Smt K. Sowjanya

1 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT: K.Sowjanya ,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla

FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla

Tuesday, the 29 th day of March, 2022

O.S No. 148 of 2008

Between:

Nakka Krishnam Raju s/o Mohan, aged 24 years, Occu: Unemployee, R/o H.No.4-5-29, Ambedkar nagar, Sircilla town & Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. ..…Plaintiff

// A N D //

1. Nakka Laxmi W/o late Mohan, aged 55 years, Occu: Household, R/o Ambedkar nagar, Sircilla town & Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sircilla. …Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 16-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Naresh Goud, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri G.Bhasker Reddy, Advocate for Defendant No.1 and Sri S.Mohan Kumar, Advocate for defendant No.2 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed for declaration that the plaintiff is adopted son of the deceased Nakka Mohan who died while in service at Municipal Council,

Sircilla.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased Nakka Mohan and natural father of plaintiff by name Nakka Durgaiah are natural brothers.

Nakka Mohan and his wife/defendant No.1 had no children and so they adopted the plaintiff on 01.01.1997 by performing necessary ceremonies in their community, at the house of Nakka Mohan. At that time the

2 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

plaintiff was aged 13 years and since then he has grown up like natural son of the deceased. At the time of admission of plaintiff in school, the name of his natural father was written and the same was continued even in his SSC certificate. Further, no document was executed, as such on 15.06.2007 Nakka Mohan and his wife/defendant No.1 had executed adoption deed on stamp paper in the presence of caste elders. On 26.12.2007 Nakka Mohan died while he was working as ‘Labour’ at

Municipal Council, Sircilla. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are dependents of Nakka Mohan. The plaintiff has performed the funeral rights of Nakka Mohan. Hence he approached the defendant No.2 for employment on compassionate ground. But the defendant No.2 has denied his application because of absence of any document showing his adoption by Nakka Mohan. The defendant No.1 has also denied to have adopted the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. She further contended that her marriage with Nakka Mohan was performed on 13.12.2002 and so she along with her husband adopted the plaintiff on 01.01.1997 is not possible. Further she herself has performed funeral rights of her husband in the presence of villagers.

Actually after the death of her husband, she submitted an application in

Municipal Office on 4.3.2008 for compassionate appointment by enclosing family member certificate issued by competent authority but the plaintiff

3 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

is trying to get appointment by fabricating unregistered adoption deed.

She prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.The defendant No.2 has filed written statement submitting that

Nakka Mohan worked as ‘Labour’ in their office who died on 21.12.2007 while in service and thereafter his wife/defendant No.1 made an application for her appointment in the place of her husband on compassionate ground enclosing family member certificate, wherein the defendant No.1 and Nakka Pochaiah (father of deceased) were shown as legal heirs of Nakka Mohan. The plaintiff has also submitted similar application enclosing xerox copy of unregistered adoption deed and the defendant No.2 directed him to produce original which he has not submitted but filed this suit. Further, there is no registered adoption deed atleast five years prior to the death of the deceased as per Government

Memo of G A D Department circular No.60681/Ser-A/2003-1 dated 28.08.2003, disclosing the plaintiff as the adopted son of the deceased

Nakka Mohan nor deceased while in service declared the plaintiff as his adopted son in Municipal Records. The School records, caste certificate and other records submitted by the plaintiff show that he is son of Nakka

Durgaiah, finally he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial.

1. Whether the defendant No.1 and husband of deceased has executed the alleged adoption deed?

4 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

2. Whether the alleged adoption deed is fabricated or created one?

3. Whether the alleged adoption deed is true, valid and binding on the parties?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaration that the plaintiff is the adopted son of deceased Nakka Mohan S/o Pochaiah and defendant No.1 as prayed for?

5. To what relief?

6.During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 & A-2 and also examined two other witnesses as

PW2 & PW3. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 herself is examined as DW-1 and also examined DW2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. The defendant No.3 examined its Manager as DW3.

7.Heard arguments on both sides.

ISSUE NOS.1 TO 4:

8.All these issues are inter-related and hence answered collectively.

The plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in which he has reiterated the averments of the plaint and got marked Ex.A1/ original adoption deed dt.15.6.2007, Ex.A2 death certificate of deceased

Nakka Mohan. In his cross-examination it is elicited that in his SSC

Certificate and birth certificate his father’s name is mentioned as Durgaiah and that there is a gap of 15 years between his natural father and Nakka

Mohan and he was unable to name any person who performed adoption ceremony as Ayyagaru as he was only 11 years old at that time. It is also elicited that the marriage of defendant No.1 was performed when he was

5 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

10 or 11 years old, but he does not remember in which year her marriage was performed. He has categorically stated that he did not make any attempt to change his father’s name in his school records after 1997. His

Ration Card is also in the name of his natural father. He admitted that the defendant No.1 alone is mentioned as family member in her ration card.

When he was adopted by defendant No.1 and Nakka Mohan there were 5 to 6 village elders but no deed was executed on that day. He also admitted that the defendant No.1 was aged about 30 to 35 years when the suit was filed but he got mentioned her age as 55 years in his plaint.

He also admitted that after the marriage of defendant No.1 a house was partitioned and a wall was constructed between two houses because of disputes between the two families. He has also categorically stated that the defendant No.1 was residing in her parental house after the death of

Nakka Mohan. He further deposed that when Nakka Mohan was ill, the defendant No.1 had worked in his place for a period of 3 to 4 months. In his cross-examination by defendant No.2, he admitted that Nakka Mohan was younger brother of his natural father and he was employee. Thus, from the evidence of pw-1, it is noticed that he gave contradictory version about his age at the time of adoption saying that 10 or 11 years whereas according to plaint it is 13 years. Further, it is also elicited that at the time of marriage of defendant No.1, he was aged 10 or 11 years old and also of the same age at the time of adoption. This evidence goes to falsify the version of pw-1 that after the marriage of Nakka Mohan and

6 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

defendant No.1, they waited for some time and as they did not had any children, they adopted the plaintiff.

9.Pw-2 filed chief affidavit supporting the version of plaintiff about defendant No.1 and Nakka Mohan taking the plaintiff in adoption when the plaintiff was aged about 13 years and also about executing adoption deed dt.15.6.2007. He has also deposed that the marriage of defendant No.1 with Nakka Mohan was held about in the year 1991 and as they were not blessed with any children, they took the plaintiff in adoption on 1.1.1997.

In his cross-examination his relationship with the plaintiff and age of pw- 2, Nakka Mohan and defendant No.2 was questioned but nothing fruitful was elicited because he has categorically deposed that he did not attend the marriage of Nakka Mohan and also does not know when his marriage was performed. He also deposed that he do not have any knowledge about the house of Nakka Mohan. He has deposed that he went to attend adoption ceremony of plaintiff in the year 1997. Regarding ceremonies, he deposed that it was performed in the absence of Purohithudu and that except taking the plaintiff as adopted son, no ceremony was performed.

He too has categorically stated that the defendant No.1 was residing at

Chandrampet i.e., her parental house, but he does not know for how many years she has been residing at Chandrampet. In his cross-examination by defendant No.2, he stated that the deceased belonged to Schedule Caste (Madiga) and that adoption deed was not registered one. He has clarified that they do not have customary practice of performing adoption

7 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

ceremony with the help of Purohith. Except giving blessing to the child in the presence of elders, they have no other formalities. Thus, pw-2 has also given contradicting version stating that he does not know when the marriage of defendant No.1 was performed with Nakka Mohan. In his cross-examination he mentioned as year 1991, but he has clarified about ceremony and the manner in which adoption was adopted.

10.Pw-3 has also deposed that the marriage of Nakka Mohan with the defendant No.1 was performed in the year 1991 and as health of Nakka

Mohan was not good, they decided to adopt the child and accordingly they adopted the plaintiff on 1.1.1997 and the plaintiff has grown up as their natural son but till 15.6.2007 no document was executed. He too has deposed that at the time of taking adoption no ceremonies were performed except giving and taking and all the elders blessing the adoptive parents by showering Akshinthalu. In his cross-examination he deposed that Nakka Mohan died when he was under the age of 20 years.

He too has deposed that the defendant No.1 has been residing with her parents at Chandrampet since the death of her husband. This witness was unable to give any specific date of either the marriage of defendant

No.1 with Nakka Mohan or adoption but simply deposed about 15 to 20 years back etc. He has categorically deposed that he along with Gaddam

Yellaiah, Akunoori Mallaiah, Akunoori Ashok have signed on the adoption deed along with elders about 15 to 20 years back. It is also elicited that prior to death, Mohan suffered illness for about five years but he does not

8 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

know about the disease suffered by Mohan. He too has categorically deposed that except giving and taking, no other ceremonies were performed. He has also clarified that Nakka Mohan had not attended his duty for a period of three months prior to his death due to his ill-health.

He too has stated that the name of the plaintiff’s natural father has been continuing in school records and other records of the plaintiff. Further he has categorically stated that the father of the deceased had lit fire to the deceased. Thus, the evidence of pw-3 goes contradicting to the evidence of pw-1 regarding conducting of last rites. He has admitted about illness of Mohan from about five years prior to his death. Surprisingly, he has also stated that the marriage of Mohan was performed when he was under the age of 20 years. If this version of pw-3 is accepted, the entire case of plaintiff has to be brushed aside because at this age, a person getting married and adopting a child for the reason of not begetting any child appears very unnatural.

11.The defendant No.1 is examined as DW1. In her chief affidavit she has reiterated the averments of her written statement and got marked

Exs.B1 to B5. In her cross-examination it is elicited that at the time of her marriage she was aged about 20 years and her age as on the date of her evidence before the court was about 40 years. Nakka Durgaiah did not attend her marriage. She admitted that she did not give birth to children after her marriage. She admitted about disputes between their families with regard to existing wall but no cases were filed before the

9 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

court of law. She has deposed that she is not given job by Municipal authority after death of her husband.

12.DW2 deposed that the husband of defendant No.1 died about 14 years ago and he attended the marriage of defendant No.1 with Nakka

Mohan in the year 2002. He also deposed that the defendant No.1 performed last rites of her husband and that they had no children. Further, there were quarrels between the family of defendant No.1 and family of

Durgaiah over the wall dispute. The defendant No.1 has been residing in her parental house since the date of death of her husband. Further, Mohan died because of AIDS for about 1 ½ year prior to his death. In his cross- examination he came to know about panchayat from DW1. He denied the suggestions put to him that the defendant No.1 was married to Nakka

Mohan in the year 1997 and that the couple along with plaintiff used to reside under one roof.

13. DW-3/Office Manager has deposed that Nakka Mohan worked as

Public Health Worker who died on 21.12.2007 while in service leaving behind him his wife i.e., defendant No.1 and father/Pochaiah as per legal heir entries in service book. Further, there is no record in their office that the plaintiff is adopted son of Nakka Mohan and so he is not eligible for any appointment under compassionate ground. In his cross-examination he admitted that as per Hindu customs a son will perform funeral rites of his father. He has also deposed that their office has issued death certificate and dependent certificate of Nakka Mohan, but he cannot say

10 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

whether the plaintiff was adopted son of Nakka Mohan as they have no record to that effect. He also deposed that the defendant No.1 was receiving pension from their department but she was not given any job.

14. On overall appreciation of the above oral and documentary evidence, it has to be seen whether the plaintiff was able to prove the adoption. The requirements of valid adoption are stated in Mulla’s “Principles of Hindu Law” 17th Edn.: as under:

“448. Requirements of a valid adoption. No adoption is valid unless; (1) the person taking adoption is lawfully capable of taking in adoption (2) the person giving in adoption is lawfully capable of giving in adoption (3) the person adopted is lawfully capable of being taken in adoption.

(4) the adoption is completed by an actual giving and taking (5) the ceremony called datta homam (oblation to fire) has been performed.

As to datta homam it is not settled whether its performance is essential to tha validity of an adoption in every case. As to the other ceremonies, they are not necessary in the case of Shudras. Here the parties belong to

Scheduled caste (Madiga) is brought on record and hence the performance of ceremonies is not necessary.

15. But the ceremony of giving and receiving is one of the essential requirements to prove adoption, that too, in the presence of relatives to make it public that a person has been taken in adoption. In this case, there were some persons who have blessed by showering “akshinthalu”, is

11 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

deposed by the witnesses. But none of them deposed that the plaintiff was residing with his adoptive father after the date of adoption. On the other hand, the disputes between the adoptive father and the natural father of the plaintiff were elicited from the witnesses. Adding to this, it is the evidence of all the witnesses that the defendant No.1 was residing in her parents’ house since the date of death of her husband. This circumstance coupled with the documents i.e., the ration card of defendant No.1, family member certificate, service records of Nakka Mohan wherein the name of plaintiff do not find place, it can be said that the plaintiff was not residing with defendant No.1 and her husband even after the alleged adoption.

According to Hindu Law, when a person is given in adoption, he severed all his connection with his natural family and he became a member in the adoptive family. Such severance is not found in this case. The natural father’s name of the plaintiff continued in his school records and his name is not included in the service records of Nakka Mohan nor in his ration card or in the family member certificate issued after death of Nakka Mohan.

16. Further, the reason mentioned for taking the plaintiff in adoption is that as the defendant No.1 and her husband were not blessed with any child and as there was no chance of begetting any child in near future, they have adopted the plaintiff. In support of this contention, the plaintiff submits that the marriage of defendant No.1 with Nakka Mohan was performed when he was 10 or 11 years old. He again says that he was taken in adoption when he was 10 or 11 years old. PW2 and PW3 though

12 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

in their chief examination have deposed that the marriage of DW1 with

Nakka Mohan was performed in the year 1991 and as they did not beget any child, they took the plaintiff in adoption in the year 1997, their version was falsified in their cross-examination as they failed to stand on their respective versions. PW2 has categorically stated in cross-examination that he does not know when the marriage of DW1 with Nakka Mohan was performed. Further, DW1 denied that her marriage took place in the year 1991 but according to her, she was married in the year 2002. The witnesses examined on her behalf have supported her version in this regard. She also got marked Ex.B1 – marriage invitation card showing that her marriage was performed in the year 2002. In view of the categorical admission of PW2 and PW3 that they do not know when the marriage of DW1 with Nakka Mohan was performed, this evidence of DW1 and DW2 coupled with Ex.B1 gains significance.

17. In this context, it will be worthwhile to note the requirement of registration of an adoption deed. Section 17 of the Registration Act specifically refers to the documents of which registration is compulsory.

The deed of adoption is not one of the documents mentioned in Section 17 (1) of the Act which mandatorily requires registration. Section 17 (3) only refers to the mandatory requirement of registration of an authorisation that may be given for adopting a son executed after 01.01.1872 if such authorisation was not conferred by a Will. Admittedly, the deed of

13 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

adoption is distinguished from authority to adopt and it does not require registration.

18. Keeping the above statement of law in mind as regards the procedure to be followed for a valid adoption and the statutory stiupulation that an adoption deed does not require registration, the claim of the plaintiff as the adopted son of deceased requires to be considered.

The plaintiff has produced the original adoption deed. It reads that on 15.06.2007, the defendant No.1, her husband have taken the plaintiff in adoption from his natural parents on 01.01.1997 when the plaintiff was aged about 13 years agreeing to take care of the said child including his studies and the adopted child will live with the adopted parents from that date. There is no document to show that the plaintiff was being called as the son of deceased Nakka Mohan. As admitted by the witnesses, the plaintiff was residing in the house of his natural parents, his educational certificates were bearing the name of his natural father. It is also admitted by PW1 that his name is not found in the ration card of DW1. Further, as elicited in the cross-examination of PW2 and PW3, no ceremonies were held except giving and taking of the child. But even after this giving and taking, the adopted child remained with the natural parents, is brought on record. The absence of homam or any other ceremonies is not fatal to the case of the plaintiff as it is elicited that they belong to Scheduled Caste (Madiga) and as per the principles laid down in Mulla’s law, no ceremonies

14 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

are required for shudras except for giving and taking, which does not appear to have been done in the present case.

19.Further, adoption is said to have done on 01.01.1997 and Ex.A1 is executed about ten years thereafter on 15.06.2007. What prevented to execute any document on the date of adoption is not understood. It is also in doubt what made to execute a document ten years thereafter. None of the witnesses have explained what were the changed circumstances to execute a document ten years after the adoption ceremony, if any. This doubt adds to the case of the defendants that the plaintiff with ill intention to obtain appointment with defendant No.2 company has created the adoption deed.

20. Beside this, PW3 is said to be one of the witnesses to the document

Ex.A1. Surprisingly, the evidence of PW3 is that the deceased Nakka

Mohan died when he was under 20 years of age. At such a young age,

Nakka Mohan getting married and not having children and so adopted a child, all seem very unnatural. Adding to this, execution of Ex.A1 ten years after the actual adoption is more doubtful. One more fact is deposed by DW2 that the deceased Nakka Mohan died because of AIDS and was suffering of the said disease since about 1 ½ year prior to his death.

Ex.A1 is six months prior to the death of Nakka Mohan. This aspect of

Mohan suffering from AIDS is not questioned in the cross-examination of

DW2. As per the records available with defendant No.2, the legal heirs of

Mohan are his father and DW1. DW3 was unable to give any information

15 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

about the plaintiff being adopted son of Mohan as they do not have any records. Thus, the plaintiff was not able to prove that he is the adopted son of Mohan and DW1 by way of any document in the form of school records, ration card, etc., or in the service records of Nakka Mohan.

21. Here, it is relevant to refer to the recent finding of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court wherein it is held that adoption of a child by a Hindu couple can be declared as valid only if there is a proof of such ceremony and a valid consent of the wife, referring to the two conditions laid down under Sections 7 and 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, which are consent of the wife before a male Hindu adopted a child and proof of the ceremony of actual giving and taking of the child in adoption.

In the case on hand, DW1 who is wife of deceased Nakka Mohan is not at all agreeing that she or her husband has adopted the plaintiff. On the other hand, she is contesting the case denying the adoption said to have executed by her husband. The giving and taking is also not proved, as observed supra. Hence on this ground also it can be held without any hesitation that the plaintiff has absolutely failed to prove the adoption deed Ex,.A1 and therefore he is not entitled for the declaration as sought for by him.

22. Coming to the case of defendants, the genuinenity or otherwise of

Ex.B1 need not be decided in his case filed by the plaintiff where the plaintiff has failed to prove through oral and documentary evidence that he is the adopted son of Nakka Mohan. Ex.B2 – ration card, Ex.B4 – family

16 Of 16 OS No.148 of 2008

member certificate showing the name of D1 alone as legal heir of deceased Nakka Mohan supports her case and adds to the already defunct case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the issues Nos.1 to 4 are answered against the plaintiff and in favour of defendant No.1.

ISSUE NO.5

23. In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him and corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla :APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW1: N.Krishnam Raju DW-1 N.Laxmi PW2: A.Ashok DW-2 N.Shanker PW3: M.Durgaiah DW-3 K.Vijay Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1Original adoption deed dt.15.6.2007 Ex.A2Death certificate of Nakka Mohan

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1Original invitation card of wedding dt.12.12.2002 Ex.B2Original Ration Card dt.31.07.2005 Ex.B3Original Death certificate dt.11.2.2008 Ex.B4CC of family members certificate Ex.B5Is Endorsement of Commissioner, Municipal Council, Sircilla

Sd/-

Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla FAC Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla

Page- 1 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

`IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA .

Present:- SMT. K.SOWJANYA,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

C.C.No. 372 of 2016

Between:

The State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station: Thangallapalli.

... Complainant

// AND //

A.1: Aluri Linga Reddy, S/o. Bhupathi Reddy, Age: 45 years, Reddy, R/o. Gopalraopalli village.

A.2:Bandari Mahesh, S/o. Ailaiah, Age: 42 years, Goud, R/o. Thadur village.

A.3:Kasani Srinivas, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 35 years, Yadav, R/o. Thadur village.

A.4:Sandharikari Sathyesh, S/o. Nareshaiah, Age: 35 years, Mochi, R/o. Pedda bazar, Sircilla.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana and Sri.G.Bhuvaneshwar, Learned Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Sircilla filed charge-sheet against A.1 to A.4 in Crime No.174 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 355 read with 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 01.06.2016 at 5.30 PM

L.W.1/Kotha Bharathavva lodged a report in police station stating that the son

Page- 2 of 10CC No.372 of 2016 of A.1 aged about eight years was suffering from cancer by birth but A.1 suspected that she played sorcery on his son. Keeping the same grudge in mind, on 25.05.2016 at 8.30 PM the said A.1 along with his friends A.2, A.3 and others criminally trespassed into her house, abused her and her husband, beat them with hands indiscriminately and took them to Manair Vagu by using criminal force on them. There the accused persons beat her with sticks demanding her to stick “bottu” to her son. Because of such beating, she received severe injury to her right hand and due to fear she stick “bottu” to the son of A.1 and later the offenders have let them free. She informed the matter to Ponnam Chandramouli/L.W.4 and Manthri Srivarthan/L.W.5 who have taken them to hospital and provided treatment. It is further stated that due to life threat she has not filed complaint at an early date.

Basing on the above report the case was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded and medical certificates of the injured persons are collected. On 20.06.2016 the accused persons themselves surrendered in police station and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. A.1 also stated that he has thrown away the stick somewhere. After completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against A.1 to A.4.

3.This case was taken cognizance against A.1 to A4 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 326, 355 read with 34 IPC. On appearance of accused copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page- 3 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

4.A.1 to A.4 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. Charge for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 326, 355 read with 34 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 9 and

Exs.P.1 to P7 is marked.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, A.1 to A.4 were examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their vernacular language, they denied the same and reported that they had no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence charged, beyond all reasonable doubt? POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant, P.W.2 is her husband and P.W.3 is her granddaughter. P.Ws.4 and 5 are circumstantial witnesses who are said to have shifted the injured persons to hospital. P.Ws.6 and 7 are panch witnesses for crime details form,

P.W.8 is the medical officer and P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

10.P.W.1 deposed that on 25.05.2016 A.1 to A.4 went to their house bolted the house from inside and beat herself and her husband with hands and stick in her house. They also threatened her granddaughter/L.W.3-Lipsika.

Page- 4 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

Thereafter the accused have taken them to Vagu and forced her to have bath and with such wet clothes they demanded her to put “bottu” to the son of A.1 and she did not accordingly. She explained that the son of A.1 had blood cancer and A.1 suspected that P.W.1 performed black-magic on his son. The accused persons have beaten P.W.1 with stick at Vagu also because of which she had fracture to her right hand. P.W.1 further deposed that the accused persons have restrained them for one week from going out of the house and so she reported the matter thereafter.

11.A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that on the alleged date of incident at 8.30

PM, A.1 to A.3 along with some other have trespassed into the house of P.W.1.

It is also seen that the offenders have abused P.Ws.1 and 2 and beat them with hands. Thereafter the offenders have taken both P.Ws.1 and 2 towards

Vagu by dragging them. At the Vagu the offenders have demanded P.W.1 by speaking in abusive language to put “bottu” to the son of A.1 and also beaten her with stick because of which she sustained severe injury to her right hand.

There is also mention that out of fear P.W.1 has put “bottu” as per the demand of the offenders and later the offenders have let them free. Regarding giving information to others, it is seen in Ex.P1 that P.W.1 has informed P.Ws.4 and 5 who have taken them to hospital and provided treatment.

12.Thus, the oral evidence of P.W.1 is seen with improvements like the accused persons bolting the house of P.W.1 from inside, beating them with stick in their house. In Ex.P1 there is no mention about the presence of

Page- 5 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

L.W.3/Lipsika which P.W.1 deposed before the Court. There is also no mention in Ex.P1 about the accused persons demanding P.W.1 to take bath and with such wet clothes to stick “bottu” to the son of A.1. There is also no mention in

Ex.P1 that the accused persons have restrained them for one week from going out of the house.

13.A perusal of oral evidence of P.W.2 shows that he too has deposed that the accused persons have bolted the house and also demanded P.W.1 to take bath at the Vagu and further that the accused persons have restrained them in their house for one week. These aspects as observed supra are not found in

Ex.P1. P.W.3 deposed that the offenders have taken P.Ws.1 and 2 towards

Vagu and thereafter brought back P.Ws.1 and 2 to the house. It is her further evidence that her grandmother/P.W.1 had stick bottu to the son of P.W.1 in their house. Thus the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is also not in corroboration with the contents of Ex.P1.

14.About the treatment to P.Ws.1 and 2 it is the case of prosecution and as seen in Ex.P1 that P.W.1 has informed P.Ws.4 and 5 about the incident who have taken them to hospital and provided treatment. Admittedly Ex.P1 does not speak about the name of hospital in which she and P.W.2 took treatment except that private hospital. P.W.4 did not name the hospital in his chief- examination but it was elicited in his cross-examination as Vani Nursing Home.

P.W.1 stated that she took treatment in Ramana Rao hospital. P.W.2 stated that they went to private Orthopedic hospital for treatment.

Page- 6 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

15.About the date of getting treatment also Ex.P1 is silent. This fact is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that she went to hospital four days after the alleged incident and explained that because of fear of the accused they could not move out of the house. P.W.2 in this regard has deposed that they went to hospital on the second or third day of the alleged incident.

Whereas P.W.3 stated that it was on the next day of the alleged incident.

P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed the date of their knowledge about the incident and they taking P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital on 01.06.2016. The doctor/P.W.8 has deposed that he examined the injured persons on 26.05.2016 which is on the next day of the alleged incident. The medical certificates/Exs.P4 and P5 also show that the doctor has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 on 26.05.2015 at 1.00 PM.

The age of injury is noted as 14 to 18 hours. Thus the evidence of all the witnesses with regard to the date of taking treatment in the hospital is totally contradicting with the medical record and each other.

16.A further perusal of the evidence of P.W.8 shows that he examined the injured persons after receiving requisition from Police-Sircilla. But it is the evidence of witnesses that they themselves went to a private hospital and got treatment. Further the requisition is dated:01.06.2016 and the medical certificates are dated:26.05.2016 which is prior to date of requisition from police. The investigation officer/P.W.9 has categorically admitted the said dates in his cross-examination. Furthermore the requisition is issued in the name of Duty Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Sircilla whereas the

Page- 7 of 10CC No.372 of 2016 medical certificate is issued by Dr. N.V.R Rao (P.W.8) and the seal of Vani

Nursing Home is seen. The investigating officer/P.W.9 in his re-examination by the learned APP has explained in this regard that the injured persons took treatment in Vani Nursing Home and all the medical record along with requisition was given to the Duty Medical Officer, who has issued the medical certificates. P.W.9 further stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 were hospitalized in Vani

Nursing Home but he does not remember the number of days they were hospitalized. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.8 and also the documents/Ex.P4 and P5 show that P.Ws.1 and 2 were treated as out- patients. Surprisingly P.W.9 also stated that there is mention in Ex.P1 that the delay was due to treatment taken by the injured persons. Thus P.W.9 deposed self-contradictory versions – at one point of time he deposed that he referred the injured persons to hospital after receiving Ex.P1 and at another point of time he deposes that according to Ex.P1 the delay in lodging complaint was due to treatment of injured persons.

17.Apart from the above the more surprising fact noticed is that according to Ex.P4, P.W.1 received fracture injury which is grievous in nature. If this injury is true the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 about the date of providing treatment to P.W.1 is definitely falsified because it is not possible for keeping a fracture injury untreated for such a long duration of time. The explanation of the witnesses in this regard that out of fear of accused they did not move out of the house also cannot be accepted for a simple reason that according to

P.Ws.1 and 2 they were restrained for about one week and at the same time it

Page- 8 of 10CC No.372 of 2016 is their evidence that they went to hospital within one week of the alleged date of incident.

18.About the scene of offence both the independent witnesses cited as panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama examined as Exs.P6 and

P7 have not supported the prosecution case and except marking their signatures on the panchanama nothing incriminating was elicited from their cross-examination by the learned APP. Whereas the investigating officer has deposed that they drafted crime details form in the presence of mediators on 02.06.2016 which is on the next day of registering the case and he has shown

Vagu in the rough sketch. A perusal of the rough sketch in the C.D.F it is seen that the house of P.W.1 is shown as the scene of offence but the Vagu is not shown. In column no.9 which is description of place of occurrence also there is mention of house of P.W.1 only and there is no mention about Vagu. Thus there is every doubt cast upon the incident said to have taken place at the

Vagu consequently about the entire prosecution story.

19.In this backdrop of the evidence of witnesses which suffers from omissions, discrepancies and contradicting with each other and also with that of the documentary evidence, the cross-examination of witnesses is not discussed in detail. But it is elicited and categorically deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 about the earlier disputes and the earlier cases between the parties and also about the omissions made in respect of their 161 Cr.P.C statements. The evidence of P.W.3 that she has not informed her parents about the incident is

Page- 9 of 10CC No.372 of 2016 also very surprising. In respect of the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 contradictions are elicited about the date of they taking P.Ws.1 and 2 to hospital and also about mode of conveyance besides the place from where they took P.Ws.1 and 2 to hospital. In view of the above defective evidence of the witnesses there is a heavy doubt cast upon the veracity of the witnesses. In a criminal trial the guilt of the accused persons shall be proved beyond reasonable doubt and any amount of doubt shall entail benefit in favour of accused persons resulting their acquittal. From the above discussion it is clear that the prosecution case suffers from infirmities and benefit of which shall invariably be extended in favour of the accused persons. Therefore the accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

20.In the result, A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326, 355 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2023.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1Kotha Bharathavva, None. P.W.2Kotha Venkat Reddy, P.W.3Thada Lipsika, P.W.4Ponnam Chandramouli, P.W.5Mantri Srivardhan, P.W.6Sattu Jalender,

Page- 10 of 10CC No.372 of 2016

P.W.7Pabbati Venkati, P.W.8Dr. N.V. Ramana Rao, P.W.9B.Srinivas,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2:Signature of P.W.6 on panchanama. Ex.P3:Signature of P.W.7 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P4:Medical Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P5:Medical Certificate of P.W.2. Ex.P6:FIR. Ex.P7:Crime Details Form.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MOs. MARKED -Nil -

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla.

Page- 1 of 10CC No.554 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, AT RAJANNA SIRCILLA .

Present:- SMT. K.SOWJANYA,

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC: Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

MONDAY, THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023.

CALENDER CASE. No. 554 of 201 6

Between:

The State of Telangana through Station House Officer, Police Station: Gambhiraopet.

... Complainant

// AND //

A.1Allepu Mallaiah, S/o. Narsaiahd, Age: 55 years, Caste: Waddera, R/o. Yadaram village of Domakonda Mandal.

A.2Allepu Ramesh, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 29 years, Caste: Waddera, R/o. Yadaram village of Domakonda Mandal.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 13.04.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State of Telangana and Sri.P.Durga Reddy, Learned Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

The SI of Police, P.S. Gambhiraopet filed charge sheet against A.1 and

A.2 in Crime No.123 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Section 393

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.12.2014 L.W.1/Gajabinkar

Laxmi lodged a report in police station stating that on that day at 11.30 AM she along with her husband/L.W.2-Gajabinkar Narsoji went to Mallareddypet

Page- 2 of 10CC No.554 of 2016 village on a motorcycle i.e., Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing

No.AP.25.K.184 to visit her daughter-in-law and granddaughter. After visiting them while returning to Dhammanapet on the same motorcycle and they reached near Government Primary School at about 200 meters to Durgamma temple at the turning point in the outskirts of Ponnalapalle h/o.Dhammannapet, two unknown persons came from their behind on a motorcycle, the pillion rider of the said motorcycle beat on the head of her husband with iron rod.

Immediately she made hues and cries as “dongalu, dongalu” on that the offenders have fled away. The two unknown offenders tried to commit theft of her gold pustelatadu and gold chain of her husband and beat her husband with iron rod and inflicted injuries. Basing on the above report, the case was registered, statements of witnesses were recorded, medical certificate of injured person was collected and scene of offence panchanama was drafted.

In the meanwhile the Inspector of Police at Togutta circle has apprehended the accused persons and conducted confession and seizure panchanama during the course of which the accused persons have confessed about this offence as well. Therefore the accused persons were produced in this case on execution of a P.T. warrant and after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against A.1 and A.2.

3.This case was taken cognizance against A.1 and A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 393 IPC. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Page- 3 of 10CC No.554 of 2016

4.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

Charge for the offence punishable under Section 393 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to

PW-8 and Exs.P.1 to 5 were marked.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the A.1 and A.2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in their vernacular language, they denied the same and reported that they had no defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence charged, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto- complainant, P.W.2 is her husband and injured person, P.W.3 is daughter-in- law of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.4 is one of the panch witnesses for crime details form, P.W.5 is one of the panch witnesses for confession-cum-recovery panchanama, P.W.6 is doctor who treated P.W.2, P.W.7 is the investigating officer who conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused and P.W.8 is the investigating officer of this case.

Page- 4 of 10CC No.554 of 2016

10.P.W.1 deposed that in the year 2014 when she along with her husband/P.W.2 were returning from Mallareddypet after visiting her granddaughter and reached near Dhammanapet at temple, some offenders tried to snatch her pustelatadu from her neck and she resisted them. She further deposed that the offenders have beat her husband with a gun on his head causing bleeding injuries because of which he had six sutures. She has clarified that they went to hospital at first instance and then to police station.

In her cross-examination she admitted that she has not seen the crime weapon and added that they were attacked from their back side and so she could not see the weapon. She has categorically deposed that she cannot identify the offenders because of lapse of time and again stated that as they were attacked from back side and the offenders fled away she was not in a position to see them.

11.A perusal of Ex.P1 shows that the offenders have beaten P.W.2 on his head with an iron rod and not with a gun as deposed by P.W.1. There is no mention in Ex.P1 that the offenders have tried to snatch the ornaments of

P.Ws.1 and 2. There is only mention to the effect that the offenders have beaten P.W.2 and that P.W.1 had presumed that the offenders have committed such an act with an intention to commit theft of Pustelatadu of herself and gold chain of her husband. Therefore it is clear that P.W.1 had made improvements in her evidence on material particulars of the offence.

Page- 5 of 10CC No.554 of 2016

12.P.W.2 has deposed in similar lines with that of P.W.1 saying that the offenders have attacked him with iron road on his head in order to snatch gold chain of him and his wife/P.W.1. He further deposed that after he sustained injuries they went to Ashwini hospital, Yellareddypet where he had sutures to his injury and then they went to police station. P.W.2 has also categorically stated in his cross-examination that he has not seen the persons who attacked him and explained that as the offenders has attacked from his back side could not see them.

13.Thus the two direct witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident have not seen the offenders. Their evidence is also contradicting with that of Ex.P1 about the motive of the offenders to attack P.W.2. P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly she is not the eye witness and her evidence is to the effect that on 14.12.2014 P.Ws.1 and 2 left Mallareddypet at about 2.00

PM and that she came to know that when they reached Ponnallapalli village some thieves attacked them and beat P.W.2 with an iron road on his head.

Immediately she telephoned P.W.2 who informed her that he had taken treatment in hospital and going to Gambhiraopet police station. On such information she also went to police station. In her cross-examination she stated that she reached police station at about 6.00 PM or 6.30 PM on the same day. The evidence of P.W.3 is only corroborative in nature.

14.P.W.4 deposed about the police conducting scene of offence panchanama near Dammanapet village at temple regarding chain snatching at

Page- 6 of 10CC No.554 of 2016 that place. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not remember the exact time but it was around 6.30 PM. He admitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are his villagers. Thus nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.4 to disbelieve his evidence.

15.Now the evidence of crucial witness to connect the alleged offence to the accused i.e., P.W.5 who is one of the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama of the accused persons. His evidence is that on 29.12.2014 in the morning at about 4.00 AM the Tahasildar telephoned him and asked him to go to police station which he did accordingly. There he was asked to enquire two persons i.e., A.1 and A.2 who confessed about commission of about nine offences and basing on such confession one gold chain, one mobile phone, one motorbike and two receipts showing mortgage of gold were seized from the possession of accused persons. In his cross- examination he stated that the Tahasildar instructed him on phone to go to police station. He explained that there were three Sub-Inspectors of Police, about six Police Constables and one Circle Inspector of Police. He denied the suggestion put to him that he enquired the accused persons in the presence of all the police officers but added that they called the accused aside and then enquired them. P.W.7 is the CI of Police who conducted confession and seizure panchanama of A.1 and A.2. He deposed that he arrested A.1 and A.2 while he was doing vehicle checking at Venkataraopeta Vagugadda and thereafter conducted confession cum seizure panchanamas. Except putting

Page- 7 of 10CC No.554 of 2016 suggestions nothing was elicited from his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence.

16.P.W.6 is the doctor who has examined P.W.2. He deposed that P.W.2 came to their hospital on 14.12.2014 and P.W.2 had sutures for the injuries to his head. Thereafter he issued certificate opining that the injuries were simple in nature. The evidence of this witness has also remained unshaken in his cross-examination.

17.P.W.8 is the investigating officer of this case. He deposed about he registering the case, examining and recording the statements of witnesses, drafting CDF in the presence of mediators and that after completion of investigation the SI of Police has filed charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-examination he stated that P.Ws.1 to 3 came to police station for lodging Ex.P1. He admitted that he has not seized any property in this case.

18.On careful appraisal of above oral and documentary evidence it is seen that the evidence of direct witnesses is to the effect that two unknown offenders have attacked P.W.2 on his head. P.W.2 deposed the crime weapon as iron rod and P.W.1 deposed it as a gun. According to Ex.P1 the crime weapon is an iron road. Admittedly the said rod is not deposited before this

Court. P.W.1 has improved her version saying that the offenders tried to snatch her pustela thadu but she resisted. The version of P.Ws.1 and 2 in their oral evidence before this Court is to the effect that P.W.2 was attacked with an intention to commit theft of their ornaments but there is nothing on record to

Page- 8 of 10CC No.554 of 2016 show that the accused have either demanded them to give away their ornaments or at-least tried to snatch the ornaments from P.Ws.1 and 2. There is also no evidence to show if there were any persons on the road at the time of alleged offence because according to prosecution P.W.1 has raised alarm and the offenders had fled away. This is possible only when there are any other persons apart from P.Ws.1 and 2. But there is no evidence of any third person and nobody is cited as eye witness to the incident apart from P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also the prosecution case that P.W.2 was driving motorcycle at the time of alleged offence when P.W.2 was beaten on his head with iron road and he sustained severe bleeding injuries which required sutures, he himself going to hospital from the alleged scene of offence to the hospital at Yellareddypet and from there to police station at Gambhiraopet does not appear natural.

19.With regard to confession of the accused, it is a settled law that a confession made before a police officer cannot be accepted in evidence unless any new discovery is made from out of such confession. In the case on hand nothing new was discovered and nothing was seized from the possession of accused pertaining to this crime. Moreover, it is an offence of attempt to commit robbery as narrated by the prosecution. Further if the accused persons have inflicted injuries to P.W.2 with an intention to commit robbery the accused would have been charged for the offence under Section 394 IPC and not under Section 393 IPC. This fact coupled with no evidence that the accused had made demand or attempt to snatch away the gold

Page- 9 of 10CC No.554 of 2016 ornaments of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is every doubt that the accused persons committed the offence as narrated by the prosecution. The benefit of this doubt shall be extended in favour of accused persons and therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 393 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. A.1 and A.2 shall be released forthwith, if they are not required in any other case.

Typed to my dictation, seen, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2023.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

P.W-1Gajbinkar Laxmi Bai, Nil.

P.W-2Gajbinkar Narsoji,

P.W-3Gajbinkar Sandhya,

P.W-4Vanga Praveen

P.W-5Sattu Swamy,

P.W-6Dr. G.Satyanarayana Swamy,

P.W-7A.Venkataiah,

P.W-8Md. Jafer Sharif,

Page- 10 of 10CC No.554 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 is the complaint.

Ex.P.2 is the Crime Details Form.

Ex.P3 is the Medical Certificate.

Ex.P4 is confession and seizure of A.1.

Ex.P5 is confession and seizure of A.2.

Ex.P6 is FIR.

FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

MOs. MARKED Nil

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajanna Sircilla. FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajanna Sircilla.

1 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS AT SIRCILLA

PRESENT:- Smt.K.Sowjanya, Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class. Sircilla

Wednesday, this the 17 th day of November, 2021

C.C.No. 152 of 2016

Between:- The State of Telangana through SHO, PS Gambhiraopet.

... Complainant

// AND //

A1- Md.Subhan S/o Ismail (Case against A1 split up vide CC No.81/18) A2- Md.Saleem S/o Ismail, aged 43 years, R/o Kothapalli village.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 17.11.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor/Sri B.Ravinder Rao for the State of Telangana and Sri Ch.Mahesh Goud, Advocate for accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gambhiraopet has filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Cr.No.152/2016 for the offence U/Sec. 341, 353 r/w 34-A of IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2010 LW-1/Md.Mohinuddin lodged a report with the police stating that on his instructions his staff went to

Kothapalli village for collection of due amounts from the defaulters and checking power meters of CESS. At about 10.30 a.m while they were checking meter with

Service No.254, they found the said owner has installed wire loop. While noting down the details, the accused persons who are the owners of the house restrained the staff members and obstructed them while discharging their legitimate duties and abused them in filthy language.

2.1Basing on the above report, the case was registered and after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against A-1 and A-2 opining 2 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016 that the offence against alleged A-3 was not established and hence he was not charge sheeted.

3.This case was taken on cognizance against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 341, 353 r/w 34 of IPC.On appearance of the accused A1 and A2, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Thereafter, on 24.02.2018, case against A1 was split up. The accused

A2 was examined U/Sec.251 of Cr.P.C duly explaining the accusation for the offence punishable u/s.341, 353 r/w 34 of IPC in his vernacular language.

He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 14 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of defence, Ex.D-1 portion of complaint of PW-1 is marked. The evidence of remaining witnesses was closed.

6. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused A2 was examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C explained incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses in his vernacular language, he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

A2 for the offence charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-10 and PW-13 are panch witnesses for Crime Details Form, whereas the remaining witnesses are eye witnesses and staff of electricity department against whom offence is alleged to have committed. Among 3 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016 them PW-8, PW-9 and PW-14 have not supported the prosecution case.

They simply deposed that some quarrels took place at the house of A-1, but the matter was pacified. Nothing was elicited from their cross-examination by the learned Asst.Public Prosecutor to implicate the accused. The panch witnesses PW-10 and PW-13 have also not supported the prosecution case.

PW-13 have denied conducting of any panchanama except that his signatures were obtained by the police in Bus Stop, Kothapalli village. PW-10 has also deposed that he signed on panchanama but only on the instructions of police. Hence, his signatures on CDF were marked.

10.The defacto complainant/PW-1 deposed that on 25.11.2010 he along with his staff were doing duty with regard to checking of meters and when

PW-2 and PW-3 entered the house of accused, the accused persons shouted at them, questioning them for entering their house, abused them in filthy language and also tried to beat them. Therefore, they lodged a report with the police. In his cross-examination he admitted that except accused person present in the court hall, none others were present. He also admitted that he does not know the accused person nor his name. On perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that it is dated 21.11.2010 and the offence alleged is also dt.21.11.2010, there is also no mention in Ex.P.1 that the accused persons tried to beat the officials. There is only mention that they abused the officials in filthy language. Hence, the accused persons trying to beat the officials becomes doubtful. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract Section 353 of

IPC.

“Sec.353 – Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done 4 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016 by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both”.

A bare reading of this provision shows that the accused must use criminal force to a public servant in order to commission of offence under this section.

Here, as noted above the accused using criminal force against officials is rendered doubtful.

11.The prime witnesses PW-2 and PW-3, who are said to have beaten at the hands of accused in the alleged offence have also not deposed that the accused persons either beat them or tried to beat them. Further, PW-2 has also deposed that the date of offence as 20-01-2011, whereas as per Ex.P.1 and as per the case of the prosecution the date of alleged offence is dt.21.11.2010. Contrary to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 has deposed that there were three persons who have abused them. Apart from this PW-3 has deposed that he came to know about some quarrels at the house of accused but he was not present at the time of quarrel. This version of PW-3 is entirely against the prosecution case which is to the effect that the offence was committed against PW-2 and PW-3 at first instance. Adding to this,

PW-2 has admitted that one of the accused persons has filed complaint against Lineman and Helper of Kothapalli before the Managing Director, CESS

Limited, Sircilla and with regard to the said complaint the then Upa Sarpanch

Balraju and Sarpanch Gurrapu Deva Goud went to police station along with

A.E to lodge the complaint before the police. Besides it many omissions are elicited in cross-examination of PW2 about he questioning A1 about tampering meter connection and then the accused raising voice against the officials. For the above contradictions and omissions the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 is rendered doubtful.

5 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016

12.PWs-4 to 7, PW-11 and PW-12 have deposed to the extent that they came to know that while PW-1 and PW-2 were verifying the electricity meters at the house of accused, accused persons have quarreled with the officials.

Thus, they are circumstantial witnesses and their evidence can be acted upon only on corroboration from the direct witnesses. Further, it is elicited in cross-examination of PW-5 that he took photographs of electricity connection but did not hand over them to the police. It is also elicited that by the time he reached the place, no quarrel took place in his presence.

Similarly PW-6 has also stated that no quarrel was going on when he reached the spot but in his chief examination he deposed that quarrel was going on between PW-1, PW-2 and A1. PW-7 has also categorically stated that he did not witness quarrel because by the time he reached the spot no quarrel was going on. PW-11 has also in a similar manner stated that no quarrel took place in his presence. He has also deposed the electricity meter number as 224 whereas as per prosecution case it is 254. PW-12 alone has deposed that he saw the accused persons scolding and abusing the group of PW-1.

13.On overall appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of prosecution, it can be seen that prime witnesses PW-8, PW-9, PW-12 and PW-14 who are cited as eye witnesses to the incident and among staff who have raided the house of accused while discharging their official duties, have not supported prosecution case. The evidence of defacto complainant/PW-1 and prime witnesses PW-2 and PW-3 suffers from contradictions and omissions rendering their evidence doubtful. The evidence of other witnesses is also not much helpful in connecting the accused with the alleged offence because of the doubtful evidence of Pws-1 to 3. Thus, it can be held without any hesitation that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A2 for the offence alleged against him and hence he is entitled for acquittal.

6 Of 6CC No.152 of 2016

14.In the result, the accused A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/S.341, 353 r/w 34 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under

Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand canceled.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of November, 2021.

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: Pw.1: Md.Mohinuddin -NIL- Pw.2: R.Kumara Swamy Pw.3: V.Anjaiah Pw.4: I.Venkat Ramana Pw.5: G.Narsoji Pw.6: R.Srinivas Pw.7: N.Srinivas Pw.8: G.Chinna Narsaiah Pw.9: V.Ravinder Pw.10: M.Srinivas Pw.11 T.Lingaiah Pw.12: K.Rajalingam Pw.13: Ch.Narayana Pw.14: V.Srinivas Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-1 on report Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by Pw-8 Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement by Pw-9 Ex.P4 is the signature of PW-10 on CDF Ex.P.5 is the signature of PW-11 on CDF Ex.P.6 is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW14

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D-1 Portion of complaint of pw-1.

MOs. MARKED

- NIL-

Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla.

1 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : AT : SIRCILLA

PRESENT: K.Sowjanya, Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

Friday day, the 19 th day of November, 2021

O.S No.247 of 2019

Between:

Ulli Yadimallesh s/o yellaiah, aged 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o H.No.1-87/8, Therlumaddi (v) Mustabad Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla. ..…Plaintiff

// A N D //

1. Ulli Yellaiah s/o Late Mallaiah, aged 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o 1-87/2, Therlumaddi v/o Mustabad Mandal, district: Rajanna Sircilla.

2. Ulli Balamallu s/o Yellaiah, aged 34 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-87/2, Therlumaddi v/o Mustabad Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

3. Laddunuri Jyothi w/o Mallesham, aged 30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Narayanapur v/o Yellareddypet Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

4. Nalluri Devaiah s/o Chinna Ramulu, aged 48 years,

5. Nalluri Chandraiah s/o Rajaiah, aged 60 years,

6. Nalluri Mallaiah s/o Chandraiah, aged 46 years,

7. Thovviti Balaiah s/o Ramulu, aged 43 years,

8. Thovviti Ramulu s/o Balaiah, aged 60 years,

9. Thovviti Mallaiah s/o Narsaiah, aged 52 years,

10. Thovviti Parshaiah s/o Narsaiah, aged 49 years,

11. Thovviti Raju s/o Komuraiah, aged 37 years,

12. Thovviti Babu s/o Mallaiah, aged 30 years,

13. Thovviti Anand s/o Ramulu, aged 34 years,

14. Thovviti Nagarjun s/o Kanakaiah, aged 30 years,

15. Thovviti Chandraiah s/o Chandraiah, aged 52 years,

16. Thovviti Haresh s/o Yadagiri, aged 26 years,

17. Thovviti Naresh s/o Yadagiri, aged 29 years,

18. Vedhunuri Yellaiah s/o Rajaiah, aged 41 years,

19. Bathula Devaiah s/o Ramaswamy, aged 48 years, Defendant No.4 to 19 all are Occ: Agriculture, R/o Therlumaddi v/o Mustabad Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

20. Chitineni Sudhakar Rao @ Sudhakar s/o Hanmantha Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ: Postman ( Government employee), R/o Therlumaddi v/o Mustabad Manda, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

21. Thahsildar, Mustabad Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla.

22. Panchayath Secretary, Grampanchayath,Therlumaddi Village, Mustabad Mandal, District: Rajanna Sircilla. …Defendants

2 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

This suit is coming before me on 28-10-2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Govind Bhaskar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri G. Bhuvaneshwar, Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 3 and 18 to 20 and Defendants D4 to D12, D15 to D17 are set-exparte, D13,D14 are Dismissed and the learned AGP for D21 and D22 and having been heard and having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:-

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession to the extent of 1/3rd share each to plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 over the suit schedule A & B properties by metes and bounds.

2.The brief averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff and defendants

No.1 to 3 are Hindus and they are joint family members governed by

Mitakshara school of Hindu law and they are all co-parceners and members of the said joint family and defendant No.1 being elder of the family is the

Kartha of the joint family. Previously the grandfather of the plaintiff by name

Ulli Mallaiah was owner and possessor of agriculural land bearing

Sy.No.269/1A/2 (old No.269/1) to an extent of Ac.0-20 guntas situated at

Therlamuddi village of Mustabad mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District. During his life time, he sold Ac.0-03 guntas of sald to one Thallapalli Ashaiah for valuable consideration and delivered vacant possession and since then, Ulli

Mallaiah is owner of Ac.0-17 guntas which is located in two parts – Ac.0-06 guntas and Ac.0-11 guntas. The said Ulli Mallaiah died in the year 2003 leaving behind the defendant No.1 as his class-I legal heir. The plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 3 have succeeded the suit scheduled properties from

Ulli Mallaiah with equal shares. In an oral family settlement, the defendant

No.3 received her share value in cash and relinquished all her rights and interests over the suit schedule A and B properties in favour of the plaintiff

3 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

and defendants No.1 and 2. Thus, the plaintiff, defendants No.1 and 2 are having 1/3rd undivided share in the suit scheduled properties. The suit survey number from time to time is charged as 269/1A and 269/1A/2 and at present it is uploaded in online pahni as 269/1A/2.

2.1After formation of new District, the price of lands is increased and to grab the suit lands, the defendants No.4 to 19 colluded with the defendants

No.1 and 2 and trying to sell away the lands to the defendants No.4 to 19 on a low price to deprive the rights of the plaintiff. Having learnt the same, the plaintiff felt it not safe to keep the property in joint possession and so he demanded for partition but the defendants No.1 and 2 have been postponing the same and also making efforts to alienate the property. Then the plaintiff obtained certified copies of pahanies from the office of defendant No.21 and came to know that his great grandfather’s name was wrongly recorded as

Yellaiah instead of Pochaiah in the concerned revenue records. The plaintiff also came to know that tha nem of defendant No.20 is wrongly continuing in possession column in pahanies from 2001-02. Though the plaintiff approached the defendant No.21 for rectification of wrong entries but he refused to do so and also refused to receive the petition. The defendants

No.4 to 19 are trying to create falso documents and trying to obtain permission for construction of compound wall around the suit scheduled lands from defendant No.22. The plaintiff objected for the same but the defendant No.22 has not responded properly. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants No.4 to 12, 15 to 17 though served with summons did not appear before the court and hence they were set exparte. Sri

G.Bhuvaneshwar, Advocate filed Vakalat for D1 to D3, D18 to D20 but failed

4 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

to file written statement in spite of lapse of 90 days. Hence right to file written statement of D1 to D3, D18 to D20 D21 and D22 was forfeited and they were set ex parte by my learned predecessor.

4.The plaintiff is examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A15 were marked. PW2 is also examined in support of the case of the plaintiff.

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff.

6.Now the point for determination is -

Whether the suit can be decreed as prayed for?

P O I N T:

7.Though it is the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the grandfather of plaintiff has sold Ac.0-03 guntas of land out of the total land of Ac.0-20 guntas, the documents Exs.A1 to A15 show the name of grandfather of plaintiff as pattedar for the whole Ac.0-20 guntas. Keeping it aside, from the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaitniff, it is clear that Ulli

Mallaiah is pattedar of the suit scheduled property. Hence it can be accepted that it is ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3. From the evidence of PW2 which supports the case of plaintiff that defendant No.3 has relinquished her rights, the same can be accepted as it stood unrebutted.

Hence it can be held that the plaitniff, defendants No.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit scheduled properties.

8.Further, with regard to the name of defendant No.20 in possession column in pahanies from 2001-02, it is contended that the said entries are made due to mistake. This fact as deposed by PW1 and PW2 is not disputed as the defendants are set exparte. Further, according to documents, the

5 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

grandfather of plaintiff viz., Ulli Mallaiah being pattedar of the land till the year 2019. Hence the contention of the plaintiff that the entry of defendant

No.20 in possessory column is due to mistake, is accepted. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for rectification of the said entries in the pahanies.

9.Coming to the decree of perpetual injunction, as held supra, the documents Exs.A1 to A15 show that the grandfather of plaintiff is pattedar of the suit scheduled lands and that the defendants No.4 to 19 are strangers to the property. The entry regarding the name of defendant No.20 in possession column is also held to be mistake and hence it can be accepted that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit scheduled properties as on the date of filing of the suit. From the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with that of PW1, it is seen that defendants No.4 to 19 have been interfering with the suit scheduled property without any right or title or interest. Hence they shall be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled property. The point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as under:

1) A preliminary decree shall be passed granting 1/3rd share each to the plaintiff, D1 and D2 in the suit schedule A & B properties.

2) The defendants No.4 to 19 are restrained from entering and interfering with the peaceful possession, occupation and enjoyment of the plaintiff, D1 and D2 over the suit schedule A property.

3) The defendant No.21 shall rectify wrong entries in pahanies for the years 2001-02 to 2019 and subsequent years by substituting the name of Ulli Mallaiah in possession column with that of D20.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of November, 2021.

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla.

6 Of 6 OS No.247 of 2019

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Ulli Yadimallesh - None - PW2: Ganapuram Laxman

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1T.C of pahani for the year 1979-80

Ex.A2T.C of pahani for the year 1982-83`

Ex.A3T.C of pahani for the year 1983-84

Ex.A4T.C of pahani for the year 1986-87

Ex.A5T.C of pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A6T.C of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A7T.C of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A8T.C of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A9T.C of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A10T.C of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A11T.C of pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A12T.C of pahani for the year 2012-13

Ex.A13T.C of pahani for the year 2014-15

Ex.A14Online pahani for 2017 fasli dt.12.9.2019

Ex.A15Online Form I-B (ROR) dt.12.9.2019

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sircilla.