Sri K.Prakash Babu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PALASA

Present: Sri. K. Prakash Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

Monday this the 05th day of July, 2021.

O.S.61 of 2007

Between:

Bada Ramadasu, S/o. late Badrachalam, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, resident of Gullalapadu village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. .… Plaintiff

And

1.Duvvada Prabhakararao Chowdhari, S/o. Late Meenakethana Chowdari, aged about 62 years, Cultivation, resident of Gullalapadu village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. (Died)

2.Duvvada Lokanadham Chowdhari, S/o. Prabhakararao Chowdhari, aged about 39 years, Police Constable, rest do;

3.Duvvada Bagemma, W/o. late Prabhakararao Chowdary, aged about 54 years, Household duties, rest do;

4.Bada Nagamma, W/o. Ganapathi, Hindu, aged about 38 years, D/o. Duvvada Prabhakararao Chowdary, Household duties, Hindu, resident of Pedabadam village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. (Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as L.RS. Of the deceased defendant No.1, as per the order in IA.218/2009 dt. 27.01.2011 ) …. Defendants

This suit came up on this day for final hearing in the presence Sri P. G Raja Ratnamlearned Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Advocate for the defendants upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, relatives, associates, workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and prays to pass a decree in his favour with costs and other reliefs.

2.The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff stemming out of his plaint pleadings are as follows.

(i)The plaint schedule property is a self acquired property of the plaintiff.

2

He got by virtue of registered Will dated 15-2-2005 executed by his mother

Bada Aliveni that the property which was covered under Will is nothing but plaint schedule property and the said property was bequeathed under the will voluntarily by executing said will deed. The testatrix Bada Aliveni was hale and healthy and in the sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of will deed in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently she died on 3-11-2006. plaintiff succeeded the plaint schedule property after the death of executant Bada Aliveni since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all including the defendants.

(ii)The defendants who are having nothing to do with the suit schedule property and the defendants executed tittle and possession of the plaintiff schedule property, the govt. also recognized their rights and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour.

(iii)As the things stood thus, the defendants enmically disposed towards the plaintiff since two years and they are hectically attempted to wreck vengeance against the plaintiff. The defendants threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him there from the suit land. The defendants are capable enough to translate their threats into action. As the plaintiff is unable to resist the power of defendants, approached the court for the relief as prayed for by relying the cause of action from the defendants are proclaimed in the month of may, 2007 in Gullalapadu village where the land is situated in vajrapukotturu mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this court. Hence the suit.

3.Plaintiff valued the suit for Rs.5000 upon that the required court fee of 411 is paid u/sec.26(c) of APCF Act.

(i)per contra the 1st defendant filed his written statement and the 2nd defendant adopted the written statement filed by the 1st defendant by filing memo of adoption and the case of defendants is 1 and 2 is as follows:

(ii)the defendants totally denied the plaint pleadings into and it is submitted that that Badana aliveni had nothing to do with the plaint schedule property nor with the family of the defendants Bada Aliveni and

Meenaketana chowdary were born to Duvvada Arudramma and Duvvada

Yerra Kamayya of Gullalapadu village. This defendant is not the son of

Meenaketana Chowdary. The plaintiff has falsely shown as Menaketana

Chowdary as father of the defendant only to have wrongful gain over the 3 plaint schedule property. 1st defendant is the son of one Eko Narayana @

Narayana Chowdary through legally wedded wife of Chinnamma. There are some matrimonial disputes between Eko Narayans chowdary and

Chinnamma in or about 1956. Said Chinamma and children including 1st defendant are driven out of house and neglected by their father. Taking the advantage of estrangement between them. Eko Narayana chowdary has falsely set up Duvvu Menaketana son of Yerrakamayya as his son to deprive the first defendant claiming his legitimate share to an extent of 1/2 share in joint family properties and to claim a major portion of family properties under a colourable transaction in 1957. under those circumstances, this defendant got filed a suit OS 34/62 on the file of Hon'ble Subordinate Judge court srikakulam for partition and for possession of one such share against his father and paternal uncle where Meenaketana Chowdari and Bada Aliveni were impleaded as parties to the proceedings the land which was locally called as Akavarapolam admeasuirng to an extent 2.40 cents included in the suit number item no.5 of plaint a schedule in the former Suit 34/62 which was assigned as sy.55/1 in the survey and settlement operations . The said land denoted by sy.no.55/1 came to be 2.36 cents and survey registered in the name of Eko Narayana chowdary in settlement fair adangal.

(iii)The suit 34/1962 was entered in a compromise in 1966 and in the said compromise the entire land in sy.no.55/1 of Gullalapadu village which is item no.5 of plaint schedule in the said suit had fallen to the share of this defendant along with other properties.

(iv)Bada aliveni is daughter of Duvvu Yerrakamayya and was alien to the

Duvv Eko Narayana Chowdari family and no property was given in the compromise and the plaint schedule property fell to the share of 1st defendant and the 1st defendant is enjoying the plaint schedule property by paying land revenue to the government. Bada Aliveni has never had any right title. He further submitted that the plaintiff conspicuously concealed the real facts. The plaintiff failed to show how Bada Aliveni has got the part of the property in sy.no.55/1. He further submitted that one Bagathi

Ranganadham who is a chronic litigant and was an active supporter of Bada

Aliveni and said Bagathi Ranganadham is a ex-headman of Gullalapadu village and with his active connivance rytuvari pass book was created in respect of Ac.1.30 cents in sy.no.55/1 and was created to the extent of 1.30 cents. It is further submitted that rytuvari pass book and adangal pass books 4 does not create any title. In the absence of any constructive title of plaint schedule property by the plaintiff and the plaintiff fabricated the rytuvari pattas with a view to grab the property.

(v)The 1st defendant further submits that Bada Aliveni has got any right, title over the properties and the property which was kept for demo nearly 30 years by the date of the suit. And admittedly Bada Aliveni got only son has her legal heir. Then what made her to executed Will deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(vi)This defendant further submitted that the suit schedule is not correct, the boundaries are not correct. The entire land situated in sy.no.55/1 is ac.2.36 cents and this defendant is the owner of the plaint schedule property in the survey numbers and boundaries are shown wrong schedule. The cause if action is relied for filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable and his liable to be dismissed with costs and prays to dismiss the plaint.

4.In this case after filing the written statement in the year 2007 the then presiding officer framed issues Nos.1 to 4 as follows on 03.07.2008 and again the other officer also framed again issue No.5 having power under order-14 rule-2 the judge deciding the matter can settled issues are shutdown the issue which are already settled. On perusal of the issues framed on both the occasions this court settled the following issues as there are some issues framed by the both officers. Hence, issues settled as follows.

1.Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or not?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants or not?

3.Whether the cause of action relied by the plaintiff is true and correct?

4.To what relief?

5. Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property or not?

(i) The suit is filed for permanent injunction by the plaintiff and it is the contention that the plaint schedule property which situated at Gullalapadu

Revenue Village to an extent of Ac.1.18 cents and said property is acquired 5 by him and registered will deed dated 15.02.2005 executed by his mother

Bada Aliveni and he further contending that said will deed the executed by his mother voluntarily while she is hale and healthy and in a sound dispossessing state of mind. Subsequent after executing of the will deed the mother of the plaintiff died on 03.11.2006 ever since the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with absolute rights to the knowledge of one and all in and around of the village.

(ii)The defendants who are enmically for the last two years prior to the date of filing the suit hectically trying to dispossessing there on and it is also submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff the plaintiff has been peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property on the date of the suit. To substantiate that the plaintiff filed except several documents where in exhibit is the Ryotwari pass book issued in favour of the mother of the plaintif and Ext.A2 Pattadar pass book issued in favour of the mother of the plaintiff, Exts.A4 to A10 of the Cist receipts ranging from the Fasali 1382, 1385, 1391, 1394, 1395, 1413, 1416, 1414, 1412, and 1411 and Ext.A11 is the will deed, Ext.A12 of the death certificate of the mother of the plaintiff,

Exts.A13 and 14 are the Pattadar pass book and title deed and Ext.A15 is the adangal issued in favour of the Bada Aliveni mother of the plaintiff.

Subsequently at the orders of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh the plaintiff also got filed Exts.A16 to A21 as on the date of the suit those are Ext.A16 is the registration extract fo thesale deed dated 10.03.1967 executed in favour of Bagadi Kanakamma by Duvvada Prabahakararao Chowdary, Ext.A17 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 06.04.1988 executed in favour of Veddulla Venkata Ramana, Ram Prasad and Sridar being minors represented by their mother Prameelamma by Duvvada Balusu Chowdary and is minor sons.

(iii)Though it is the duty of the plaintiff to substantiate his case since he had approached the court seeking a decree in his favour in support of his only evidence and documentary evidence P.Ws.2 and 3 are examined by filing their affidavits. It is a case of plaintiff that the plaint schedule property originally belongs to mother of the plaintiff i.e., Bada Aliveni and the said

Bada Aliveni executed registered will deed under Ext.A11 on 15.02.2005. In the said will deed it was mentioned as the said property i.e., plaint schedule property has been in possession of the plaintiff's mother till date of Ext.A11 and subsequent to her death the said property shall upon the plaint. The 6 said executed of the will deed died subsequent to execution of the Ext.A11 and other death certificate of executant of Bada Aliveni filed under Ext.A12 moreover there are not disputes regard of the death of Bada Aliveni to rebut or to disprove. The case of the plaintiff that the defendant cross examined

PW.1 at length and relied of Exts.B1 to B3 according to the defendants there was a legitimate in the year vide OS.34/1962 on the file of the then

Subordinate Court, Srikakulam for partition and to said suit was endeemed compromise and compromise decree was passed by the Hon'ble

Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam under seal and signature of 21.11.1966.

Wherein in the said judgment and the said proceedings it is Bada Aliveni shows as defendant No.3 and 4 said compromise no property fell to her share. So it is pertinent to see though the suit is filed for permanent injunction it is the duty of the court to coming to the title of the plaint schedule since the defendants totally denying the right title and interest of the plaintiff are his predecessors i.e., testatrix Bada Aliveni.

(iv)On careful scrutiny of the evidence on record PW.1 the plaintiff having interest in his case obviously speaks in his favour of during cross examination, the PW.1 categorically deposed that Menakethana Chowdary and Bada Aliveni brother and sister and their natural parents are Duvvada

Appudamma and Eko Narayana and no acquaintance that the Duvvada

Yerrakammayya and Duvvada Arudramma and he further deposed he do not have knowledge regard who are there is cardinal relationship between Eko

Narayana Chowdary and Chennamma. It is further submitted that he do not know where the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam passed a decree at the instance of 1st defendant in the suit in OS.34/1962 and the evidence is that the certificates record discloses the survey No.55/1 is suit in the name of

Bada Aliveni, Gullapadu and the patta was issued after compromised in

S.No.55/1. It is also further admitted that Duvvada Menakethana Chowdary was no way connected the plaint schedule property. She revenue records were mutated in his name after death of mother Bada Aliveni. It is admitted fact that Bagathi Ranganadham was the Village Administrative Officer. So it is the case of the plaintiff his mother possessed patta and title deed. On perusal of the said patta Ext.A2 he stood in the name of the plaintiff's mother

Bada Aliveni which is known as pattadar pass book in the said book names correcting that regard the name of the enjoyer is Bade Badhrachalam and it its beneath the signature of Menakethana Chowdary is there and it was not 7 signed by the any Tahsildhar and it is said pattadar pass bok issued by the

Deputy Tahsildhar and at the first page the name of the rythu was arranged and put the name of the plaintiff's mother but there is no initials and except the said pas book no other document was filed to show along with plaint schedule property belongs to the mother of the plaintiff except pass book and cist receipts no other documents filed by the plaintiff’s mother ie.,

Exts.A1 and A2 and cist receipts.

(v)Accord to the transfer property whenever as the property valued more than 100 which is subsequently registered document and other way of registered document i.e., will deed, gift deed, settlement deed and will deed.

Bada Aliveni except having cist receipt, pattadar pass book and there is no whisper in the pleadings of the plaintiff how the testatrix got property transfer the same. In the absence of any basis of document the revenue entries made in the revenue records does not run for any title moreover in this case the defendants vehemently genuine title and the transfer who transfers any property can transfer the better title. In the absence of any proof that the title in predecessor a testatrix the executed will even in whisper in her will deed how she acquired the said land revenue accounts as already said supra did not confer any title. On the other hand the plaintiff also would like to relying of Exts.A16 to A19 and it is not case with Meenakethana Chowdary executed a settlement deed in his favour under Ext.A20 and the plaint schedule property premises a part and parcel of property cover under

Ext.A20. It is a case that the property his belongs to his mother and his mother executed by in the month of November, 2006 and well then is possession and enjoyment of the same that there is no and proof that mother any absolute and right as such she cannot convey a title to the plaintiff well settled title follows possession in the absence of any title the court of the presume and assume the plaintiff possession and enjoyment as on date of filing of the suit.

6.Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants or not?

(I)The suit is filed for permanent injunction. Any suit for permanent injunction the plaintiff shall be as a possession. As already discussed in the issue No.1 there is no title and possession and other the plaint schedule property either in favour of the plaintiff or predecessor testatrix Bada Aliveni.

It is duty to preponderance probability the burden on his shoulder to 8 discharge the said plaintiff himself and P.Ws.2 and 3 are examined. It is settled in the case of Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By

Lrs & Ors - AIR SC 2033. In the said Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically settled at para no.17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set out survey guidelines when a suit for injunction lines and suit for discussion line here in the defendants denied title of the plaintiff. In the absence of any title it is the duty of plaintiff to seek duration and suit of mere injunction is not maintainable and the cause of action relied by the plaintiff is not disclosing a real cause of action as per pleadings two years prior to date of filing of the suit. The defendants are trying to invade or dispossess him from the plaint schedule property where the suit is filed on 06.06.2007 wherein the plaintiff pleading that his mother executed will deed on 15.02.2005. His mother died on 03.11.2006 and the suit is filed in the year 06.06.2007 by the date of filing of the suit the mother was in possession even otherwise considered.

Therefore, the cause of action relied by the plaintiff would not be believe.

Hence there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The plaintiff failed to bring the cardinal principles for seeking of permanent injunction since he failed to satisfy this guidelines set out by the Hon'ble to the Court in this case

Bada Aliveni died for Lrs. This court also relied on the judgment of when an injunction can be granted face of the possession even in the absence of title against all the world except true.

In the result the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation Stenographer Grade-III, prints are taken by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 05th day of July, 2021.

Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff:

P.W.1 :Bada Ramadas; P.W.2:Sistu Lokanadham; P.W.3:Bammidi Mohanarao;

For Defendants: D.W.1:Duvvada Lokanadham Chowdary; 9

D.W.2:Duvvada Jaggu Chowdary;

Documentary Evidence

For Plaintiff: Ext.A1: Rythwari pass book in favour of the executant of the will i.e., mother of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land dated 04.06.1980; Ext.A2: Pattadar pass book in favour of the executant of the will i.e., mother of the plaintiff dated 14.09.2000 in respect of suit land; Ext.A3:Title deed in favour of the executant of will i.e., mother of plaintiff dated 14.09.2000; Ext.A4:Cist receipt issued by H.M in favour of the executant of will mother of the plaintiff dated 27.04.1973, cist receipt for Rs.5.20 ps for fasali 1382; Ext.A5:Cist receipt in favour of the mother of the plaintiff

dated 06.04.1976 cist receipt for Rs.18.70 for fasali

1385; Ext.A6:Cist receipt in favour of mother of the plaintiff dated 09.02.1982 cist receipt for Rs.28.82 ps for faslai 1390 and 1391; Ext.A7:Cist receipt in favour of mother of the plaintiff dated 01.07.1986, cist receipt for Rs.18.60 ps for fasali 1394 and 1395; Ext.A8:Cist receipt issued by V.R.O Chinnavanka in favour of the plaintiff dated 22.05.2007, cist receipt for Rs. 400-00 for fasli 1416; Ext.A9:Cist receipt issued by VRO Chinnavanka in favour of the mother of the plaintif dated 31.03.2005 for Rs.240-00 for fasali 1413 and 1414; Ext.A10:Cist receipt issued by Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chinnavanka in favour of the executant of the will i.e., mother of plaintiff dated 08.02.2004 for Rs.236- 00 for fasli 1412 and 1411; Ext.A11:Registered will in favour of the plaintiff by his mother Bada Aliveni 15.02.2005; Ext.A12:Death certificate issued by Grama Panchayat Secretary, Chinnavanka dated 06.02.2007; Ext.A13:Pattadar pass book suit land added in the pass book of the plaintiff; Ext.A14:Title deed suit land added in the title deed of the plaintiff; Ext.A15:Adangal in favour of Bada Aliveni executant of the will issued by VRO dated 22.05.2007. Cultivation account for faslai 1408 to 1411; Ext.A16:Registration extract of sale deed dated 10.03.1967, executant in faovur of Bagadi Kanakamma by Duvvada Prabhakar Chowdary; Ext.A17:Registration extract of the sale deed dated 06.04.1988 executed in favour of Veddulla Venkata Ramana, Ram Prasad and Srida being minors represented by their mother Prameelamma by Duvada Balusu Chowdary and his minor sons; 10

Ext.A18:Registration extract of the sale deed dated 07.08.1979 executed in favour of Pukkala Saraswatamma W/o Laxmana Rao executed by Duvvada Prabhakar Chowdary and his sons; Ext.A19:Registration extract of the sale deed dated 30.11.1966 executed in favour of Tamminana Tulasamma W/o. Rajanna by Duvvada Meenaketan Chowdary; Ext.A20:Original settlement deed dated 06.03.1976 executed in my favour of Duvvada late Meenaketan Chowdary; Ext.A21:Original Election identity card which stands in the name of Duvvada Meenaketan Chowdary

For Defendants:

Ext.B1: Certified coy of the decree and judgment in OS.34/62 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil

Judge's Court, Srikakulam;

Ext.B2:Certified copy of compromise petition; Ext.B3:Certified copy of suit register extract in OS.34/1962;

Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

11

Date of Presentation: 06.07.2007 Date of Filing: 06.07.2007

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: PALASA

Present: Sri. K. Prakash Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

Monday this the 05th of July, 2021.

O.S.61 of 2007

Between:

Bada Ramadasu, S/o. late Badrachalam, aged about 54 years, Cultivation, resident of Gullalapadu village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. .… Plaintiff

And

1.Duvvada Prabhakararao Chowdhari, S/o. Late Meenakethana Chowdari, aged about 62 years, Cultivation, resident of Gullalapadu village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. (Died)

2.Duvvada Lokanadham Chowdhari, S/o. Prabhakararao Chowdhari, aged about 39 years, Police Constable, rest do;

3.Duvvada Bagemma, W/o. late Prabhakararao Chowdary, aged about 54 years, Household duties, rest do;

4.Bada Nagamma, W/o. Ganapathi, Hindu, aged about 38 years, D/o. Duvvada Prabhakararao Chowdary, Household duties, Hindu, resident of Pedabadam village, Nagarampalli Post, Vajrapukotturu Mandal, Srikakulam District. (Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are added as L.RS. Of the deceased defendant No.1, as per the order in IA.218/2009 dt. 27.01.2011 ) …. Defendants

The plaintiff filed the suit for a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, relatives, associates, workmen from ever interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and prays to pass a decree in his favour with costs and other reliefs.

The value of the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) on which a Court Fee of Rs.411/- is paid under Section 26(c) of AP Court fee and Suit Valuation Act by way of bank challan SBI, Palasa.

This suit came up on this day for final hearing in the presence Sri P. G Raja Ratnamlearned Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri P. Lakshmi Narayana, learned Advocate for the defendants upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and 12

D E C R E E

i)that the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed; ii)that therebe no order as to the costs.

(Copies of Schedule, Valuation Slip are here with enclosed).

Given under my hand and the seal of this court, this the 05th day of July, 2021.

Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

No costs memo filed Stamp on plaint: Rs. 411.00 Stamp on Vakalat: Rs. 2.00 Stamp on Process:Rs. 50.00 Type Charges: Rs. 100.00 Advocate Fee: Rs. 2000.00 ------------------ Costs certified: Rs. 2,563.00 --------------------

Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali. FAC. Junior Civil Judge, Palasa.

Note: The parties should apply as soon as possible for the return of all exhibits which they may wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from this date.

13

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Palasa, Dated:05/07/2021

N O T I C E

Please take notice that the Judgment in OS 61/2007 will be

pronounced today i.e. 05-07-2021 which was reserved for orders on

27.05.2021.

// By order //

Superintendent, JCJ Court, Palasa

To Sri P.G.Rajaratnam, Advocate for the Plaintif Sri.P.Laxminarayana, Advocate for Defendants,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

PATHAPATNAM

Present : Sri K.Prakash Babu Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali (FAC) Tekkali and (FAC) Pathapatnam

Friday, this the 20 th day of March, 2020

C.C.No.72/2018

BETWEEN :

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam PS.

...Complainant

AND:

A1. Miryala Sanaysi s/o. Satyam, age 26 years, caste by Bagadi, Avalangi village, Hiramandalam mandal, Rider of motor cycle bearing no.AP30J 6002. A2. Thamada Purushottam s/o. Ramarao, age 44 years, caste Palli, Doctor Viswanadham quarters, Kotha veedhi, Palasa village & Mandal, registered owner of motor cycle bearing no.AP30J 6002.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 20-3-2020 for hearing in the presence of Sri.APP for the State and of Sri. S. Sambamurthy, Sri M.Narasimha raju, Counsels for the accused 1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police

Pathapatnam Police Station has laid a charge sheet in Cr.No.50/2017 for the offence punishable Under Sections 304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act against the accused.

2.The brief case of the prosecution as per charge sheet is as follows:-

LW1 is the defacto complainant/ son of the deceased. LW1 is resident fo Kaguwada village of Pathapatnam mandal. On 8-7-2017 at 2 4.30 pm, the father of LW1 Kanakala Paidi Naidu (herein referred to as deceased) age 70 years, went to Mahendra Tanaya river bank at

Booragam village river bed to attend nature calls and afterwards while his father was returning towards his village on foot the accused A1 rider of motor cycle bearing no.AP30J 6002 dashed his father on his back side at the function hall of Sri Seetharama picture palace in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which his father fell on the road and sustained severe injury on his head and fracture injury on his ankle region. On seeing the road mishap LW4 informed the same and further they shifted deceased to government hospital, Pathapatnam and after observing the critical condition of deceased the medical officer advised him to shift to

RIMS hospital, Srikakulam for better treatment. On that they shifted him and admitted at RIMS, Srikakulam and while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to death on the same day at 10 pm.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW17 registered this case and investigated into. During the course of investigation, on 9-7-2017 LW17 visited the scene of offence, observed in the presence of Lws8 and 9, got drafted the scene observation report, drew rough sketh. On the same day,

LW17 visited the CHC, Pathapatnam, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lws 8 to 12. During the inquest, LW17 examined Lws 1 to 4 and recorded their statements. On 11-7-2017 at 14.30 hours, LW1 approached to LW17 and submitted another report that came to know that the accused completely blind in right eye and partially blind in left eye and had no driving lisence. LW17 alter the section of law from 304-A to 304-II IPC of pathapatnam PS. As it is grave case LW15 who is in charge circle took up investigation and verified the investigation of LW17 and examined Lws 1 to 7 and recorded their statements and arrested the accused A1 on 11-7-2017 and A2 on 12-7-2017 and both are produced before the JMFC Pathapatnam and later they were released on self bail. As per the orders of the Court, to treat the case as non grave and file charge sheet u/sec. 304-A IPC. LW13 is MVI who inspected the crime vehicle AP30J 6002, issued accident inspection report by opining that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

LW14 is medical officer who held PM examination and issued PM certificate by opining that the cause of death is head injury and cardio 3 respiratory arrest. After receiving the MVI report and PM examination report, LW17 laid charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file Under Section 304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act against the accused A1 and

A2. On appearance of the accused, copies of case records as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. has been supplied to them.

4.The accused were examined Under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act. The quantum of accusation made against them was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence the matter was posted for trial.

5.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution got examined

PWs.1 to Pw.11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex P-9.

6.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence, for which, the accused denied the same and he reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the Arguments on both sides. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of learned APP., for the State and counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC and sec.182(i),

196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act ? If so, whether the accused

are liable for punishment of the same?

9. POINT 4

In order to establish its case, though the Prosecution has cited (17) witnesses and out of them, the prosecution has got examined

PWs.1 to Pw.11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to Ex P-9. Sri APP has given up

LW3 Maddili Hemalatha, LW6 Sahukari Ravikumar, LW7 Ganapathi

Venkati, LW10 Ganapathi Appanna, LW11 Thalada Naidu, LW12 Kalla

Ramulu.

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 8-7-2017 at 4.30 pm, the father of LW1 Kanakala Paidi Naidu (deceased) went to Mahendra

Tanaya river bank at Booragam village river bed to attend nature calls and afterwards while his father was returning towards his village on foot the accused A1 rider of motor cycle bearing no.AP30J 6002 dashed his father on his back side at the function hall of Sri Seetharama picture palace in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which his father fell on the road and sustained severe injury on his head and fracture injury on his ankle region.

11.At the outset, it is better to define section 304-A IPC:

304A. Causing Death By Negligence :­ -Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

12.In any given criminal case, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the offence beyond all reasonable doubt. To substantiate, the same

PW1 and 2 are examined who are son and wife of the deceased are the hearsay evidences and they were informed by somebody that the deceased met with an accident. PW3 Maddila Lakshminarayana who is the eye witness to the accident deposed that while he was proceeding on his bike from Kaguvada to Pathapatnam one two wheeler bearing no.AP30J 6002 being driven by A1 hit the deceased by which he fall down and sustained crush injury to his right leg and severe bleeding to his forehead and he witnessed the accident and stated A1 drove the crime 5 vehicle in a speedy manner and later informed to PW4 over phone. In his cross examination he admitted that he cannot say the bearing number of his own vehicle. He saw the accused when he attending the court for adjournments and also admitted that he did not submitted any report to police about the alleged accident and also Ex.P1 does not contain his signature.

13.At the same time another eye witness PW4 Nalli

Jagadeswararao deposed that he is running chicken shop at Kaguvada near Santhoshimata temple. A1 came to his shop and went away by taking chicken from his shop. He also observed that the deceased

Paidinaidu proceeding from Pathapatnam to Kaguvada on walk and later he came to know that A1 hit the said Paidinaidu through his motorcycle. In his cross examination he came to know abou the alleged accident immediately after the accident and he did not given any report to police.

PW3 deposed in his evidence that he informed PW4 over phone but at the same time he deposed that PW4 and LW6 and 7 were present along with him at the time of alleged accident. PW4 deposed that he came to know about the accident. Therefore there is no corroboration in between PW3 and PW4. Except the evidence of PW3 there is no other evidence to say that the A1 drove his bike in a speedy manner.

14.The other witness i.e., PW5, 6 are the circumstantial evidence i.e., the mediators to the scene of offence. PW10 Inspector of police sent requisition to SP, Srikakulam seeking permission to convert section of law from 304-A to 304-II IPC and after obtaining the orders from

Superintendant of police, PW11 took up investigation. PW11 the investigation officer i.e., SI of police visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report in the presence of PW5 and 6. PW9 i/c. Inspector of police verified the investigation of PW11 and later on the direction of court it was treated as non grave offence and issued sec.41-A

CrPC notice to A1 and A2.

15.PW7 the motor vehicle inspector inspected the crime vehicle bearing no.AP30J 6002, found damages and opined that the accident not occurred due to any mechanical defects of said vehicle and issued Ex.P4 6

MVI report. The PW8 Dr. S. Ramamohanarao, RIMS, Srikakulam conducted PM examination over the dead body and issued PM certificate/

Ex.P5 duly opined that the deceased died due to cardio cerebral injury.

16.As discussed supra, the offence u/sec.304-A IPC defines causing death of a person is in a rash or negligent manner and there should be nexus between the Act of the accused and death of the deceased. Here in the present case on hand, no doubt the deceased died in a road accident. To corroborate the said facts was proved by Ex.P5 PM certificate, it was mentioned that the deceased died due to cardio cerebral injury i.e., due to head injury. It is clear from the evidence of inquest report

Ex.P3 as well as Ex.P5 Post mortem certificate, the deceased died due to head injury. So only the fact to be proved by the prosecution is whether the accused A1 is the driver of the crime vehicle at the relevant time of accident i.e., on 8-7-2017 at about 4.30 pm opposite to Seetharama

Picture Palace, Kaguvada village, Pathapatnam mandal. In the absence of any cogent evidence of the prosecution, the prosecution fails to prove that accused A1 is the driver at the time of accident. There is no cogent evidence to prove that the accused A1 is the driver at the relevant time of the accident.

17.The other question is whether the A2 is given his motor bike to A1. The prosecution could not able to file any registration certificate of the vehicle that stood in the name of A2 and A2 himself entrusted motorbike to A1. The absence of any evidence which is closure one cannot linked A2 to the offence.

18.In any given criminal case it is the duty of the prosecution to prove all the ingredients of the offence for which the accused charged.

Here in this present case on hand, the prosecution able to prove that there was a death and there is no evidence that deceased died in the road accident when motorcycle bearing no. AP30J 6002 dashed against him and ran away. In the absence of any link between the accused and incident, the court cannot act upon the evidence let in by the prosecution.

Therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the nexus between the death of the deceased Kanakala Paidinaidu and the act of the 7 accused. Though the evidence of investigation officer that his evidence cannot be acted upon and cannot relied for a conviction.

19.For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution failed to bring the accused within the ring of the guilt that he driven the motorcycle bearing no. AP30J 6002 on the date of incident and causing the death of deceased with his rash and negligent Act for the offence punishable u/sec.

304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6(Six) months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on the 20th day of March, 2020.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTABOMMALI

(FAC) Tekkali, (FAC) Pathapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Sri Kanakala JagadeeswararaoNil PW2: Smt Kanakala Parvathi PW3: Sri Maddili Laxminarayana PW4: Sri Nalli Jagadeeswararao PW5: Sri Ganapathi Rajaraonaidu PW6: Sri Jugula Sahu PW7: Sri K.V. Prakasharao PW8: Dr. Sadhu Ramamohanarao PW9: Sri J. Srinivasarao, Inspector of police PW10: Sri B.S.V.S. Prakash PW11: Sri M. Harikrishna, SI of police

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

8

Ex P1 :Report of PW1 dt.9-7-2017 Ex.P2: scene observation report .dt.01.03.2019 Ex.P3: Inquest report dt dt.9-7-2017 Ex.P4: MVI report dt.13-7-2017 Ex.P5: Post mortem report dt.08-03-2019 Ex.P6: First information report dt.9-7-2017 Ex.P7: Report of PW1 dt.11-7-2017 Ex.P8: Alter FIR dt.11-7-2017 Ex.P9: Rough sketch dt.9-7-2017

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: -NIL-

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

KOTABOMMALI

(FAC) Tekkali, (FAC)Pathapatnam 9

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PATHAPATNAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.72/2018

Date of offence:08.07.2017 Date of Complaint or report: 09.07.2017 Date of apprehension of accused:A.1 on 11.07.2017 A.2 on 12-07-2017 Date of release on bail:A.1 on 11.07.2017 A.2 on 12-07-2017 Date of commencement of trial:13-2-2019 Date of close of trial:22-4-2019 Date of sentence or order:20-03-2020 Name of the complaint:The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam P.S. (Cr.No. 50/2017). Name of the Father's AgeReligionVillage &Mandal AccusedName A1. Miryala SanyasiS/o. Satyam26 years0HinduAvalangi Village, Hiramandalam mandal A2. Thamada S/o. Rama 44 yearsHinduKotha Veedhi, Palasa PurushottamRaoVillage & mandal.

Offence : U/sec. 304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186r/w 177 of MV Act

Finding: The accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: The accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC and sec.182(i), 196(a), 180, 186 r/w 177 of MV Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6(Six) months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali

(FAC)Tekkali, (FAC)Pathapatnam.

10

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI,(FAC)TEKKALI, (FAC)PATHAPANTAM

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.173/2017

Date of offence:24.02.2014 Date of Complaint or report: 24.02.2014 Date of apprehension of accused:A1 on 16-10-2017 A2 on 6-9-2018 Date of release on bail:A1 on 31-1-2018 A2 on 12-9-2018 Date of commencement of trial:12-11-2018 Date of close of trial:22-11-2019 Date of sentence or order:13-03-2020 Name of the complaint:The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pathapatnam P.S. (Cr.No. 19/2014). Name of the AccusedFather's NameAgeReligionVillage &Mandal

1. Anupoju Srinivasa,S/o. Krishna 34 yearsHinduN/o. Seetharama Street Murthy AchariTaluk area, Pedda Bazar, Berhanpur, Ganjam District, Odisha State; R/o. Nagarampalli Street, Parlakhemundi town, Gajapathi District.

2. Gorasa Rajesh S/o. Rambabu26 yearsHinduPhoolbagh Colony, @RajuVizianagaram

A1.Santhosh AchariMani AchariNot HinduRahul street, Berhampur, mentionGanjam District, Odisha ed in thestate charg sheet A2. Khaja MusthafaAbdul RaheemNot HinduKhaza street, Berhampur, mentionGanjam District, Odisha ed in state. charge sheet

Offence : U/sec. 394 of IPC or 411 of IPC

Finding : The accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : The accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 411 IPC with which they were charged and accordingly they were acquitted of the same Under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after lapse of 6(Six) months period.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

11

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali

(FAC)Tekkali, (FAC)Pathapatnam.

12

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.216/2019

Date of offence:16.5.2019 Date of Complaint or report: 17.5.2019 Date of apprehension of accused:21.5.2019 Date of release on bail:21.5.2019 u/sec.41-A CrPC Date of commencement of trial:20-1-2020 Date of close of trial:10-2-2020 Date of sentence or order:10-2-2020 Explanation of delay:Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the complaint:The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kotabommali P.S. (Cr.No. 119/2019). Name of the Father's AgeReligionVillage &Mandal AccusedName Devadi Babulu, s/o. Late Ramayya, age 69 years, SC by caste, Prakashnagar colony of Kotabommali village & mandal. Driver of Auto bearing no.AP30W 7478.

Offence : U/sec. 304-A IPC and sec.134(a)(b), 181 of MV Act

Finding: The accused is found not guilty.

Sentence or Order: Accordinglythe accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 304-A IPC and sec.134(a)(b) and 181 of MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offence under section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6(Six) months. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

13

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS;

KOTABOMMALI.

Present:Sri.K.Prakash Babu,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class,Kotabommali.

Thursday, this the 28 th day of June, 2018.

C.C.No.16/2016

BETWEEN:

The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kotabommali Police Station. …. Complainant.

AND:

Ayinampudi Appalaraju, s/o.Late Satyanarayanraju, age 48 years, Kshatriya by caste, D.no. 27/10/9/1, Arunodaya colony, Srinagar, Gajuwakam, Visakhapatnam,

Driver of Lorry NO. AP 31 X 5780. ….. Accused.

This case coming before me on this day for hearing in the presence of APP., for the state of Complainant and of Sri S.Sridhara raju, Advocate

for the accused and this court delivered the following:

JUDGEMENT

14

1.The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police

Etcherla police Station has filed a Charge Sheet in Cr.No. 07/2016 against the accused for the offence punishable Under sections 304-A IPC and section 184 (B) of MV Act 1988.

3.The brief facts of the charge sheet are that:

The offence took place on 31.01.2015 at about 16.00 hours the deceased left from his work place at Santhabommali village for

Kothapeta and Kotabommali on his motor cycle on his personal works.

After completion of the works the deceased started from Kothapeta for

Santhabommali village on the same motor cycle, on the way of

Santhabommali at about 20.00 hours the deceased reached took place on tar road opposite to the house of Boyina Ramesh at Kotabommali, the marginally noted accused driver of lorry no. AP 31 X 5780 was coming opposite direction, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased. Due to which the deceased pushed and fell on the road, sustained deep injuries over head, face oozed blood from nose mouth and ears and went to the unconscious state. The deceased was shifted to RIMS hospital, Srikakulam.

Basing of the report of LW.1(Balaka Viswaswara rao) LW.19

Sri G.Narayanaswami, SI of Police) registered a case in Cr.no. 07/2016

Under Sections 304-A IPC and Section 184 (b) of MV ACt investigated into. During the course of investigation he examined the witnesses and collected the records and served the notice Under section 41-B Cr.P.C and he filed the charge sheet.

4.The case is taken on file and taken the cognizance of the offence under section 304-A IPC.

5.On 01.11.2016 copies of documents furnished Under

Section 207 Cr.P.C to the accused.

6.The accused examined are examined Under Section 251

Cr.P.C for the offences Under Section 304-A of IPC and the substance of 15 the accusation explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. In the open court it was examined and he admitted his guilt then court made enquiry in respect of voluntaries, his admission is voluntary one when questioned about quantum of sentence the counsel

for the accused raised that the accused is having wife and widow mother

and also his ribs were fractured in an accident. Today it is coming for hearing on sentence, the counsel filed two petitions along with medical report of the accused. Therefore his plea not accepted and separate vide orders were passed to the petitions filed by the petitioner/Accused.

8.After considering of mitigating in the circumstances, the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable Under section 304-A of

IPC and convict and for the same Under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of fine he shall under go the SI for 4 months as default sentence. The accused has got right of Appeal before the Hon’ble Prl., District & Sessions Court,

Srikakulam.

Dictated to the Acting Stenographer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 28 th day of June-2018.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For defence:

-NIL- -Nil- Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: For defence:

-NIL- -Nil-

Judicial Magistrate of I class,

Kotabommali.

16 17

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

KOTABOMMALI

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

C.C.NO.16/2016

Date of offence: 31.01.2015 Date of Complaint or report: 31.01.2015 Date of apprehension of accused: 41(B) Cr.P.C notice Date of release on bail:- Date of commencement of trial:-- Date of close of trial:-- Date of sentence or order:28.06.2018 Explanation of delay:Due to non production of witnesses by the prosecution. Name of the complaint:The State Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, kotabommali P.S. (Cr.No.07/2016)

Name of the Father's Name AgeReligionVillage & Mandal Accused Ayinampudi Appalaraju, s/o.Late Satyanarayanraju, age 48 years, Kshatriya by caste, D.no. 27/10/9/1, Arunodaya colony, Srinagar, Gajuwakam, isakhapatnam, Driver of Lorry NO. AP 31 X 5780

Offence : Under Section 304-A IPC

Finding: The accused found guilty.

Sentence or Order: In the result the accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and convict and for the same Under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and he is sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of one year and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of fine he shall under go the SI for 4 months as default sentence. The accused has got right of Appeal before the Hon’ble Prl., District & Sessions Court, Srikakulam.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali.

Copy to the accused.

O.S.20/2016 1JCJ Court,KBL

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :KOTABOMMALI

Present: Sri.K.Prakash Babu, Junior Civil Judge, Kotabommali.

Monday, this the 8thday of February, 2021

O.S.No.20 / 2016

Between :

Ronanki Govindarao, s/o. Late Vallayya, Hindu, aged 64 years, cultivation, r/door no.2-98, Ijjuvaram village, santhabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. …Plaintiff

And :

1) Pedada Bharatamma w/o. Late Bhimarao, Hindu, aged 74 years, household duties, r/door no.2-95 Ijjavaram village, Santhabommali mandal, Srikakulam district.

2) Chintada Kusumalatha w/o. Late Gopalakrishna Hindu, aged 46 years, household duties, rest do.

3) Pedada Prakasarao, s/o. Late Suryanarayana, Hindu, aged 45 years, household duties, rest do. … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 28-1-2021 in the presence of Sri V.Appalanaidu, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri. P. Vasudevarao, Advocate for the defendant no.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them, their men, agents and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief facts that stemming out of the pleadings of the plaint is as follows:

The plaintiff has been given purchased the land in sy.no.385/A to an extent of Ac.0-16 cents from Ronanki Appamma 2 and others under registered sale deed dated 11.8.2005. since then he was been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff paid the land revenue to the government and the government got issued pattadar pass book and title to the property by the Mandal Revenu Officer, Santhabommali mandal.

The plaintiff further submit that the plaintiff have been constructed a house in the said site in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents, and residing there in the said house peacefully and the remaining site is used as thrashing floor and kitchen garden to the knowledge of one and all and the defendants. The defendants also residents of same village and they want to construct a house in the said house site. The defendants with a malafide intention to grab the schedule property approached the plaintiff to sell the same. The plaintiff submits that he refused to sell the vacant site to them. Having bore grudge against the plaintiff, the defendants try to grab schedule property with highhanded manner who are having good political influence men and muscle power and they may evict the plaintiff illegally and thereby causing irreparable loss to him. Hence the suit for permanent injunction. Relying on the cause of action for the suit arose on 11.8.2005 when he purchased the property and three days prior to the filing of the suit the defendants are proclaiming subsequently that they will trespass into the suit schedule site where the property is situated at Santhabommali mandal which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

3.Per contra, inter-alia the defendant no.1 to 3 filed the main written statement denying all material averments pleaded by the plaintiff line by line and word by word and it is submitted that according to the plaintiff he had constructed a house in the part of the property and using the remaining part as thrashing floor and if it is so how the revenue authorities got issued pattadar pass book and title deed to the plaintiff for the house and thrashing floor and how the government collected cist from the plaintiff for the house and thrashing floor and the government way back in the year 1986, itself exempted the cist for the land and only collecting water tax. It us

O.S.20/2016 3JCJ Court,KBL

further submitted by the defendants that the sale deed filed by the plaintiff is not relating to the plaint schedule property. The boundaries to the plaint schedule property are not correct. The vendor of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff is not having any alienable rights over the said sale deed and there is no iota of truth , right, title and interest, possession over the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.

4.It is further submitted that the defendants filing the rough sketch along with the written statement. The 2nd defendant

Ch.Kusumalata w/o. Gopalakrishna purchased a rough plan marked

A,B,C,D and E on 18.3.2015 and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint plan and it is further submitted that 2nd deendant is working at Tekkali and she is coming regularly to the village and managing her properties. The plaintiff taking advantage of the absence of the 2nd defendant, the plaintiff forcibly and ilegally occupied C,D,G and F plan marked property in the month of July, 2015. On that 2nd defendant laid petition to the

Mandal Surveyor, Tekkali after measuring the land clearly stated to the plaintiff and defendants that C,D,G and F plan marked property is the property of the 2nd defendant. On that the defendant wanted the plaintiff to remove the illegal construction raised by him in the

C,D,G and F portion of plan attached to the written statement. As such the plaintiff suppressing the facts filed in the present suit as he approached with unclean hands and prays to dismiss the suit.

5. Basing on the above pleadings of the plaintiff and as well as the defendants, this court framed the following issues for trial:

1.Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property

as on the date of suit or not ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or not ?

3. To what relief ?

4

6.To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and examined PW2 (Veeraghattam

Amaranadh), and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is original sale deed dated 11.8.2005. Ex.A2 is pattadar pass book. Ex.A3 is cist receipt dated 2.4.2007. Ex.A4 is adangal for fasali 1425 dt.12.12.2015. Ex.A5 is certificate issued by SBI, Naupada. Ex.A6 is cist receipt dt.27.1.2016. Ex.A7 is cist receipt dt.7.3.2014. Ex.A8 is cist receipt dt.18.2.2015. Ex.A9 is FMB for survey no.385 dt.20.9.2017. On behalf of the defendants the 2nd defendant herself examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1. The 3rd defendant himself examined as DW3. One B. Satyannarayana examined as DW2 and got marked Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.18.3.2015. Ex.B2 is registered GPA dt.12.5.2014 executed by

Uppada Gunavathi. Ex.B3 is certified registration extract of partition deed dt.19.8.1977.

7.Arguments heard. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions of the counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for the defendants.

ISSUE No.1:

Whether the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit or not?

8.To substantiate this fact, plaintiff himself examined as

PW1 and he was stood to the test of cross examination. During the testimony he deposed that suit filed for injunction and he deposed about the boundaries to the plaint schedule property and further deposes that there are 15 houses where the plaint schedule property was situated and he denied the suggestions that the plaint schedule property is not covered under Ex.A1 and he gave

O.S.20/2016 5JCJ Court,KBL

measurements of the vacant site North side is 40 feet building is about 20/40 and the total extent of building is about Ac.0-4 cents in all total and he is also denied that about the cist cannot collected for the house sites. On the other hand, PW2 Veeraghattam Amaranadh deposed that during the cross examination he personally saw the plaint schedule property. He cannot give the measurements of the plaint schedule property. Near the plaint schedule property Uppada

Ramamurthy, Jaggarao, Laxminarayana Rice mill is situated. The plaint schedule property is house site. The plaintiff did not informed anything before filing the suit. He do not know with respect of any dispute in connection to the plaint schedule. According to him boundaries are: East: Ech. Apparao. West: Chintada Sumalatha,

North: Road, Soiuth: Uppada Ramamurthy son. And witness deposes that there is a vacant site in between Apparao and the house of the plaintiff to the east boundary and he do not know to whom the vacant site. Uppada Ramamurthy is the southern boundary holder who is a rice Mill owner. There are six houses facing to the East and Western side 4 or 5 houses and he further deposes that Chintada Kusumalatha is the 2nd defendant in the main suit. In the plaint schedule property the pillars are erected but he do not know who raised the pillars. And further admit that plaintiff is residing towards the east side of pillars. The western side property is the possession of Kusumalatha as such in the evidence of plaintiff in support of their evidence plaintiff got marked his sale deed dated 11.8.2005. In support of that pattadar pass book and title deed and

F.M.B, cist receipts are also filed.

9.The evidence of defendants that Ch. Kusumalatha was examined in chief is nothing but the written statement pleadings.

During her cross examination she is working as Junior Assistant in

Irrigation Department, Sub Division, Tekkali and she is resident of

Haridasupuram village of Nandigam mandal. Her parents are residing in Ijjuvaram and she has purchased property covered under

Ex.B1 from Boddepalli Satyannarayana and she filed the link 6 document. She further deposed that she do not know as to who is the scribe of Ex.B1. She do not remember survey number of the property and she purchased extent is Ac.0-06 cents the boundaries are East: Govindarao, West: Vacant site belongs to Pedada

Bharathidevi. South: Road leads Tekkali to Ijjuvaram village and

North: house of Pedada Bharathidevi and main road leads from

Tekkali to Naupada. And she cannot denied there is no vacant site to the extent of 0-06 cents and she again says there is vacant site in the above four boundaries and she do not know who is Uppada

Appalanarasayya, Uppada Raghavanaidu and Narayanaswamy are the sons of Jaggunaidu of Ijjuvaram village and she further cross examined and deposes that after purchased she got surveyed the land and got mutated in the revenue records and she do not know whether plaintiff got permission from Grama Panchayat, Ijjuvaram for construction of house. The plaintiff constructed the house and residing since 2006 in the said house. Her mother’s house is situated in the south of the plaintiff’s house. She do not know whether the revenue authorities issued 1-B(ROR) for the fasali 1425.

10.PW2 Boddepalli Satyanarayana categorically deposed that he was rendered as a Surpanch of village Ijjuvaram from 2001 to 2011. His wife Boddepally Nagavali is the Surpanch of the village.

The plaintiff Govindaraju raised construction within within their panchayat limits, in his property purchased by his junior paternal aunt. He obtained power of attorney through agreement of sale on behalf of Uppada Gunavathi. He cannot given the boundaries details of the properties and the power of attorney was not contain the details of boundaries. He can give the survey number i.e., 355/3, 380/4, 354/7, 354/8 and 385/1 of the properties and he further deposed that he obtained GPA from Ronanki Appalaraju and

Divvala Mohanarao. There are two attestors for the execution of

GPA and the executant of GPA is Uppada Gunavathi and he further deposed deposed that the extent in sy.no. 385/1 is Ac.0-10 cents.

Ex.B1 revealed the total extent is Ac.0-10 cents and the boundaries

O.S.20/2016 7JCJ Court,KBL

of the Ex.B1 is East: Ronanki Govindarao, South: Pedada Bhavana,

West: Pedada Bhavana, North: Ijjuvaram panchayat road. The 2nd defendant further cross examined that he do not know how Pedada

Bhavana got property in respect of south and west under Ex.B2 and it is an admitted fact that Pedada Someswararao worked as secretary to Panchayat and even by the year 2006 he was the

Secretary and it is admitted by him that the plaintiff constructed a house in the site purchased by him from Ronanki Appamma. Later witness adds that he encroached by some property and he do not gave any notice for its encroachment. He further submit that the total extent in s.no.385/1 is Ac.0-30 cents and the total Ac.0-30 cents is disputing property. The 3rd witness one Pedada Prakasharao is examined and it is also the evidence in the same lines Dws2 and 3.

During the cross examination he deposed the schedule as East:

Pedada Simhachalam, South: Uppada Ramamurthy and his son

Subrahmanyam. West: Ijjuvaram road. North: house of Jaggarao and others. The property which was situated towards the west of plaintiff purchased by Kusumalatha by the Surpanch Boddepalli

Satyannarayana.

11.So the evidence avilable on the record is that the plaintiff purchased the property from Appamma under registered sale deed. All the three witnesses categorically deposed that the eastern boundary holder is Ronanki Govindarao who constructed the building. The DW2 categoricaly deposed that he is the Surpanch of the village and he do not remember whether any construction proceedings are issued in favour of the plaintiff by the year 2006.

12.The main contention of the defendant counsel is that how the MRO issued cist receipts to the house site or even otherwise considered the extent of land is Ac.0-16 cents and the surrounding of the plaint schedule are the house sites or house property obviously there cannot be issuing cist receipt. Infact, suppose to collect house tax. Therefore the documents relied by the plaintiff is no creditworthy documents. Therefore the documents 8 cannot be considered on behalf of the plaintiff. Infact the Ex.B1 which was filed by the plaintiff is the sale deed of defendant. In support of her contention Ex.B2 is filed which is General Power of

Attorney. Ex.B1 is the sale deed executed in favour of the 2nd defendant Ch.Kusumalatha by the GPA holder B. Satyannarayana.

In the said document also the eastern boundary holder is Ronanki

Govindarao. The evidence as well as the oral documentary evidence clearly and clinchingly shows that the plaintiff is the eastern boundary holder of the Defendant no.2 and moreover in the written statement itself by filing the rough plan by the defendants categorically admitted that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the C,D,F,G property and also reserve their right of recovery since the Mandal Surveyor measured the property of the defendant no.2 and informed to the plaintiff some extent of property is shown in the C,D,F,G property is under the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. So the defendant themselves are contradicting to their pleas. On the other hand, the plaintiff admitting the plaint schedule property is situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff. Not only the plaintiff is having property besides that plaintiff got or encroached some property belongs to them towards their

East. The same is admitted by DW2 and DW3 and also PW2.

Therefore the oral and documentary evidence clearly and clinchingly establishes that the plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as on the date of suit.

ISSUE NO.2:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction or not ?

13.As per the clause (C) sub section 3 of Sec.38 of Spe- cific Relief Act, 1963 envisages when an injunction can be grant against the other in favour of the plaintiff, whenever there is an ap- prehension of causing loss or damage to the property because though the relief of injunction is in personal but attached to the land only. It is contended by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has been given

O.S.20/2016 9JCJ Court,KBL

purchased the land in sy.no.385/A to an extent of Ac.0-16 cents from Ronanki Appamma and others under registered sale deed

dated 11.8.2005. Since then he was been in peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the schedule property and the plaintiff have been constructed a house in the said site in an extent of Ac.0-03 cents, and residing there in the said house peacefully. Since then the de- fendants developed grudge against the plaintiff and when the plain- tiff refused the demand of the defendants not to sell away the sched- ule property to them, the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule property with intent to dispossess him. There is every like- lihood of apprehension that the defendants may interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule prop- erty. In such an event the plaintiff could not resist the acts and deeds of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff could able to prove that there is an apprehension and likelihood cause damage to his properties. Thus he is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for and issue no.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE NO.3: To what relief ?

14.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3, their men, agents and servants from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 8th day of February,

2021.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTABOMMALI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For

Plaintiffs: Defendants:

PW1: Ronanki GovindaraoDW1: Chintada Kusumalatha 10

PW2: Veeraghattam Amaranadh DW2: Boddepalli Satyannarayana DW3: Pedada Prakasharao

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

for PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is original sale deed dated 11.8.2005. Ex.A2 is pattadar pass book. Ex.A3 is cist receipt dated 2.4.2007. Ex.A4 is adangal for fasali 1425 dt.12.12.2015. Ex.A5 is certificate issued by SBI, Naupada dt.15.12.2015 Ex.A6 is cist receipt dt.27.1.2016. Ex.A7 is cist receipt dt.7.3.2014. Ex.A8 is cist receipt dt.18.2.2015. Ex.A9 is FMB for survey no.385 dt.20.9.2017.

for DEFENDANTs:

Ex.B1 is registered sale deed dt.18.3.2015. Ex.B2 is registered GPA dt.12.5.2014 executed by Uppada Gunavathi. Ex.B3 is certified registration extract of partition deed dt.19.8.1977.

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTABOMMALI

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

KOTABOMMALI

Present: Sri K. Prakash Babu, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali

Tuesday, this the 19thDay of January,2021

Calendar Case No. 204 of 2019

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station, …Complainant

And:

1.Pitta Veeraswamy, S/o late Simmayya, aged about 40 years, Yadava by caste, Kuramanapeta @ Sariyapalli vilalge, Kotabommali Mandal.

2. Pitta Latchamma W/o late Simmayya aged about 58 years, Yadava by caste, Kuramanapeta @ Sariyapalli vilalge, Kotabommali Mandal.

3. Tanni Saraswathi W/o late Appalaramayya aged about 35 years, Yadava Gollapeta Tekkalipadu Panchayat, Jalumuru Mandal.

4. Karri Ramanamma W/o Tirupathi Rao, aged about 28 years, Yadava by caste, Kuramanapeta @ Sariyapalli vilalge, Kotabommali Mandal.

...Accused

This case came up on 04.01.2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of V. Appala Naidu Advocate for the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 upon hearing of both sides and on perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till today, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The then Sub Inspector of Police, Jalumuru Police Station laid charge sheet against the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section in Cr.No.110/2019 of Jalumuru Police Station, based on the report lodged by Smt., Pitta Yerramma who is the legally wedded wife of the Accused No.1.

2)The breif stemming of the prosecution case:

(i)The case of the prosecution is that PW1/Pitta Yerramma is the wife of

Pitta Veeraswamy Accused/A1, their marriage was held about 10 years back and they may blessed a male child who is 5 years they lived happily accused contracted 3 marriages and there are some disputes cropped up. Later, accused/A1 started harassing PW1 without providing food and necked out from house and child was brought up for 5 years, later PW3/Tanni Asirinaidu convened meeting/elderly panchayat and PW1 joined A1 during Sankranthi in that year 2 and elders assured her that her sister-in-law’s leave house. later, after 3 months she was necked out by taking the custody of her child Master Durga Prasad. On that she gave report to Jalumuru police station and investigated into and filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.On appearance of the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal

Procedure.

5.Heard. The Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were examined under section 239 Code of

Criminal Procedure. Charge under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code and

Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act was framed against the Accused Nos.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same, they denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

6. In substantiation of the contention of the prosecution, it got examined

P.Ws.1 to 8 out of 10 cited witnesses and exhibited Exts.P.1 to Exts.P7. The

Witnesses Pws.3,4,5,6,7 are turned hostile. They did not support the prosecution evidence and only the remain not in the evidence of the PW1 and PW2 where the

PW1 is wife of A1 and PW2 is her mother and PW8 is the investigating officer in this case.

7. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in

Telugu, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is

Whether prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC against A1 to A4.

10.P O I N T

(i)For better appreciation the ingredients and definition of

Section 498-A . Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term 3 which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

So from the above definition and the above explanation (a) any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life limb or heath (whether mental or physical) of the woman: So it is clear from the definition to conduct of the husband is not such a manner causing in better to the health either by way of mental or physical will contract offence punishable U/s.498-A of IPC.

11.So in the present case whether prosecution proved such conduct of the accused to be assessed.

12.On careful scrutiny evidence of the record, the evidence of PW1 and PW2,

PW1 is wife of A1 she admitted that he lived conjugal with him when her brother died and she did not came out her house and she further deposed that for the purpose of custody of the child only she gave the report not support of her evidence , the mother of PW1 Pasi Saraswathi intended she was examined and during his cross examination also the same was elicited by counsel for the accused. So it is clear from the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the report was gave against the accused for the purpose of retention of the child by the father who is denying the custody of male child. Whether the act of accused/A1 i.e. retention of the child out of the custody of the child whether amounts conduct definition

U/s.498-A or not is to be assessed.

13.This Court relying the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court which is rendered in the child custody “Sheoli Hati vs. Somnath Das” Supreme Court of India , dt:11- 07-2019.

“Before we close, few observations on the issues which have arisen

before us need to be made. The present is a case, where limited issue

has arisen regarding giving education to the child in boarding school or to permit the status quo regarding education of the child as was on the date when the Family Court passed order dated 31.03.2016. When the child has to go in the environment, where there is marital discord between her parents affecting the peace of mind of all including the 4 parents and children, child suffers physical and mental distress. The ill consequences of the discord between mother and father effect the child in her normal upbringing and is a negative factor on child's personality and upbringing. This Court in Vivek Singh vs. Romani Singh, (2017) 3

SCC 231, has discussed the term “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. In paragraph No.18 of the judgment, following was observed: “18.

….......................Psychologists term it as “The Parental Alienation

Syndrome”. It has at least two psychological destructive effects:

(i) First, it puts the child squarely in the middle of a contest of loyalty, a contest which cannot possibly be won. The child is asked to choose who is the preferred parent. No matter whatever is the choice, the child is very likely to end up feeling painfully guilty and confused. This is because in the overwhelming majority of cases, what the child wants and needs is to continue a relationship with each parent, as independent as possible from their own conflicts.

(ii) Second, the child is required to make a shift in assessing reality.

One parent is presented as being totally to blame for all problems, and as someone who is devoid of any positive characteristics. Both of these assertions represent one parent's distortions of reality.

14.In the said judgment Hon’ble Apex court considered the visitation and child custody. But paramount consideration in this case is whether conduct of the accused/A1, that is retention of the child into his custody amounts to mental harassment or not. “The harassment” ‘a noun’ and dictionary meaning is aggressive pressure or intimidation”. So from the dictionary meaning of harassment one can draw that a person is to put under pressure which causes disorder of the health . So the conduct of the accused/A1 amounts to harassment whether harassment alleged to be caused by the accused is sufficient to attract ingredients section 498-A IPC it was held In the case of the “Pathan Hussain

Basha Vs. State 2007(1) ALD (Crl.Page No.89.A.P) as Para No. 28 “When there is proof of harassment irrespective of the fact, whether the harassment was in connection with the dowry is immaterial. As there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused harassed the deceased, the ingredients of section 498-A of IPC are attracted, therefore, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt under section 498-A of IPC” and moreover, it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts. As per the section 138 of Indian Evidence Act quality of evidence is required not quantity of the evidence.

5

15.Here in this present case the testimony of victim PW1 only concern to the extent of retention of her male child by the accused/A1 not more than that her report is also same her evidence is also the same her testimony is believable and trust worthy , unshakey in the absence of embellishments, the evidence which is supported by her mother who also deposed that there is no evidence to demand of money by the accused, only concern is that she was put to harassment by A1 by taking away her child. The evidence of Pw1 that the report in the case is given for the child only whether she harassed.

16. Therefore, the ingredients of 498-A which are explained in explanation under section 498-A vide (a) (b) satisfied, since the evidence of Pw1 is sufficient and there is no necessity to blame the evidence of PW8 who registered the case and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet. Though the evidence of other witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution the extent of harassment for demand of dowry. Moreover, it is the case of the victim PW1 . There is no demand for dowry by the A1, the same was deposed. Therefore, in any criminal case it is duty of the court to separate chaff from grain. So the evidence of PW1 and PW2 inspiring the confidence of case of the prosecution that the conduct of accused/A1 such as causing harassment mentally the victim/PW1.

17.In the result, the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A, of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence.

The bail bonds of accused 2 to 4 shall stands cancelled after expiry of Six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C., if any appeal is preferred against them.

Sentence: In the result, the A1 is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, accordingly he is convicted under section 248 (2) of

Code of Criminal Procedure for the said offence.

The Accused is heard on the quantum of sentence he pleaded mercy that he will hand over the child to the custody of PW1. However, the court did not considering his plea and there are no mitigating circumstances. Accused/A1 is sentenced to undergo for simple imprisonment to one years and he is also liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.

In view of the circumstances of the case this court further orders that the victim/Pw1 is entitle for compensation of Rs.25,000/- U/s.357-A of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, this court recommending the victim for compensation from

District Legal Services Authority. The copy of the judgment may be sent to the

Hon’ble District Legal services Authority U/s.357-A Cr.P.C.

6

This court further order out of total fine amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the PW1/Victim/Pitta Yerramma after appeal period over U/s.357 of Cr.P.C.

The accused is informed about right appeal before the Hon’ble District

Court, Srikakulam. A free copy of judgment is given to the accused is here that supplied. The accused Paid fine Amount of rupees Ten thousand under valid receipt.

Dictated to the Stenographer Tekkali wherein Presiding Officer is

holding Full Additional Charge transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 19th day of January, 2021.

Sd/- Sri. K. Prakash Babu,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Kotabommali

Appendix Of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None P.W.1:Smt. Pitta Yerramma P.W.2:Smt.Pasi Saraswathi P.W.3:Sri. Tanni Asirinaidu P.W.4:Sri. Patnana Ramulu P.W.5;Sri. Dharmana Buvvaji P.W.6:Sri . Pitta Srinu P.W.7 : Smt Dasari Ramulamma P.W.8: Smt. B.Prabhavathi, S.I of police, Jalumuru P.S

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil Ext.P-1: Report given by P.W.1/Smt. Pitta Yerramma

dt:27-05-2019

Ext.P-2: U/s.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3/Sri. Tanni Asirinaidu

dt:28-05-2019.

Ext.P-3 : U/s.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4/Sri. Patnana Ramulu

dt:28-05-2019

Ext.P-4: U/s.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5/Sri. Dharmana Buvvaji, dt:28-05-2019 Ext.P-5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6/Sri . Pitta Srinu

dt:28-05-2019

Ext.P-6 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6/Smt Dasari Ramulamma, dt:28-05-2019 Ext.P-7: First Information Report

Material Objects:

For Prosecution: For Defence

NIL

Sd/- Sri. K. Prakash Babu,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class

Kotabommali. //True Copy//

JMFC/KTBM.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS : PALASA

Present:Sri. K. Prakash Babu, Judl . Magistrate of I Class, Kotabommali. FAC. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Palasa.

Friday, this the 26th Day of March, 2021

Calendar Case No. 205 of 2017

Between:

The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakualm District.

..... Complainant

And:

1.Mohan Mantra, s/o. Gurunadh Mantra, Rajaka by caste, R/o. Rentikota village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District.

2.Gurunadh Mantra, S/o. Dammo Mantra, aged about 60 years, rest do;

3.Deenamani Mantra, W/o. Gurunadh Mantra, aged about 55 years, rest do;.… Accused

This case came up on 19-03-2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutorfor the complainant and of Sri. V. Ravi Advocate for the accused, upon hearing of both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) The Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A of

Indian Penal Code and sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2) The case of the prosecution in the nut shall as follows:-

i)The PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra is the wife of accused A1/Mohan Mantra and their marriage between PW.1 and accused A1 performed on 19.05.2013 at Rentikota village, at the time of marriage an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry, five tulas of gold and sarisaman worth of Rs. 1,00,000/- household articles to accused. Soonafter their marriage they lead conjugal life happily for about six months, after that A1 to A3 started harassing

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra mentally and physically suspecting her fidelity also demanded to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- and a bike also two tulas of gold from her parents. PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra informed the same about the harassment, that met in the hands of the accused to her parents i.e., P.Ws.2 and 3. For that PW.2 father of the PW.1 came to the house of the 2 accused took PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra to his hosue by that time

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra is carrying seventh month or pregnancy, after

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra gave in birth male child the accused person did not went to the parents of the PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra , father of the

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra appraoched the village elders i.e., L.Ws.4 to 6 who condcuted elderly panchayat and refused not to harass the

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra then PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra returned to her in- laws house. PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra the accused, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not mend their wase and continued harassing PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra. Finally on 12.06.2017 PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra gave report to the police in turned police registered the case and investigated into. L.W.7/K. Ashok Kumar, the

Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, the investigating officer got isued notice to the accused and 41-A of Cr.P.C and obtained their explanation besides photo copies of ID proof.

3.The case is taken on filed against the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.

4.Copies of documents furnished u/sec.207 of CrPC. The Accused A1 to

A3 were examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence punishable u/sec. 498-A IPC is framed against accused A1 to A3 and the charge is read over to them, explained in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution out of 7 cited witnesses examined i.e., P.Ws. 1 to 3 and got marked Ext.P1. The Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up by the evidences of LW.4/Moria Kammamma, LW.5/Dokkara Malleswararao,

LW.6/Mohan Mantra.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused A1 to A3 were examined under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. All the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is explained to them in Telugu, having understood the same they denied the offence and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides.

Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution is proved the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable u/sec. 498-A of IPC or not?

3

9.P O I N T (I)On careful scrutiny evidence available on record only eivdence

P.Ws.1to 3. Where PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra is the wife of accused A1,

P.Ws.2 and 3 at the parents of PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra and they evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 their evidence hearsay, they did not witnessed that any act of harassment, which was met in the hands of the accused by the

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra, during the cross examiantion PW.1/Santhilatha

Mantra categorically deposes that she stayed at Nimmakondapeta along with accused A1 for a period of three months and she was stated that till

August 2004 from there she was brought to the her parent-in-laws at the time of carrying seventh month or PW.1. Father of the PW.1/Santhilatha

Mantra deposes that after three months they came to their village and he placed the matter before the elders and PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra and accused A1 lived Nimmakondapeta village, where accused A1 is working and A2 is not residing with A1 and the accused and the P.Ws.1 to 3 are close relatives and here, in the cross examiantion also they deposes that accused

A1 married PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra with dowry and other presentations.

PW.3 is the mother of the PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra deposed that a covenent panchayat at their village and accused A1 advised to take

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra to Nimmakondapeta. So in the evidence of

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra further deposes that on the date of the marriage no amount was paid. The accused A1 was working on contract basis. She do not know the slary drawn by the accused A1, the accused used to stay in the school, the salary of the accused A1 was not sufficient to meet her demands, accused A1 unable to meet her luxurious demands due to which the disputes took place in between herself and the accused A1.

PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra demanded the A3 to settle land to an extent of one acre in her name since, the accused was working on contract basis, for which accused A1 did not agree keeping the same, she foisted this case and it is the germane of the dispute. No dowry and other presentations were given to the accused, since accused A1 interested to marry her. Accused A1 raised panchayat for 2 to 3 times, in the presence of caste people and caste elders.

ii)As could be seen from the case of the prosecuton except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are interested witnesses of their case. Though L.Ws.4 to 6 are cited as the witnesses who are the elders to the panchayat between 4 accused and PW.1/Santhilatha Mantra and P.Ws.2 and 3. The Assistant

Public Prosecutor given up for the reason best known, to the investigating officer did not turn to court to give evidence, on that court closed the evidence of LW.7/K. Ashok Kumar, the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police

Station, investigating officer. So for the reasons for non examination of

L.ws.4 to 6 and non production of the investigating officer faturlal to the case of the prosecuton. Moreover the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, PW.1/Santhilatha

Mantra is the only direct witnesses to the case of prosecution and she also did not deposed that she was subject to harassment to a tune that she was driven to commit suicide.

iii)This court also relying on the judgment of Bommali Illaiah Vs. State of

A.P. High Court of Andhra Pradesh categorically held to prove the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC it is duty of the prosecution to prove the explanation given to the section 498-A of IPC ingredients shall be proved in the absence of such prove. It is unsafe to bring within the ring of the guilty of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution is miserably failed to bring the accused committed the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC.

In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused

A1 to A3 executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each by undertaking to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them in compliance with Section 437(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

Typed to my dictation Stenographer Grade III, prints are taken by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 26th day of March, 2021.

Sd/- Sri. K. Prakash Babu

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali. FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Santhilatha Mantra; P.W.2 : Pariga Basudev; P.W.3 : Kishore Kumar Mantra;

For Defence: None was examined 5

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution;

Ext.P1 : Report lodged by LW.1/Santhilatha Mantra dt. 12.06.2015;

For Defence: No documents were marked.

Material Objects

For Prosecution: For Defence :

Nil.

Sd/- Sri. K. Prakash Babu

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Kotabommali. FAC.Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Palasa.

//True Copy//

JMFC/KTBM FAC.JMFC/PLS.

6

FORM NO.71 Calendar & Judgment (for use in cases where there is one accused person)

DISTRICT OF SRIKAKULAM

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF 1ST CLASS, PALASA

DATE OF OFFENCE:prior to 12.06.2017REPORT OR 12/06/17 COMPLAINT: APPREHENSION OF41-A of Cr.P.C NoticeRELEASE ON BAIL--- ACCUSED:ACCUSED :

REMANDOF---

ACCUSED: COMMENCEMENT OF21.08.2019 CLOSE OF TRIAL:26.02.2021 TRIAL: SENTENCEOR26.03.2021 ORDER: EXPLANATIONOFDue to non production of prosecution witnesses.

DELAYAND

REMARKS: JUDGMENT IN C.C:205 of 2017 Cr.No. 84/2017 COMPLAINANT: The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kasibugga Police Station, Palasa Mandal, Srikakualm District.

NAME,AGE,1.Mohan Mantra, s/o. Gurunadh Mantra, Rajaka by caste, R/o. Rentikota FATHER’SNAME,village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. RELIGION, CALLING,2.Gurunadh Mantra, S/o. Dammo Mantra, aged about 60 years, rest do; RESIDENCEAND3.Deenamani Mantra, W/o. Gurunadh Mantra, aged about 55 years, rest

TALUKOFTHE

do; ACCUSED: OFFENCE:under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code: U/sec.498-A of IPC : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty of Indian Penal Code.

FINDING:Found not guilty SENTENCE: In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Code of Criminal Procedure. The Accused A1 to A3 executed bond for an amount of Rs.5,000/- each by undertaking to appear before the Appellate Court, if any appeal is preferred against them in compliance with Section 437(A) of Code of Criminal Procedure.

DATE OF RECEIPT26.03.2021

FROMTHE

MAGISTRATE:

Sd/- Sri. K. Prakash Babu

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS

KOTABOMMALI.

FAC. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

PALASA.

To The Hon’ble 1 st Addl. District Judge, Srikakulam

Calendar Case No.205/2017 Date of Judgment:26.03.2021 Date of Dispatch of Calendar: Date of Receipt: Remarks of 1st ADJ, Srikakulam: Copy to the Superintendent of police, Srikakulam. //True Copy//

JMFC/KTBM FAC.JMFC/PLS.