Sri. K.V.Chandra Sekhar Rao

Page No.1 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 17th day of October, 2024

Present: SriK.V.Chandra Shekar Rao Assistant Sessions Judge,

KHAMMAM.

S.C.No. 222 of 2016

1.Name of the complainant ::The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Konijerla P.S

2.Name of the accused:: Gajji Naresh, S/o.Guravaiah, Age.28 years, Occ.Coolie, R/o.Chinnamunagala village, Konijerla mandal.

3.Section of Law::Under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC

4.Cr.No. and P.S.::Cr.No.56/2016 of P.S Konijerla

5.PRC.No.::6/2016

6.Name of the Officer, who ::Sri.Ch.Panchakshari committed the case III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

7.Prosecution conducted by::Additional Public Prosecutor

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri Ch.Venkat, Advocate for Accused

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty

10. Finding of the court::Found not guilty

Page No.2 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024

11. Sentence or Order :: In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The un-marked case property, (property not marked as not deposited in the court) shall be disposed of as per rules after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 17.10.2024 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch.Venkat, Advocate for Accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused is tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Konijerla P.S filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that the marriage of L.w.1/Gajji Anitha was performed with accused and blessed with three children and lead happy marital life for some period. Thereafter, the accused addicted to liquor and started harassing L.w.1/Gajji

Anitha both physically and mentally and also suspecting her chastity. On 18.02.2016 at about 1400 hours, while L.w.1/Gajji Anitha was alone in her house, meanwhile the accused quarreled with her and beat her with pestle by suspecting her chastity and also tied the blouse around her neck and dragged it forcibly with an intention to kill her due to which she went into unconscious. Later L.w.3/Naga

Saidulu sent her to Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment. Thus, the

Page No.3 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024 accused had committed the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC against accused by the Learned III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Khammam and the case was committed to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Khammam by the orders, dated 13.07.2016, in P.R.C. No.6/2016.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Khammam took the case on file for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC against the accused and registered it as Sessions Case No.222/2016 and made over it to this court for trial and disposal.

5.Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307

IPC were framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.

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

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused.

9.The Point that arises for consideration is as to:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

Page No.4 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024

POINT:

10.It is the evidence of P.w.1 that about fifteen years ago her marriage was performed with the accused and they blessed with three children and after the marriage she and accused lead marital life happily for a period of two years and after that he used to harass her by beating her in drunken condition and also used to suspect her character. It is her further evidence that about eight years ago on one day at about 2.00PM, the accused beat her by suspecting her character with a pestle for that she sustained injuries on her neck and hands and further the accused tied a blouse around her neck and tried to kill her, then she lost her consciousness and thereafter she was shifted to Government Hospital,

Khammam. After taking treatment, she lodged report under Ex.P.1 and went to the house of L.w.2/Laxmi who is her aunt as her parents died during her childhood.

11.It is elicited in her cross-examination that she was residing separately since last eight years. It is to be noted that except the above incident, P.w.1 did not state any incident with regard to harassment made by the accused in these eight years. As P.w.1 is residing separately since eight years, it cannot be said that P.w.1 subjected to cruelty in the hands of accused. Even P.ws.2 to 5 did not support the case of P.w.1 in this aspect.

12.In Ex.P.1 report P.w.1 mentioned that L.w.3/Naga Saidulu sent her to

Government Hospital, Khammam for treatment when she fell unconscious. The said Naga Saidulu was examined as P.w.2 and he pleaded ignorance as to the facts

Page No.5 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024 of the case. According to P.w.1, after taking treatment at Government Hospital, she went to the house of L.w.2/Laxmi and she is examined as P.w.4 who also pleaded ignorance as to the facts of the case. Moreover, the prosecution also examined P.ws.3 and 5 as circumstantial witnesses, but they too turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of P.ws.2 to 5 is not supporting the case of P.w.1 in any aspect.

13.P.w.1 testified that she sustained injuries on her neck and hands. To prove the said injuries, prosecution examined P.w.8/Medical officer who treated P.w.1.

According to P.w.8, P.w.1 sustained contusion injuries over her neck and back and that she issued medical certificate under Ex.P.8. In cross-examination, P.w.8 deposed that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.8 are possible when a person falls on a stone. Though the prosecution proved injuries sustained by P.w.1 through the evidence of P.w.8, but it failed to prove that P.w.1 sustained injuries in the hands of accused. Thus, the evidence of P.w.8 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

14.The further evidence of P.w.1 is that accused beat her with pestle and tried to kill her by tying a blouse around her neck. It is the evidence of

P.w.9/investigating officer that after registering FIR, he went to scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., P.ws.6 and 7 and seized one pestle and one black silk blouse in their presence. But P.ws.6 and 7 also turned hostile and did not depose any thing with regard to seizure of said objects and conducting of CDF in their presence. Thus, the prosecution failed

Page No.6 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024 to prove seizure of pestle and blouse from the scene of offence. Hence, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.ws.1 to 9 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The un-marked case property, (property not marked as not deposited in the court) shall be disposed of as per rules after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: G.Anitha P.W.2: P.Naga Saidulu P.W.3: P.Sudarshan P.W.4: K.Laxmi P.W.5: M.Venkateswarlu P.W.6: B.Dayakar P.W.7:R.Chinni P.W.8:Ch.Ravi Kumar P.W.9:R.Krishna

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

Page No.7 of 7 SC No.222/2016, dt.17.10.2024

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P6: Signature of PW6 on CDF Ex.P7: Signature of PW7 on CDF Ex.P.8: Medical Certificate Ex.P.9: First Information Report Ex.P.10: Crime Details Form.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Pg.No.1 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam

Dated this the 17 th day of October, 2024

O.S.No.17 of 2023

Between:

1.Sreegadde Manikyam, W/o.Late Prabhakar, Age.67 years, Occ.Retired employee, R/o.H.No.15-9-648, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam City, Khammam Corporation and Khammam District

2.Damerla Ramya Mallika, D/o.Late Prabhakar, W/o.Gaddam Ratnakar, Age.36 years, Occ.Household, R/o.H.No.15-9-648, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam City, Khammam Corporation and Khammam District.

3.Damerla Divya Mallika, D/o.Late Prabhakar, W/o.Mutukula Suresh Kumar, Age.33 years, Occ.Software Employee, R/o.H.NO.15-9-648, Kaviraj Nagar, Khammam City, Khammam Corporation and Khammam District.

...…Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Tahasildar, Khammam Urbanl Mandal, Khammam District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern

....Defendants.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 04.10.2024 in the presence of Sri S.Govinda Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and defendants remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both the sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

Pg.No.2 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 praying the court to declare them as owners of the suit schedule property being the class-1 legal heirs and successors of the deceased late Damerla Prabhakar.

2.The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

The Plaintiff No.1 is the wife, Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased Damerla Prabhakar who worked as Principal in

Education Department and subseqently died on 04.03.2020 intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole class-I legal heirs and successors of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have received all the death claims and other benefits of the deceased except the suit schedule property for which the Plaintiffs have approached Defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate, but Defendant No.1 refused to issue legal heir certificate stating that it will not be given and inturn asked the Plaintiffs to approach competent civil court for remedy. Hence, the suit.

3.Summons served on Defendant No.1 but the defendant No.1 did not choose to contest the case and did not file any written statement. Hence,

Defendant No.1 remained exparte on 26.04.2023. Publication filed against

Defendant No.2 all concerned. In spite of publication, no body come forward to raise objection for the claim of the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Hence, Defendant

No.2 set exparte.

Pg.No.3 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

4.To prove the claim of the plaintiffs, P.w.1/Srigadde Manikyam examined and Exs.A1 to A14 are marked.

5.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitle for the relief, as prayed for?

POINT

7. The main contention of the Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 is that Plaintiff

No.1 is the wife and Plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased

Damerla Prabhakar who died intestate on 04.03.2020 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his class-I legal heirs and successors of the suit schedule property.

When they approached defendant No.1 for issuance of legal heir certificate, he refused to issue the same and further advised them to approach competent civil court to get the legal heir certificate. Hence, they filed the present suit.

8.To prove the contentions of the Plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.1 herself examined as P.w.1 and produced Exs.A1 to A14. The chief-examination affidavit of P.w.1 reiterates all the averments of the Plaint. Ex.A1 is death certificate which proves that the deceased Damerla Prabhakar died on 04.03.2020 at Kavirajnagar, Khammam. Exs.A.2 and A.3 are market value assistance, dated 22.12.2022 and property tax receipt respectively. Exs.A.4 and A.5 are electricity bills. Ex.A.6 is original sale deed document

No.2719/2002, dated 15.05.2002, Ex.A.7 is approved plan for proposed

Pg.No.4 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024 construction, Ex.A.8 is construction permission letter. Ex.A.9 is the receipt issued by Join Sub-Registrar-II, Khammam, A.10 is certificate of encumbrance on property and Ex.A.11 is affidavit given by Damerla Prabhakar, dated 24.06.2006. Exs.A.12 to A.14 are photostat copies of Adhar cards of petitioners No.2,3 and 1 respectively which are verified with originals and the same are proving their identity and relationship with the deceased Damerla

Prabhakar.

9. The un-challenged evidence of P.w.1 established the claim of the petitioners. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff

Nos.1 to 3 shows that Plaintiff No.1 as wife, Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 as children of deceased Damerla Prabhakar. From the above discussion, it is concluded that the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for the relief as prayed for.

RESULT:

10. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs declaring the

Plaintiffs as owners of the suit schedule property being the class-I legal heirs and successors of the deceased late Damerla Prabhakar.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2024.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

Pg.No.5 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024 - Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

P.W.1 :S.Manikyam -Ex-parte-

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Death certificate of Damerla Prabhakar

Ex.A2: Market value assistance, dt.22.12.2022

Ex.A3: Property tax payment receipt

Ex.A4: Electricity bill w.r.t consumer No.15461172

Ex.A5: Electricity bill w.r.t consumer No.15443638

Ex.A.6:Original sale deed Doc.No.2719/2002, dt.15.05.2002 along with plan

Ex.A.7:Approved plan for proposed construction vide proceeding

Dis.No.260/2006 valid from 08.05.2006 yo 07.05.2007

Ex.A.8:Construction permission letter Dis.No.260/2006 dated 08.05.2006

Ex.A.9:Receipt dt.23.06.2006 issued by Joint Sub Registrar-II, Khammam

Ex.A.10:Certificate of encumbrance on property dated 23.06.2006

Ex.A.11:Affidavit given by Damerla Prabhakar, dt.24.06.2006

Ex.A.12:Phostat copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff No.2 (verified with original)

Ex.A.13:Phostat copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff No.3 (verified with original)

Ex.A.14:Phostat copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1 (verified with original)

For Defendants:

-Nil-

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

Pg.No.6 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MADHIRA

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2018.

Present: Smt. G.Bhanumathi Prl.Junior Civil Judge, Madhira.

O.S.No. 162 of 2017

Presented on:1.9.2017; 21.10.2017 Filed on:27.10.2017 Between:

1. Bommakanti Kalyan Satyanarayana, S/o.Late Bommakanti Kishan Rao, Age:30 years, Occ:Software Engineer, R/o.Bonakal village and mandal, Khammam District, Presently, R/o. H.No.3-6-130/a/201, Aditya apartments, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

2.Bommakanti Susheela @ Susheela Chandralekha, D/o. Late Bommakanti Kishan Rao, Age:36 years, Occ:Software Engineer, R/o.Bonakal

Pg.No.7 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024 village and mandal, Khammam District, Presently, R/o. H.No.3-6-130/a/201, Aditya apartments, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

...…Plaintiffs.

And

1. The Tahasildar, Bonakal Mandal, Khammam District.

2. To whomsoever it may concern

....Defendants.

Claim for:

This suit is filed by the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 praying the court to declare them as legal heirs of late Bommakanti Kishan Rao and Seethamma.

Cause of action:

The cause of action is arose on 25.3.2017 at Bonakal village and Mandal of Khammam District, when the defendant No.1 refused to issue the legal heir certificate to the plaintiffs.

Court Fee: That for the purpose of court fee and valuation, the suit is valued at Rs.10,000/- on which a court fee of Rs.786/- is payable U/sec. 24(d) APCF and S.V Act.

D E C R E E

This case coming before me for final hearing on 05-6-2018 in the presence of Sri K.Ravindranath, Advocate for the Plaintiff and defendant remained exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court doth order and decree that,

1. That the suit be and is hereby decreed.

2. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Late Bommakanti Kishan Rao and Seethamma.

3. It is hereby ordered that there is no order as to costs.

Pg.No.8 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 05th day of June, 2018.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADHIRA.

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Sl. For PlaintiffFor Defendant No.

1. Stamps on plaint

2. Stamps on powerE

3. Stamps on processX

4. Stamps on petition P

5. Publications chargesA

6. Stamps on documents R

7. Advocate feeT

8. Miscellaneous and type charges. E

Total Rs.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MADHIRA.

Pg.No.9 of 5 O.S.No.17 of 2023, dt.17.10.2024

Page No.1 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 16th day of October, 2024

Present: SriK.V.Chandra Shekar Rao Assistant Sessions Judge,

KHAMMAM.

S.C.No. 115 of 2022

1.Name of the complainant ::The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S

2.Name of the accused:: A1:Pagadala Vijay Kumar @ Chanti, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Age.30 years, Occ.Bike Mechanic,R/o.Dhamsalapuram,New colony, Khammam,

A2:Shaik Parvez @ Paraveen, S/o.Khaja Pasha, Age.21 years, Occ.Salesman, R/o.H.No.4-7-317/1,PrakashNagar, Khammam,

A3:ThurakaVenkanna@Thamil, S/o.Narasimha Rao, Age.33 years, Occ.Dancer, R/o.H.No.4-7-339, Prakash Nagar, Khammam,

A4:Kanuri Sai Sharath @ Sai, S/o Ramesh, Age.24 years, Occ.Driver, R/o.Gudimalla village, Khammam rural mandal,

A5:Gandikota Uday, S/o.Ramesh, Age.20 years, Occ.Car driver, R/o.Ranganayakula gutta, Khammam, now at Gudimalla village, Khammam rural mandal,

A6:Rekham Bhanu Prasad, S/o.Nageswara Rao,Age.23years,Occ.Student, R/o.H.No.1-68, Pedda Venkatagiri village, Khammam rural mandal,

Page No.2 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

A7:Podila Krishna, S/o.Gopaiah, Age.23 years, Occ.student, R/o.H.No.1-54, Pedda Venkatagiri village, Khammam rural mandal,

A8: Kanaparthi Venkatesh, S/o.Nageswara Rao,Age.21years,Occ.Hamali, R/o.Venkatagiri village, Khammam rural mandal.

3.Section of Law::Under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC

4.Cr.No. and P.S.::Cr.No.170/2021 of P.S Khanapuram Haveli

5.PRC.No.::2/2022

6.Name of the Officer, who ::Smt.P.Mounika, committed the case II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam

7.Prosecution conducted by::Additional Public Prosecutor

8.Defence conducted by ::Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for A1, Sri Sk.Feroz, Advocate for A2 to A5 and A8 SriK.Ramesh, Advocate for A6 and A7.

9.Plea of the accused::Not guilty

10. Finding of the court::Found not guilty

11. Sentence or Order :: In the result, accused Nos.1 to 8 are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16.10.2024 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K.Satyanarayana, Advocate for A1, Sri Sk.Feroz, Advocate for A2 to A5 and A8 SriK.Ramesh, Advocate for

Page No.3 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

A6 and A7; and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Accused Nos.1 to 8 are tried for the offence punishable under

Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Khanapuram Haveli P.S filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that L.w.1/Narra Ramesh/injured is resident of

Dhamsalapuram, Khammam and eking his livelihood by doing tent house business.

The accused belongs to same and surrounding villages. Since few days L.w.1/Narra

Ramesh and accused are having political grudges. On 25.04.2021 when

L.w.1/Narra Ramesh returned to his tent house after completion of door to door election publicity in favour of TRS party, at about 17.00 hours, A1 along with A2 to

A8 came to L.w.1/Narra Ramesh with an intention to kill him in view of old grudges and took a knife and tried to commit murder L.w.1/Narra Ramesh. On seeing the knife, L.w.1/Narra Ramesh escaped from them and that A2 to A8 tried to catch him, meanwhile L.w.2/Chilaka Rama Rao, L.w.3/Suraganai Nagendra babu and

L.w.4/Gurram Veeranna came there and tried to rescue L.w.1/Narra Ramesh from the accused. Immediately A1 beat L.w.1/Narra Ramesh and A2 to A8 also beat him with sticks, due to which he received multiple bleeding injuries. Immediately,

L.w.1/Narra Ramesh went to Government Hospital for treatment. Thus, the accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offence punishable under Sections 307

R/w 34 IPC.

Page No.4 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 307

R/w 34 IPC against accused by the Learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Khammam and the case was committed to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Khammam by the orders, dated 14.03.2022, in P.R.C. No.2/2022.

4.The Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Khammam took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 307 R/w 34 IPC against the accused and registered it as Sessions Case No.115/2022 and made over it to this court for trial and disposal.

5.Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 307 R/w 34 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution examined P.ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of other witnesses.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the Learned counsel for the accused.

9.The Point that arises for consideration is as to:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the Accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offence punishable under Section 307 R/w 34 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

Page No.5 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

POINT:

10.P.ws.1 to 8 are examined by the prosecution. They did not support the case of the prosecution. According to the evidence of P.w.1 on 25.04.2021 at 5.00PM he attended party meeting and when he about to go to his house, one stone pelted on him and that he fell down and received injuries on his head. It is his further evidence that P.ws.2 and 3 took him to Government hospital and from there he went to police station and lodged a report at the instance of his village elders. P.ws.2 to 6 also deposed that they does not know the facts of the case.

None of the witnesses deposed any incriminating material against the accused to show that the accused Nos.1 to 8 in furtherance of common intention attempted to commit murder P.w.1. Therefore, the accused can be given benefit of doubt.

Prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence with which they stood charged. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11. In the result, accused Nos.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 R/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be disposed of as per rules after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of October, 2024.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Page No.6 of 6SC No.115/2022, dt.16.10.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:- P.W.1: N.Ramesh P.W.2: Ch.Rama Rao P.W.3: S.Nagendra Babu P.W.4: G.Veeranna P.W.5: K.Laxminarayana P.W.6: D.Narasimha Rao

FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.w.1 on compliant. Ex.P2: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P7: Relevant Portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Pg.No.1 of 4 O.S.No.7/2024, dt.16.10.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KHAMMAM

Dated this the 16th day of October,2024

Present: Sri K.V.Chandra Shekar Rao,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

O.S.No.7 of 2024

Between:

Thumma Bala Show Reddy, S/o.Mathyas Reddy, Age.50 years, occ.Business, R/o.Sri Nagar colony, Khanapuram Haveli, Khammam City.

...Plaintiff.

And

Kurri Uday Thej Kumar, S/o.Srinu, Age.30 years, Occ.Business, R/o.H.No.2-28, Nelakondapalli village, Nelakondapalli mandal, Khammam District.

…Defendant.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 04.10.2024 in the presence of Sri.M.A Qayyum, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendant set ex-partet; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Plaintiff and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed for the relief of specific performance of contract covered by agreement of sale.

2.The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

That the plaintiff and defendant are well acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of 1137 Sq.yards in one compact block, situated in Ballepalli area, Khammam Municipal Corporation, Khammam District and finally the plaintiff agreed to purchase the same for Rs.33,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 25.02.2022 the

Pg.No.2 of 4 O.S.No.7/2024, dt.16.10.2024 plaintiff issued cheque bearing No.027670 of Stambhadradri Co-Operative Urban Bank

Ltd for Rs.30,00,000/- to the account of the Defendant and that the defendant had executed a registered sale agreement vide Doc.No.2971/2022, dt.25.02.2022 in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. As per the agreement, the defendant have to receive the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff on or before 24.06.2022 and to execute a valid registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff with regard to suit schedule property.

It is further submitted that on 22.06.2022 the plaintiff expressed his willingness to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and requested the defendant to receive the same and execute registered sale deed, but the defendant for the reasons best known to him had evaded to fulfill his part of contract. On 23.06.2022 the plaintiff again approached the defendant and requested to receive the balance sale consideration and to fulfill his part of contract, but defendant refused for the same.

Vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant on 01.07.2022 through registered post calling upon him to fulfill his part of contract. After receipt of the said notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and sought time, however, the defendant did not come forward to fulfill his part of contract.

On 06.04.2023 and 18.05.2023, the plaintiff again got issued legal notices to the defendant, but inspite of receipt of the same, the defendant did not come forward to execute registered sale deed. Hence, the suit.

3.After receipt of summons, Sri Ch.V.R Chary filed vakalath on behalf of the defendant, but the defendant did not choose to file written statement within stipulated

Pg.No.3 of 4 O.S.No.7/2024, dt.16.10.2024 period, hence right to file written statement by the defendant was forfeited on 26.06.2024.

4.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

5.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the suit can be decreed, as prayed for.

POINT:

6.To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.w.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 marked on his behalf. Ex.A1 is the original registered agreement of sale bearing

No.2971/2022, dt.25.02.2022, Exs.A2 to A4 are office copies of legal notices dated 01.07.2022, 06.04.2023 and 18.05.2023. Exs.A5 to A7 are postal acknowledgments.

7.On perusal of the evidence of P.w.1 in his chief-examination affidavit, he reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint. On perusal of evidence of P.w.1 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7, it is evident that the defendant offered to sell suit schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.33,00,000/- and he executed sale agreement in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff by receiving Rs.30,00,000/- and further agreed to execute registered sale deed after receipt of balance sale consideration on or before 24.06.2022. It is also evident that though the Plaintiff requested the defendant to execute registered sale deed by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- and also got issued legal notices under Exs.A2 to A4, the defendant did not choose to come forward. There is no rebuttal evidence to the evidence of P.w.1, it remained unchallenged. Hence, it can be said that the plaintiff has proved his case. Accordingly, point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

Pg.No.4 of 4 O.S.No.7/2024, dt.16.10.2024

8. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff directing the defendant to execute regular sale deed in respect of suit schedule property within three months from the date of this Judgment, by receiving the balance sale consideration, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps for execution of decree by due process of law.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 16th day of October, 2024).

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS : P.w.1: Thumma Bala Show Reddy -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.A1 : Original regd. Agreement of sale document -NIL- bearing No.2971/2022, dt.25.02.2022 Ex.A2 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.01.07.2022 Ex.A3 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.06.04.2023 Ex.A4 : Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt.18.05.2023 Ex.A5 : Postal Acknowledgment Ex.A6 : Postal Acknowledgment dated 08.04.2023 Ex.A7: Postal Acknowledgment dated 22.05.2023

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

Pg.No.5 of 4 O.S.No.7/2024, dt.16.10.2024

Presented on : 17-08-2022 Registered on : 17-08-2022 Decided on : 18-10-2024 Duration : 2 years, 2 months, 1 days

IN THE COURT OF

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,

Khammam. AT ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by S ri.K.V. Chandra Shekar Rao

EP/13/2022

Garlapati Satyanarayana Age: 60 Address: S/o.Venkateswarlu, AGe. about 60 years,Occ. Occ.LLC Adviser, R/o.B/308, Prasad Heights, Sahakara Nagar, Khammam

VERSUS

Koppu Venkata Nageswara Rao Address: S/o.Purushotham rao, age. abut 69 years,R/o.H.No.2-3-222, Back side Hilton tailors, Opp. Sundar talkies, Khammam city and district.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : KILARU LAXMI NARASIMHA RAO Advocate for : appearing for Koppu Venkata Nageswara Rao: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

D.Hr present and filed a memo that he settled the E.P with J.Dr and sought to close the E.P. Accordingly E.P is closed.

Date : 18-10-2024 (Sri. K.V. Chandra Shekar Rao)

Principal Senior Civil Judge -cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam.