already has membership of a fishermen society at Ellapur, where he resides. The distance between Pegadapalli and Ellapur is 3 kilometers. He denied the suggestion that due to darkness, he did not know who went to the pond to catch fish on that day. He also denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 3 are in no way concerned with the present case.

14.PW.3 (LW.3/S. Sudharshan) deposed that on 15.11.2021, he was working in a field beside the pond and had to harvest paddy crop in an area of 5 acres. On that day at about 4:00 PM, his harvester gave him trouble, and he was there until 9:30 PM. He and PW.2 went out on their bike together for a nature call and saw lights in the said pond. Immediately, they informed PW.1 about the lights. PW.1 along with other elders went to the pond, and all of them saw accused Nos.1 to 3 catching fish. When they called police dial 100, accused Nos.1 to 3 left the pond. Later, a case was filed against them. During cross-examination, PW.3 stated that accused

Nos.1 to 3 are members of the society, including himself. The distance between the pond and the field where he was working is about 300 meters.

He went close to the pond after the elders arrived and identified accused

Nos.1 to 3, who went on their bikes. It was written in their society agreement that the pond was off-limits for two months for any member of the society during that period. Accused Nos.1 to 3 tried to catch fish within the first 15 days of the two-month period. He denied the suggestion that he

Fair 7 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 is deposing falsely against accused Nos.1 to 3 by helping PW.1 to benefit from it. He also denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 3 are in no way concerned with the present case.

15.PW.4 (LW.7/N. Rajaiah) deposed that about three years ago, on one day, he and LW.8 were going to Nandagiri. On that day at about 3:00 PM, the police of Pegadapalli stopped them and asked about the whereabouts of the pond in the present case. They took them to the pond, and in their presence, the police conducted panchanama. After the said panchanama, they obtained his signature. The witness identified his signature on the crime details form. During cross-examination, PW.4 stated that he is uneducated. He admitted that he furnished his signature when the police asked him. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted.

16.PW.5 (LW.8/N. Ramulu) deposed that on 16.11.2021, he and PW.4 were going to Nandagiri. On that day at about 3:00 PM, the police of

Pegadapalli stopped them and asked them to take them to the pond in the present case. They took them to the pond. The police conducted panchanama and showed them the things that were present in the four directions from the scene of offence. After the panchanama, they read over the contents of the panchanama papers and obtained his signature. During cross-examination, PW.5 admitted that the directions were shown to them by the police concerned. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P2 was prepared in the police station. The witness stated that Ex.P2 was prepared in his

Fair 8 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 presence at the pond. He denied the suggestion that no panchanama was conducted.

17.PW.6 (Ravikiran) deposed that on 16.11.2020 at 1:30 PM, the complainant (Nedari Rajaiah) went to the police station and wrote a complaint in Telugu stating that he is a resident of Pegadapalli village and is the president of a Fish Industrial Cooperative Society with 46 members. All the society members catch fish in Eggalakunta pond, which is on the outskirts of Pegadapalli village, on a rotational basis. On 15.11.2021 at about 9:45 AM, his fellow villagers and society members, i.e., accused Nos.1 to 3, committed theft of fish in the said pond. One Regula Chandu and

Shiraveni Sudharshan, who are also members of the same society, went to the said pond, saw accused Nos.1 to 3 catching fish, and informed him accordingly. Immediately, the complainant along with other society members went to Eggalakunta pond and caught hold of the above said three persons along with the fish and nets. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against them as per law. On receipt of the above report, LW.9 (K. Swetha) registered a case in Cr.No.182 of 2021 against accused Nos.1 to 3 punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined LW.1 (Nedari Rajaiah) at the police station and recorded his statement. Later,

LW.9 visited the scene of offence at Eggalakunta pond on the outskirts of

Pegadapalli village, secured the presence of LW.2 (Regula Chandu), LW.3

Fair 9 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 (Shiraveni Sudharshan), LW.4 (Gattu Srinivas), LW.5 (Nedari Mallesh), and

LW.6 (Nedari Mahesh), examined and recorded their statements, conducted panchanama of the scene of offence, and incorporated the same in the crime details form in the presence of LW.7 (Nedari Rajaiah) and LW.8 (Nedari

Ramulu). After completion of the entire investigation, LW.9 filed a charge sheet punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3. During cross-examination, PW.6 stated that no document was filed stating the names of the members of the society and their respective turns to catch fish in the said pond. He further stated that no electrical poles were shown in the sketch map (Ex.P2). Neither himself nor LW.9 was aware of the case filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 against PW.1 for misappropriation of funds. He admitted that it was mentioned in the charge sheet that accused Nos.1 to 3 attempted to commit theft at the house of

PW.1. However, he stated that it was merely a typographical error and that the facts were mentioned correctly in the rest of the charge sheet. He denied the suggestion that the present case was filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 only for statistical purposes, that accused Nos.1 to 3 are in no way concerned with the present case, and that LW.9 did not conduct proper investigation nor visited the scene of offence.

18.In evaluating the evidence placed on record, the burden rests upon the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The accused in the present case are charged with the offence of attempt to commit theft,

Fair 10 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must independently establish that the accused, with a dishonest intention to take movable property out of the possession of the society without consent, did an act towards the commission of that theft.

19.The prosecution primarily relies on the ocular testimonies of the complainant (PW.1) and the informants/eyewitnesses (PW.2 and PW.3). A meticulous perusal of the record reveals material contradictions between the initial prosecution version and the actual testimonies adduced in court.

According to the original complaint, PW.1 and other members caught the accused red-handed along with the fish and nets. However, in his deposition, PW.1 merely stated that he saw the accused catching fish and confronted them, making no mention of physically catching them or seizing any fish and nets. In further contrast, PW.3 deposed that when the elders arrived and dialed 100 to call the police, the accused left the pond on their bikes. This material discrepancy—whether the accused were actually apprehended at the scene with the nets as originally alleged, or whether they simply fled the spot—creates a significant doubt regarding the true sequence of events.

20.Furthermore, the incident allegedly took place at 9:30 PM in the dark.

PW.3 deposed that he and PW.2 went out together on a bike for a nature call when they observed lights in the pond. While PW.3 claimed to have gone close to the pond to identify the accused, the Investigating Officer (PW.6) admitted during cross-examination that no electrical poles or sources of

Fair 11 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 illumination were shown in the scene sketch map (Ex.P2). Given that the offence occurred late at night in a pond on the outskirts of the village, the absence of any proven source of light at the scene casts a shadow of doubt on the clear identification of the accused.

21.A critical ingredient in establishing theft is the unauthorized taking of property. It is an admitted fact by PW.1 and PW.3 that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are also registered members of the same fishermen cooperative society and therefore hold a joint right over the pond. PW.1 and PW.3 asserted that the accused attempted to catch fish during a stipulated two-month period when fishing was prohibited by a society agreement. However, the Investigating

Officer (PW.6) explicitly admitted that no documents, society bylaws, membership registers, or written agreements showing the rotational turns or the alleged two-month prohibition were seized or filed before the Court. In the absence of documentary proof establishing this prohibition, the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational element that the accused, being co-members, acted with a "dishonest intention" or without legal entitlement.

22.The evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses requires careful scrutiny in light of the internal dynamics of the society. The defense suggested that the accused had previously filed a case against the complainant (PW.1) for misappropriation of society funds. Although PW.6 claimed ignorance of this fact, the existence of internal society disputes

Fair 12 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 provides a plausible motive for false implication.

23.The investigation process also reflects significant lapses. PW.1 and

PW.2 deposed that the accused were using pipes and nets to separate a portion of the pond to catch fish. Yet, the Investigating Officer (PW.6) did not depose to the recovery or seizure of any fish, nets, pipes, or vehicles from the scene or from the possession of the accused. The non-recovery of these material objects weakens the allegation of an "attempt" to commit theft.

Furthermore, PW.6 admitted a material defect in the charge sheet, acknowledging that it incorrectly stated that the accused attempted to commit theft at the house of PW.1 rather than at the pond.

24.Consequently, upon evaluating the entire evidence, the material contradictions between the eyewitnesses, the doubtful visibility at the scene, the non-recovery of any nets or fishing equipment, and the failure of the prosecution to produce the society rules to establish dishonest intent, this

Court concludes that the evidence does not proceed on proper lines. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under

Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are therefore entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

25. IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 511 of the IPC.

Accordingly, they are ACQUITTED under section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The

Fair 13 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021 bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Curt on this the 18 th day of May , 2026.

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

:: Appendix of Evidence::

:: Witnesses Examined ::

For Prosecution:

Prosecution Name of witnesses Description Witness No.

PW-1 N.RajaiahComplainant

PW-2R.ChanduEye witness

PW-3 S.SudharshanEye witness

PW-4N.RajaiahPanch witness for CDF

PW-5N.RamuluPanch witness for CDF

PW-6Ch.RavikiranInvestigating Officer

For Defense: -- Nil --

::Exhibits Marked::

For Prosecution:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

Ex.P1 ReportPW1

Fair 14 of 14 CC.No.1999 of 2021

Signature on Crime Detail Ex.P2 PW4 Form.

First Information Report by Ex.P3PW6 LW9

For Defense: -- Nil --

Material Objects Marked: -- Nil --

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

Fair 1 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:Smt. Karanjia Nickysha, II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class Jagtial. Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

CC.No.138 of 2019

(Cr.No.79 of 2018 of PS.Kodimial)

Between:-

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS., Kodimial.

...Complainant.

AND

A1.Romala Prashanth, S/o.Dubbaiah, age:26 years, R/o.Nukalamarri village of vemulawada mandal, now at Kodimial. A2.Matla @ Romala Pooja, W/o.Prashanth, age:22 years, R/o.Korutla now at Kodimial. A3.Romala Vijaya, W/o.Dubbaiah, age:42 years, R/o.Nukalamarri village of Vemulawada madnal. A4.Romala Dubbaiah, S/o.Sambaiah, age:46 years, R/o.Nukalamarri village of vemulawada mandal.

...Accused no.1 to 4

* * * * *

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri R. Sri Ramulu, learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 4; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodimial, has filed a charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.79 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC").

2.The prosecution case in brief is that on 11.05.2018 at about 7:30 PM, the complainant, Romala Rajitha, went to the police station and lodged a

Fair 2 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 written complaint in Telugu. She stated that she resides in the village and ekes out her livelihood by doing tailor work. On 06.02.2018, she married

Romala Prashanth as a love marriage. They led a marital life for some months. Thereafter, her husband, Romala Prashanth (accused No.1), and his parents, Romala Vijaya (accused No.3) and Romala Dubbaiah (accused

No.4), physically and mentally harassed her for additional dowry. On her complaint, a case was registered at Jagtial Police Station in Crime No.45 of 2017 under Sections 417 and 498-A of the IPC against them, and they were sent to court. Since then, the complainant has been residing at her mother's house in Kodimial. While the court proceedings were pending and the complainant was alive and still married (no divorce having been obtained by her husband), on 04.05.2018, her husband, Romala Prashanth, performed a second marriage with one Pooja, daughter of Matla Rajesh, at Ambedkar

Nagar, Korutla, with the instigation of his parents. Hence, she requested necessary action.

3.The contents of the complaint attracted an offence under Section 494 of the IPC, which is a non-cognizable offence. The Station House Officer,

LW.7 (P. Shankaraiah), made an entry in the General Diary with a view to taking action after seeking permission from the Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, he filed a requisition before the Hon'ble II Addl. JFCM Court, Jagtial, seeking permission to take cognizance and investigate the non-cognizable offence under Section 494 of the IPC. On 23.06.2018 at about 10:00 AM,

LW.8 (S. Sateesh Kumar) received Official Memorandum vide Dis.No.413

dated 14.05.2018 from the Hon'ble II Addl. JFCM Court, Jagtial, according

Fair 3 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 permission to investigate the said offence. Pursuant thereto, LW.8 registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2018 under Section 494 of the IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW.8 proceeded to

Kodimial, examined LW.1 (Romala Rajitha) and LW.2 (Ramancha

Kanthavva), and recorded their statements in the case diary. Thereafter,

LW.8 visited Korutla, conducted enquiries, and again examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 and LW.2. He also visited the scene of the crime, examined it, and prepared a crime details form in the presence of panchas, namely LW.3 (Chityala Nadipi Gangaram) and LW.4 (Morthad

Laxminarayana). He further made enquiries at Jagtial Police Station regarding Crime No.45 of 2012, which was registered against accused Nos.1, 3, and 4, and confirmed that they were sent to judicial custody. After completion of the investigation, LW.8 filed a charge sheet against accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC.

4.This court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC.

5.Upon appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, copies of the documents relating to the case were furnished to them, as required under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

6.The accused no.1 to 4 were examined under Section 239 of the

Cr.P.C., and charges were framed against them for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Fair 4 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019

7.In order to establish the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 4, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accused Nos.1 to 4denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

10.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos.1

to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC beyond

reasonable doubt.

POINT:-

11. The prosecution cited eight witnesses, out of whom it examined three.

PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the panch witness to the crime details form. PW.3 is the investigating officer. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses.

12.PW.1 (R. Rajitha) deposed that in the year 2012, she eloped with accused No.1 and they got married near a well at Hasnabad in Jagtial district. Soon after the marriage, accused No.1 brought her back to her parents' house and left her there, saying that he would come back to take her. She waited for him for two days, and as there was no update from him, she went to her matrimonial home. Accused No.1, accused No.3, accused

No.4, and the daughter of accused Nos.3 and 4 beat her, stating that her

Fair 5 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 family was poor and that she had to bring a dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to reside in the society of accused No.1, and they necked her out. At that time, she filed a case against accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. After filing the said case, accused No.1 told her that he would take her into his society but did not do as he said. Accused No.1 threatened her with dire consequences to kill. In the year 2018, she came to know that accused No.1 was getting married to accused No.2 when she saw their wedding card in the hands of one of the residents of her locality. She called accused No.1 and told him that he should not marry when she was still alive. However, accused No.1 did not listen to her words and married accused No.2. She then went to Kodimial

Police Station and lodged a report against accused Nos.1 to 4. The witness identified her signature on the report, and the said report was marked as

Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the wedding photographs of accused No.1 and accused No.2.

During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she was married to Nakka

Peddiraju in the year 2006 in the presence of her family. She stated that her marriage was performed by force when she was a minor and that it was dissolved in 2006 itself. She further stated that she does not have any proof of her marriage with A1 except her own statement. She further stated that she does not know whether the case which she filed in the year 2012 ended in acquittal of accused No.1 and his family members. She further admitted that she filed a case against Kothuri Naveen in the year 2020 for cheating her and committing rape on her. She further stated that she does not know whether the said case resulted in the acquittal of the accused. She denied

Fair 6 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 that she did not marry accused No.1. She denied that she has a habit of filing false cases.

13.PW.2 (M. Gangaram) deposed that about seven years ago, when he along with LW.6 (Chityala Anjiaha) went to Kodimial Police Station, the police obtained his signature and the signature of LW.6 on some papers, but he does not know the contents thereof. The witness identified his signature on the crime details form, and the said portion was marked as Ex.P3.

14.PW.3 (P. Shankaraiah) deposed that on 11.05.2018 at about 7:30 PM, he received Ex.P1 from PW.1 and handed over the case diary file to LW.8 (S.

Sateesh Kumar) for further investigation. LW.8 registered a case in Crime

No.79 of 2018 for the offence under Section 494 of the IPC against the accused and issued the FIR after obtaining due permission from the Court.

LW.8 examined and recorded the statements of PW.1 and LW.2 (Ramancha

Kanthavva). LW.8 also collected the wedding photographs of accused No.1 and PW.1, as well as copies of the wedding card of accused Nos.1 and 2.

Thereafter, LW.8 visited the scene of offence and prepared the crime details form in the presence of PW.2 and LW.6 (Chityala Anjiaha). LW.8 further examined and recorded the statements of LW.3 (Chityala Nadipi Gangaram) and LW.4 (Morthad Laxminarayana). The FIR and the crime details form were marked as Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 respectively.

15.In evaluating the evidence placed on record, the burden rests upon the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused are charged with the offence of bigamy

Fair 7 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 punishable under Section 494 of the IPC. To secure a conviction under this section, it is a well-settled principle of law, as enunciated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in cases such as Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande v. State of

Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 1564),that the prosecution must strictly prove two foundational elements: firstly, the existence of a valid first marriage between the complainant and the accused; and secondly, the actual performance of the essential religious rites and ceremonies to establish the factum of the alleged second marriage.

16.Regarding the first foundational element—the validity of the first marriage between the complainant (PW.1) and Accused No.1—the evidence adduced by the prosecution is fraught with material contradictions. PW.1 deposed in her chief examination that she eloped with Accused No.1 and got married near a well in Hasnabad. However, during her cross-examination, she made an admission that she was previously married to one Nakka

Peddiraju in the year 2006. While she claimed that this prior marriage was performed by force when she was a minor and was dissolved in the same year, the prosecution failed to place any documentary proof, decree of divorce, or customary dissolution deed on record to substantiate this claim.

The mere oral assertion of the dissolution of a prior valid marriage is legally insufficient. If the complainant's prior marriage with Nakka Peddiraju was not legally dissolved, her subsequent alleged marriage with Accused No.1 would be void ab initio. Furthermore, PW.1 explicitly admitted during cross- examination that apart from her own statement, she does not have any proof regarding her marriage with Accused No.1. The prosecution failed to

Fair 8 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 examine any priest, elders, or independent witnesses who officiated or witnessed this alleged marriage near the well. Therefore, the foundational proof of a legally valid, subsisting first marriage between PW.1 and Accused

No.1 is not established beyond a reasonable doubt.

17.Regarding the second foundational element—the solemnization of the second marriage between Accused No.1 and Accused No.2—the prosecution's evidence is entirely lacking. The prosecution merely marked photographs (Ex.P2) showing Accused No.1 and Accused No.2. However, the

Investigating Officer (PW.3) admitted that the photographs were collected, but the prosecution failed to examine the photographer, any priest who officiated the second marriage, or any independent witness who attended the ceremony. It is a settled position of law that mere photographs or wedding cards do not independently prove the solemnization of a marriage under Section 494 of the IPC. The prosecution must prove that the essential ceremonies required under the respective personal laws or customs were strictly performed. In the absolute absence of such ocular or documentary evidence regarding the performance of the second marriage ceremonies, the charge of bigamy does not withstand the scrutiny.

18.The evidentiary value of the complainant's testimony requires careful scrutiny in light of her background and history of filing criminal cases.

During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she had previously filed cases against Accused No.1 and his family, and subsequently filed another criminal case (alleging cheating and rape) against a different individual

Fair 9 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 (Kothuri Naveen) in the year 2020. The defence suggested that she has a habit of filing false cases. While the court cannot presume malice merely based on prior criminal complaints, such an admitted history, coupled with the total lack of independent corroboration in the present case, makes it highly imprudent to base a conviction solely on her uncorroborated oral testimony.

19.Furthermore, the independent panch witness to the scene of the offence (PW.2) completely turned hostile, deposing that the police merely obtained his signature and that he does not know the contents of the panchanama (Ex.P3). The prosecution gave up the evidence of the remaining cited witnesses, leaving the record bereft of any independent support.

20.Consequently, upon evaluating the entire evidence, the failure to prove the legal dissolution of the complainant's first marriage, the lack of proof regarding the solemnization of her marriage with Accused No.1, the absence of evidence proving the religious ceremonies of the alleged second marriage, and the uncorroborated nature of the complainant's testimony indicate that the evidence does not proceed on proper lines. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 of the IPC. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are therefore entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

21. IN THE RESULT, the accused Nos.1 to 4 are found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under Section 494 of the IPC. Accordingly, they are

ACQUITTED under Section 248(1) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Fair 10 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019 accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th day of May, 2026)

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Jagtial.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

:: Witnesses Examined ::

For Prosecution:

Prosecution Name of witnesses Description Witness No.

PW-1 R.RajithaVictim/Complainant

PW-2 M.GangaramPanch Witness for CDF

PW-3 P.ShankaraiahInvestigating Officer

For Defense: -- Nil --

::Exhibits Marked::

For Prosecution:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

Ex.P1 Signature on alleged reportPW1

Wedding photographs of Ex.P2 PW1 accused no.1 and 2

Signature on Crime Detail Ex.P3PW2 Form

Fair 11 of 11 CC.No.138 of 2019

First Information Report Ex.P4PW3

Crime Detail Form Ex.P5PW3

For Defense: -- Nil --

Material Objects Marked: -- Nil --

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

Fair 1 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT:- Smt. Karanjia Nickysha, II-Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First-Class Jagtial. Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026

CC No.1305 of 2019

(Cr.No.89 of 2019 of P.S.,Kodimial)

Between: The State of Telangana, Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Kodimial.

... Complainant

AND

A-1Dayyala Mahesh @ Anil, S/o Rajamallaiah, 27 years

Dayyala Naresh, S/o Rajamallaiah, 24 years(Split up CC.No A-2 266/2024) (Both are R/o. Ramakistapur village)

... Accused No.1 & 2

* * * * *

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri B. Laxman, Advocate for the accused no.1; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodimial Police Station, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).

Fair 2 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.2019 at 18:30 hours, the complainant, Dayyala Rajaiah, lodged a report stating that he owns agricultural land to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas in Survey No. 527/e/6 at the outskirts of Kodimial village, wherein an agricultural well is also situated. There existed disputes with his collateral, Dayyala

Rajamallaiah, regarding 3 guntas of land in the said survey number.

Owing to these disputes, on 20.06.2019 at about 11:00 hours, Dayyala

Mahesh and Dayyala Naresh (sons of Rajamallaiah) criminally trespassed into the complainant's land. They cut and removed the fuses of the electric motor wires and threw them away, rendering the motor inoperable. When the complainant questioned them, they admitted to the act and dared him to take any action. They further threatened the complainant if he raised the matter again. The incident was witnessed by

Motam Mahesh, Dayyala Ravi, and Eru Shankaraiah. Based on the said report, a case was registered and investigated.

3.On receipt of the complaint, the Investigating Officer registered a case in

Cr.No. 89/2019 U/s 447, 427, and 506 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the investigation, he examined the complainant and his son and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the village, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them, and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of the offence and observed it

Fair 3 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 meticulously. He drew a rough sketch map based on the description of the witnesses. Subsequently, another Investigating Officer took up the investigation of this case and found the investigation done by his predecessor on proper lines. He collected the xerox copies and original online pahani from the complainant. On 25.06.2019, he issued 41-A

Cr.P.C. notices to the accused informing them about their involvement in this case and directing them to appear. Accordingly, on 27.06.2019, the accused appeared before the Investigating Officer and produced their residential identity proof. The Investigating Officer collected the same and instructed them to appear before the Hon'ble Magistrate after receiving the summons from the court. After the completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

4.On receipt of the charge sheet and perusing the material on record, the case was taken cognizance of for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, and 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

5.Upon their appearance, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6.The accused no.1 was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C., and charges for the offences under Sections 447, 427, and 506 r/w 34 of IPC were framed, read over, and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Fair 4 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019

7.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.4 and got marked Exhibits P1 to P4. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of the remaining witnesses. Hence, the prosecution evidence was closed.

8.After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused no.1 was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., enabling them to explain the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the truthfulness of the evidence and reported no defense evidence.

9.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the accused and perused the material on record.

10. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offences punishable U/Secs. 447, 427, and 506 r/w 34 of

IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

11. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined the son of the complainant as PW.1, an eyewitness as PW.2, a panch witness as PW.3, and the Investigating Officer as PW.4.

12. PW.1 (D. Srinivas) deposed in his chief examination that his father had land of Ac 1.02 gts in Sy.No. 527/E/6 at the outskirts of Kodimial village. On 23.06.2019 at about 09:00 a.m., he went to the field to start the motor and saw A1 and A2 removing the fuses from the power box

Fair 5 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 and directing the main wire to the box. His father called him over the phone and informed him about the incident. He went and saw what happened and informed the sarpanch. They went to the gram panchayat to discuss the issue, where A1 and A2 along with their father abused them in filthy language and left. Later, they lodged a report before the police. He identified the signature of his father on the report (Ex.P1).

During cross-examination by the learned defense counsel, PW.1 admitted that prior to this case, they filed other cases against A1 and A2.

PW.1 admitted that they obtained an injunction order in their favour with regard to the land mentioned above. PW.1 further stated that he doesn’t know whether A1 and A2 obtained another injunction order in their favour. PW.1 admitted that the land was purchased by his father from one Dayyala Pedda Mallaiah. PW.1 admitted that they did not file the document with regard to the said purchase by his father. PW.1 admitted that he submitted copies of pahanies with regard to the said land. PW.1 denied that A1 and A2 have land to an extent of 3 guntas in

Sy.No. 527/e. PW.1 admitted that A1 and A2 filed a civil suit (OS.No. 217 of 2017) stating that the said 3 guntas belong to them, which is pending

before this court. PW.1 admitted that LW.7 Lachaiah is his father-in-law.

PW.1 admitted that he filed a civil suit (OS.No. 148 of 2016) for their piece of land which was decreed in favour of A1 and A2. PW.1 denied that to counter blast the civil suit, they themselves removed the fuses

Fair 6 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 from the power box and foisted a false case against A1 and A2 and now he is deposing falsely to support his case. During Re-Examination, witness identified the pahani with regard to the land which is marked as

Ex.P2.

13. PW.2 (D. Ravi) deposed in his chief examination that he was speaking with the sarpanch at the GP office when A1 and A2 came with their father. PW.1 was also standing beside them. The father of A1 and A2 had an axe in his hand, started an argument with PW.1, and came at him.

Ward members admonished A1 and A2 and their father, after which they left the place abusing PW.1. During cross-examination by the learned defense counsel, PW.2 admitted that himself and PW.1 were agnates.

PW.2 admitted that PW.1 filed another case against A1 and A2. PW.2 further stated that he was abroad at that time. PW.2 stated that he does not know the details about the lands respectively possessed by PW.1 and

A1 and A2. PW.2 admitted that he did not mention before the police as stated in his chief-examination. PW.2 denied that he is deposing falsely as PW.1 is his agnate.

14. PW.3 (G. Lachaiah) was examined as a panch witness. He deposed in his chief examination that A1 and A2 went to the agricultural well of PW.1, removed the fuses with sticks and axes, and the police conducted a panchanama in his presence, obtaining his signature on the crime

Fair 7 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 details form (Ex.P3). During cross-examination by the learned defense counsel, PW.3 admitted that PW.1, A1, and A2 are agnates. PW.3 admitted that PW.1 is his son-in-law. PW.3 denied that he was not present at the time of the incident in the present case. PW.3 admitted that he is uneducated and could not read the contents of Ex.P3. PW.3 stated that the police seized the objects brought by A1 and A2. PW.3 further stated that the police concerned came to the spot after an hour of the incident. PW.3 denied that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and now he is deposing falsely at the instance of PW.1 as his son-in-law.

15. PW.4 (P. Shankaraiah), the Investigating Officer, deposed regarding the registration of the FIR (Ex.P4), visiting the scene of the offence, preparing the crime details form, and recording the statements of the witnesses.

During cross-examination by the learned defense counsel, PW.4 admitted that he invoked the sections in the present case based on the contents of Ex.P1. PW.4 admitted that the distance between the scene of offence and the police station is 4 kilometers. PW.4 admitted that he does not know whether the witnesses cited in the chargesheet are agnates. PW.4 admitted that during the scene of offence panchanama, he came to know from neighboring land owners that LW.1 has Ac.1.02 gts.

PW.4 admitted that he also enquired about the land of the accused

Fair 8 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 which is adjacent to the land of LW.1. PW.4 further stated that the present case was falsely foisted against the accused only to grab the land belonging to the accused. PW.4 denied that proper investigation was not conducted in the present case, that the accused is in no way concerned with the present case, and now he is deposing falsely to support the case of the prosecution.

16. Evaluating the evidence placed on record, the primary charges against the accused are under Sections 447, 427, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. To secure a conviction, the prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed criminal trespass, caused mischief by damaging the motor wires, and criminally intimidated the complainant.

17. A thorough evaluation of the testimonies reveals that the entire dispute stems from an ongoing civil litigation regarding the agricultural land situated in Sy.No. 527/E/6. PW.1 explicitly admitted during his cross- examination that there are prior cases between the parties. Significantly,

PW.1 admitted that the civil suit in O.S.No. 148 of 2016, which he filed concerning the said piece of land, was decreed in favour of the accused (A1 and A2). Furthermore, he admitted that another civil suit (O.S.No.

217 of 2017) filed by the accused claiming 3 guntas of land is currently pending. These admissions clearly establish a bona fide civil property

Fair 9 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 dispute over the boundaries and ownership of the land. When a civil court has already passed a decree in favour of the accused regarding the land in question, the essential ingredient of criminal intent required to constitute the offences of criminal trespass and mischief is entirely negated.

18. The credibility of the prosecution witnesses is highly questionable, as they are all closely related and interested parties. PW.1 is the son of the complainant and failed to produce the primary title deed of the property, relying merely on pahanies (Ex.P2). PW.2, who was examined to corroborate the alleged altercation at the Gram Panchayat office, is an agnate of PW.1. Crucially, PW.2 admitted during his cross-examination that he did not mention the facts stated in his chief-examination before the police. This material omission amounts to a contradiction, rendering his testimony in the Court unreliable.

19. Similarly, the independent nature of the investigation is completely compromised by the choice of panch witnesses. PW.3, who acted as the panch witness for the crime details form (Ex.P3), admitted in his cross- examination that he is the father-in-law of PW.1. Thus, the panch witness is a close relative of the complainant. He further admitted that he is uneducated and could not read the contents of Ex.P3, which casts

Fair 10 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 grave doubt on the sanctity and truthfulness of the panchanama proceedings.

20. A significant weakness in the prosecution's case emerges from the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW.4) himself.During his cross- examination, PW.4 categorically stated that the present case was falsely foisted against the accused only to grab the land belonging to the accused. When the Investigating Officer, who is the very architect of the prosecution's case, admits under oath that the case is a false fabrication motivated by a land-grabbing attempt, the entire substratum of the prosecution's case is significantly weakened.

21. In light of the substantial admission by the Investigating Officer that the case is false, the material omissions by the eyewitness, the highly interested nature of the panch witnesses, and the admitted existence of civil decrees in favour of the accused, there remains absolutely no credible evidence to sustain the charges. The dispute is purely civil in nature and has been given a false criminal colour. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

22. IN THE RESULT, the Accused Nos. 1 is found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs. 447, 427, and 506 r/w 34 of the Indian

Penal Code. Accordingly, he is ACQUITTED U/Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The

Fair 11 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019 bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14 th day of May, 2026)

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First-Class, Jagtial.

:: Appendix of Evidence::

:: Witnesses Examined ::

For Prosecution:

Prosecution Name of witnesses Description Witness No.

PW.1: D. Srinivas PW-1 Son of Complainant

PW-2Eyewitness PW.2: D. Ravi

PW-3 PW.3: G. Lachaiah Panch Witness for CDF

PW-4Investigating Officer PW.4: P. Shankaraiah

For Defense: -- Nil --

::Exhibits Marked::

For Prosecution:

Exhibit No. Description of the Exhibit Proved by/Attested by

Ex.P1: Report lodged by Ex.P1 PW1 LW.1.

Fair 12 of 12 CC No.1305 of 2019

Pahani for the year 2017. Ex.P2 PW1

Crime Details Form. Ex.P3PW3

First Information Report Ex.P4PW4 (FIR).

For Defense: -- Nil --

Material Objects Marked: -- Nil --

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial

Fair 1 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST-CLASS AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Smt. Karanjia Nickysha, II-Addl.Junior Civil Judge Jagtial.

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026

O.S.No.273 OF 2025

Between:-

1.Bekkam Laxmi, W/o.Rajalingaiah, Age:48 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.4-49/9, Sandralapally village of Kodimial mandal, Jagtial district.

2.Kanukutla Laxmi, W/o.Shankar, age:43 years, OcC:Labour, R/o.H.No.12-97, Muthyampet village of Mallial mandal, Jagtial district.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1.Malliala Mandavva, w/o.Late Hanumaiah, age:55 years, R/o.H.No.6-71/1, Maddutla village of Mallial mandal, Jagtial district.

2.Malliala Vanaja, D/o.Late Hanumaiah, age:22 years, R/o.H.No.6- 71/1, Maddutla village of Mallial mandal, Jagtial district.

3.Marampelly Shobha, W/o.Sudhakar, age:26 years, R/o.Nookapally village of Mallial mandal, Jagtial district.

...Defendants.

Claim:- Suit for Partition and Separate Possession

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 13.05.2026, in the presence of Sri K. Laxman, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and the defendants having been set ex-parte, and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiffs under Section 26 read with Order VII

Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share to the plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 in the suit schedule 'A' property i.e., agricultural land bearing Sy.No.90/ఇ

Fair 2 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025 (now Sy.No.90/ఇ/1) to an extent of Ac.1-03½ guntas situated at Maddutla village, Mallial mandal, Jagtial district, and suit schedule 'B' property i.e., residential house bearing No.6-71/1 situated within the limits of Maddutla

Grama Panchayath, Mallial mandal, Jagtial district. (Hereinafter collectively referred to as "the suit schedule properties").

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(a)The deceased Malliala Hanumaiah was first married to Malliala

Narsavva. Out of that wedlock, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were born as daughters. After the death of Narsavva, Hanumaiah married defendant

No.1 (Malliala Mondavva) under the custom of "Marumanam." Out of the second marriage, defendants No.2 and 3 (daughters) were born to

Hanumaiah and defendant No.1.

(b)The plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 3 constitute co-parcenary

Hindu joint family members governed by Mitakshara law. Hanumaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'A' property (agricultural land bearing Sy.No.90/ఇ/1, extent Ac.1-03½ guntas, situated at Maddutla village, Mallial mandal) and the suit schedule 'B' property (residential house bearing No.6-71/1, situated within the limits of Maddutla Grama

Panchayat, Mallial mandal, Jagtial district).

(c)Hanumaiah died intestate about eight years ago, leaving the plaintiffs and defendants as his only surviving legal heirs. According to the plaintiffs, all four daughters (plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.2 and 3) have

Fair 3 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025 1/4th undivided share each in the suit properties. However, defendants

No.1 to 3 have been mismanaging the joint family properties and misusing the income. On 10.08.2025, the plaintiffs approached defendant No.1 for partition, but the defendant, in collusion with her daughters, refused to allot the plaintiffs' share.

(d)Thereafter, on 25.08.2025, the plaintiffs approached the village elders, who advised them to seek legal remedy. A legal notice was issued to the defendants on 25.06.2025, demanding partition, to which the defendants sent a reply through their counsel on 19.08.2025. The plaintiffs recently learned that the defendants are attempting to transfer the suit properties in their names by influencing the revenue and Panchayat authorities. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit for partition and separate possession.

2.Summons were served upon defendants No.1 to 3, and the service was held sufficient. Due to their non-appearance, they were set ex-parte on 19.12.2025.

3.To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.1 as PW.1 and plaintiff No.2 as PW.2. They got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 towards documentary evidence.

4.Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the record.

Fair 4 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025

5.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Partition and Separate possession as prayed for?

POINT:

6.To substantiate their claim, the Plaintiffs examined Plaintiff No.1 as

PW-1 and Plaintiff No.2 as PW-2. Both witnesses filed their chief- examination affidavits reiterating the plaint averments. They deposed that the deceased Malliala Hanumaiah was their father, that the suit schedule properties belong to him, and that they, along with the Defendants, are the only legal heirs. They also deposed that the Defendants refused to effect partition despite requests. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 remains unchallenged and unrebutted, as the Defendants chose to remain ex-parte and did not cross-examine them.

7.On the documentary side, the Plaintiffs marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-9 (Pahani Patrikas for various years from 1984-85 to 2015-16), Ex.A-10 (Bhu

Bharathi Records of Rights pertaining to Sy.No.90/1), Ex.A-11 (House Tax

Assessment Details pertaining to H.No.6-71/1), Ex.A-12 (Legal Notice

dated 25.06.2025), and Ex.A-13 (Reply Notice dated 19.08.2025). These

documents collectively establish the possession and ownership of the suit properties in the name of the deceased Hanumaiah.

8.Regarding the suit schedule B property (residential house), though

Ex.A-11 (House Tax Assessment) reflects the name of "Ganga Narsavva" (the first wife), the Defendants themselves in their Reply Notice (Ex.A-13)

Fair 5 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025 categorically admitted that Malliala Hanumaiah was the owner of the house. This admission is binding on the Defendants under Section 53 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

9.It is an admitted fact that Malliala Hanumaiah died intestate about eight years ago. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, his property devolves upon Class-I heirs. The Class-I heirs in this case are: (i)

Bekkam Laxmi (Plaintiff No.1 – daughter), (ii) Kanukutla Laxmi (Plaintiff

No.2 – daughter), (iii) Malliala Mondavva (Defendant No.1 – widow), (iv)

Malliala Vanaja (Defendant No.2 – daughter), and (v) Marampelly Shobha (Defendant No.3 – daughter). All five are entitled to equal shares.

10.Under Rules 1 and 2 of Section 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the widow is entitled to one share and each daughter is entitled to one share. Therefore, the total number of shares is five (5). The Plaintiffs' claim in the plaint seeking 1/4th share each (excluding Defendant No.1) is legally incorrect. Under Order VII Rule 7 of CPC, this Court is empowered to grant the correct legal share despite the incorrect calculation in the plaint.

11.The Defendants were duly served with summons and were set ex- parte on 19.12.2025 for non-appearance. The evidence led by the Plaintiffs remains uncontested and unrebutted. The Defendants' suggestion in their reply notice about a prior partition remains unproven, as they did not enter the witness box to discharge their burden of proof.

12.In view of the above, this Court finds that the Plaintiffs have established their right to partition. The suit schedule A and B properties

Fair 6 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025 shall be divided into five (5) equal shares of 1/5th each. The Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are each entitled to 1/5th share (collectively 2/5th), and the

Defendants No.1, 2, and 3 are each entitled to 1/5th share (collectively 3/5th). The point for determination is answered accordingly.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in part. A preliminary decree for partition is passed in respect of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. The suit schedule properties shall be divided into five equal shares of 1/5th each by metes and bounds. Plaintiff No.1 (Bekkam Laxmi) and Plaintiff

No.2 (Kanukutla Laxmi) are each entitled to 1/5 th share (collectively 2/5th). Defendant No.1 (Malliala Mondavva), Defendant No.2 (Malliala

Vanaja), and Defendant No.3 (Marampelly Shobha) are each entitled to 1/5th share (collectively 3/5th). The plaintiffs are at liberty to file a petition for final decree for possession and separation of their shares by metes and bounds. There shall be no order as to costs.

Typed, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1:Pw1-Bekkam Laxmi- Nil - (Set Ex-parte) P.W.2: Pw2-Kanukutla Laxmi

Fair 7 of 7 OS.No. 273 of 2025

:: DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS ::

Sl.No. Description of Document

Ex.A-1is True copy of pahanies for the year 1984-85

Ex.A-2is True copy of pahanies for the year 1989-90

Ex.A-3is True copy of pahanies for the year 1996-97

Ex.A-4is True copy of pahanies for the year 2000-01

Ex.A-5is True copy of pahanies for the year 2005-06

Ex.A-6is True copy of pahanies for the year 2009-10

Ex.A-7is True copy of pahanies for the year 2011-12

Ex.A-8is True copy of pahanies for the year 2013-14

Ex.A-9is True copy of pahanies for the year 2015-16 is Bhu Bharathi Records of rights pertaining sy.no.90/ఇ/1, Ex.A-10 obtained from mee-seva is CC of House Tax assessment details vide Assessment Ex.A-11 No.889 pertaining to H.No.6-71/1, obtained from mee-seva Ex.A-12 is Office copy of legal notice dated:25.06.2025 Ex.A-13 is Copy of reply notice dated:19.08.2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS

Description of Document

- Nil -

II ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL