Smt M. Aruna

1 of 18 O.S.No.332 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT : KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:SMT.M.ARUNA,

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

Wednesday, this the 20th day of April, 2022

O.S.No. 332 of 2012

Between:-

1.Thota Lilly Rani W/o Late Mark Manohar, aged 50 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,

2.Thota Pranuthi D/o Late Mark Manohar, W/o William, aged 25 years, Occ: housewife,

3.Thota Vijayakumar, S/o Late Mark Manohar, aged 20 years, Occ: Student,

4.Thota Vinayakumar, S/o Late Mark Manohar, aged 18 years, Occ: student All are R/o H.No. 2-206, Ootkur village of Luxettipet mandal of Adilabad district. ….Plaintiffs

And

1.Thota Jayanth Prakash S/o Late T.J. Nathanial, aged 62 years, Occ: Nil (died) his LRs defendants No. 4 to 6.

2.Thota Swarnalatha D/o Late T.J. Nathanial, aged 57 years, Occ: Retd. Employee,

3.Thota Sowndharya Thilaka, D/o Late T.J. Nathanial, aged 55 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, (died) her LRs, Plaintiffs No.1 to 4, defendant No.2, 4 to 6. All are R/o H.No. 2-7-388, Near Revenue Club, Mukarampura, Karimnagar town and proper.

4.Thota Leela Kumari W/o Late Jayanthi Prakash, aged 61 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 2-7-388, Near Revenue club, Mukarampura, Karimnagar town and proper.

5.Thota Puneeth Chandra S/o Late Jayanthi Prakash, aged 32 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No. 2-7-388, Near Revenue club, Mukarampura, Karimnagar town and proper.

6.Thota Priyadarshini D/o Late Jayanthi Prakash, aged 29 years, Occ: Employee, R/o H.No. 2-7-388, Near Revenue club, Mukarampura, Karimnagar town and proper. Defendants No.4 to 6 are LRs of Defendant No.1 brought on record as per orders Vide I.A.No. 409/2017, dated 16.08.2017. ….Defendants 2 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012

This suit is coming before me on 22-02-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Smt R.V. Geetha Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Sri P. Sajan Kumar, Advocate for D2, D4 and D5 and upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

::JUDGMENT::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for passing of preliminary decree to an extent of 1/4th share to the plaintiffs on par with the defendants in the suit schedule property.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff No.1 is the mother to the plaintiffs No.2 to 4. The husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name

Mark Manohar died on 26.12.2001. The defendants No.1 to 3 are the brothers and sisters of late Mark Manohar and husband of the plaintiff No.1, father of the plaintiff No.2 to 4. The defendants No.4 to 6 are the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 who are wife, son and daughter respectively. The father of the defendants No.1 to 3 and husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Thota Nathanial who was ex-service men and was assigned government land in respect of Sy.No. 629/2 to an extent of Ac.5-00 acres, situated at Nustulapur village, Thimmapur mandal, Karimnagar district through the proceedings No. A3/991/72, dated 27.08.1973, supplementary sethwar was also issued for the land in Sy.No. 629/4 instead of Sy.No. 629/2 to the said extent. The said Thota Nathanial died intestate on 10.10.1984 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants are his only legal heirs and inherited the property jointly. The wife of the said Nathanial by name Thota 3 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012

Chandraleelamma has also died on 06.05.2000. That the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar was working as a police constable and he used to transfer from place to place. During that time by taking that advantage, the defendants No.1 to 3 in collusion with each other created false story and got the suit schedule land infavour of defendant No.1 without any enquiry made by the revenue officials in the mutation proceedings and the defendant No. 2 and 3 deposed before Revenut

Authorities that their younger brother said late Thota Mark Manohar died un-married and they further stated that they have no objection to mutate the name of the defendant No.1 in revenue records, therefore, to deprive the legitimate right of the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark

Manohar, the name of the defendant no.1 entered in revenue records and issued pattadar passbook and title deed, but the suit schedule property has a joint family property, therefore, the husband of the plaintiff No.1 also got share of 1/4th. The defendant No.1 is in constructive possession only, therefore, after death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1, plaintiffs demanded for partition, but they did not do so, therefore, finally plaintiff filed the suit for partition by granting preliminary decree.

3.During the pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 died, his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants No.4 to 6 and defendant no.3 also died, but she is un-married, therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants are the only legal heirs to the defendant No.3. During the lifetime of the defendant No.1, filed his written statement and admitted that the husband 4 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff No.2 and 3 by name Mark

Manohar and the defendants No.1 to 3 are the sons and daughters to the

Thota Nathanial who was an ex-service man and the government assigned suit land in Sy.No. 629/2 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts land. Later, supplementary sethwar was also issued in Sy.No. 629/4 instead of 629/2 and the father of the defendants No.1 to 3 and father to the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Thota Nathanial died. Later, the wife of the Thota

Nathanial also died on 06.05.2000, but the true facts are that, during the lifetime of the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar, he never asked for partition, but after death of the mother of the defendants and husband of the plaintiff No.1, defendants No.2 and 3 along with husband of the plaintiff agreed to relinquish their rights for the suit schedule property by accepting amount equally to their respective shares from the defendant No.1 as the husband of the plaintiff No.1 was working as police constable, he used to transfer regularly, therefore, he unable to cultivate the land, as such he relinquished his right over the suit schedule property and accepted amount. The said Mark Manohar also suspended from his service, therefore, he had extreme financial necessity, as such he took his share amount to clear his financial needs, therefore, the question of collusion by the defendants No.1 to 3 does not arise and the revenue authorities also not connected with these defendants. After due enquiry the revenue authorities issued mutation proceedings on the name of the defendant No.1 and husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar 5 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 and he himself voluntarily relinquished his share by taking amount, therefore, there is no cause of action to file this suit and the plaintiffs are never in possession, so it is not a joint family property, it is the property of the defendant No.1, and after death his legal heirs i.e., defendants No.4 to 6 are in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and

Court fee is also not properly paid, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.After filing of written statement by the defendant No.1 who died, his wife and children were brought on record as defendants No.4 to 6 they filed written statement and reiterated the contents mentioned in the written statement of defendant No.1, therefore, there is no need to reiterate the contents of the written statement filed by defendants No.4 to 6. The defendant No.3 died un-married, therefore, the legal heirs who are brought on record are the only legal heirs to defendants No.3 and defendant No.1 who is the original plaintiff or LRs of defendant No.3.

5.Basing on the above pleadings and material available on record this court has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the suit schedule property is a joint family property?

2. Whether the suit schedule property is exclusive property of defendant No.1?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled 1/4th share in the event of partition? 4.To what relief?

6.After framing of issues, the plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to A5 and on behalf of the defendants, defendant No.5 is 6 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 examined as DW.1 and marked Ex.B1 to B4, on behalf of the defendant

No.2 no one examined and no documents were marked.

7.Issue No.1:- “Whether the suit schedule property is a joint family property”?

To prove this issue, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff that it is an joint family property and as per the pleadings and arguments of the plaintiff counsel he submitted that the suit schedule property was assigned to the father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and to the father of the defendants No.1 to 3 whose name is Thota Nathanial who was ex-service man and for his service the Government assigned the suit schedule land to an extent of

Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No. 629/4 vide proceedings No. A3/991/72, dated 27.09.1973 and during the lifetime of Thota Nathanial who was in possession and enjoyment of the property, but he died on 10.10.1984.

After his death, his wife by name T. Chandraleelamma died on 06.05.2000 and after that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Thota Mark

Manohar who worked as police constable also died on 26.12.2001, therefore, after death of in-laws of husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 they demanded for partition, but the defendants

No.1 to 3 who are brother and sisters of the husband to the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar did not accept for partition and denied that the plaintiffs have no rights in that property, as the husband of the plaintiff by name Mark Manohar during his lifetime he relinquished his part by taking 7 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 amount for his share, therefore, the defendants did not co-operate for partition. But the plaintiff counsel submitted that, the suit schedule property is a joint family property which was assigned to the father-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and who died leaving his legal heirs i.e., defendants no.1 to

3. As such the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar and defendants No.1 to 3 are only their legal heirs, therefore, after death of the husband of the plaintiff No.1, they are legal heirs to him, so entitled 1/4th share on par with the defendants No.1 to 3.

8.To support the above said versions, the plaintiff No.1 herself examined as PW.1 and marked Ex.A1 to 54. Ex.A1 is the pahani for the year 1977-78, Ex.A2 is the pahani for the year 2005-06, Ex.A3 is the pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A4 is the pattadar passbook of Defendant No.1, Ex.A5 is the community certificate issued by revenue authority, obtained from

Mee-seva, but the Ex.A4 pattadar passbook and title deed are marked through PW.1, due to oversight why because it is filed by the defendants and also marked as Ex.B1 on behalf of the defendants No.4 to 6.

9.On perusal of the Ex.A1 pahani for the year 1977-78, Sy.No. 629/4 in pattadar pahani is reflecting as Thota Nathanial, Ex.A2 is the pahani for the year 2005-06 in this document Sy.No. 629/4 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts in pattadar column, the name of the defendant No.1 is reflecting as a pattadar and possessor to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts and Ex.A3 which is also having the name of the defendant No.1 to an extent of Ac.5-00 gts in Sy.No. 629/4 8 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 for the year of 2010-11. So, as per Ex.A1 to A3 pahanies, the name of the

Thota Nathanial reflecting in Ex.A1 only and the name of the defendant

No.1 reflecting in Ex.A2 and A3. However, it is an admitted fact that the suit schedule property was assigned to the Thota Nathanial who is the father of the defendants No.1 to 3 and father to the husband of the plaintiff no.1 and father to the plaintiffs No. 2 to 4 by name Mark Manohar and there is no dispute with regard to the relationship. So, as per the admission and evidence of DW.1 and the documents filed by both sides, there is no doubt that the suit schedule property was assigned to Thota Nathanial who was an ex-service men and died by leaving the husband of plaintiff No.1, defendants No.1 to 3, but the contention of the defendant counsel is that during the lifetime of the Mark Manohar who is husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father to the plaintiffs No.2 to 4, he relinquished his share by taking the amount and the defendants No.2 and 3 also sisters to the defendant No.1 and plaintiff’s husband Mark Manohar they are also relinquished their share infavour of the defendant No.1, therefore, the contesting party is defendant

No.1 and his legal heirs who are defendants No.4 to 6 they submitted that during the lifetime of Mark Manohar who was working as a constable and he used to transfer one place to another place, so that reason he could not cultivate the land and who was suspended from his service at that time he had hectic financial needs, therefore, he took an amount from the defendant No.1 for his share and gave the consent to mutate the suit property on the name of the defendant No.1 and the husband of the 9 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 plaintiff No.1 Mark Manohar and also defendants No.2 and 3 gave affidavits to the Tahasildar by relinquishing their shares in favour of the plaintiff No.1.

So that defendant counsel submitted that, after relinquishment of the share by the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 the name of the defendant no.1 was mutated in revenue records, therefore, the suit schedule property is not become a joint family property, it is the property of defendant No.1 and his father, after his death the defendants No.3 to 5 who are being the legal heirs to the deceased defendant No.1 Thota Jayanth

Prakash only the owner to the suit schedule property. Therefore, they submitted that there is no cause of action to file this suit, hence requested to dismiss the same. But the counsel for the plaintiff argued that, admittedly the suit schedule property was allotted to Thota Nathanial who is the father of the plaintiffs husband and defendants No.1 to 3 and he died in the year of 1984 and after his death his wife also died in the year of 2000, therefore, after death of the Nathanial and his wife the plaintiff’s husband and defendants No.1 to 3 are only the legal heirs who are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property and husband of the plaintiff no.1 also died in the year 2001, therefore, after his death the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 who are the wife and children to the Mark Manohar they are entitled to the property of the husband who succeeded from his father Thota Nathanial on par with the defendants No.1 to 3. Therefore, defendant No.1 is not exclusive owner to the suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 in collusion with the defendants No.2 and 3 made a representation to the 10 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 revenue authorities that the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father to the plaintiff No.2 to 4 by name Mark Manohar died un-married and there are no issues and the defendants No.2 and 3 also relinquished his share on behalf of the defendant No.1, as such they filed affidavit that the property should be mutated on the name of the defendant No.1 only. But as per the averments of written statement and also in chief of PW.1, the version of the defendant No.1 is that the husband of the plaintiff by name Mark Manohar relinquished his share by taking his share amount when he was in financial crisis after suspension from his service. But when we considered the cross- examination of DW.1 and also the mutation proceeding which is marked as

Ex.B3 dated 22.01.2005, it is clear that the defendants No.1 to 3 approached revenue authorities during the lifetime of defendant No.1 as the defendant No.1 died in the year of 2011 and the defendants No.2 and 3 made a representation that the Thota Mark Manohar died un-married and there are no other legal heirs to him, therefore, they filed affidavit to that effect. Basing on those affidavit made by the defendants No.1 to 3, the revenue authorities issued mutation proceedings on the name of the defendant No.1 and more specifically as per the contents mentioned in

Ex.B3, the revenue authorities obtained connected file with regard to the legal heirs of Thota Nathanial in which the revenue authorities found that “Thota Mark Manohar is found as a married”, therefore, after securing the information by the revenue authorities, the defendants No.1 to 3 gave notary affidavits that the Mark Manohar died un-married and there are no 11 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 other legal heirs and their parents also died, therefore, basing on that sworn affidavits dated 05.01.2005, the Tahasildar issued mutation proceedings on the name of the Mark Manohar, therefore, the evidence of

DW1 and the written statement of defendant No.1 filed during his lifetime and written statement by his legal heirs were brought on record as defendants No.4 and 5 is contra to the Ex.A3 mutation proceedings dated 22.01.2005 why because one side the defendants taken the plea that duirng the life time of plaintiff’s husband by name Mark Manohar he relinquished his share and took the amount for his share from the defendant No.1 and also filed affidavits by the Mark Manohar along with defendants No.2 and 3 that they relinquished share infavour of defendant

No.1, but there are no such relinquishment document or alleged affidavit of

Mark Manohar filed by the defendants before this Court, but on perusal of

Ex.B3 which is filed by defendant No.5/DW.1 itself goes to show that the late Mark Manohar did not relinquish his share, but as per the proceeding under Ex.B3 basing on the affidavits filed by the defendants No.1 to 3 mutation was done on the name of defendant No.1, therefore, the document Ex.B3 is not supporting the version of the defendants, but whereas the plaintiffs clearly submitted that it is a joint family property and which was assigned to Thota Nathanial who is the father of the plaintiffs husband and defendants No.1 to 3. The same is admitted by the defendants also and defendants also admitted the relationship of the plaintiffs with the Mark Manohar and also Thota Nathanial, therefore, it is 12 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 clear that the suit schedule property is a “joint family property”, but the only contention of the defendant counsel is that the plaintiffs and defendants are belonging to christian community, but the suit is filed under

Hindu Succession Act, so this Court has no power to proceed the matter as the parties are christian as per the cross examination of PW.1, therefore, it comes under Indian Succession Act, 1925 so it is to be dismissed, but on perusal of the entire pleadings i.e., written statement filed by the DW.1 during his lifetime and after his death his legal heirs i.e., defendants No.4 to 6 filed written statement and also the evidence of defendants i.e., DW.1 there is no such plea taken by them, therefore, if there are no pleadings and the evidence is beyond pleadings, it cannot be considered it is to be discarded and the same is decided by Hon’ble Apex Court in Harihar

Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. Balmiki Prasad (supra) and Prakash Rattan

Lal Vs. Mankey Ram (supra) it is held that “it is trite that a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence beyond what has been pleades by it. The sole purpose of pleading is to bind the parties to a stand because if they are allowed to lead evidence beyond pleadings then the very purpose of filing pleadings shall stand defeated. The rationale behind binding a party to its pleadings is that no party can be allowed to take the other by surprise by bringing new facts through evidence unless stated in the pleadings.

Reliance is placed on the decisions in Ram Sarup Gupta by Lrs Vs. Bishun

Narain Inter College & Ors (supra)”. It is clearly stated that the cross- exmaination is to be considered only when there are pleadings by the 13 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 parties, without pleading if the cross-examination is beyond the pleadings, then it cannot be considered why because the suit is filed in the year 2012 for passing of preliminary decree and written statement also filed by the defendants twice, one is on 03.09.2013 by the defendant No.1 during his lifetime and after his death the legal heirs of the defendant No.1 who are the defendants No.4 to 6 on 09.07.2019 filed, but till then neither the written statement of defendant no.1 nor the written statement of defendants No.4 to 6 taken such plea that this Court has no jurisdiction as the plaintiffs and defendants are belonging to christian community, therefore, the plea taken by the defendants is not taken at proper stage and also there is no such plea taken in their pleadings or in their evidence.

The evidence of the PW.1 is clear that the suit schedule property is a joint family property and by making mis-representation to the revenue authorities the name of the defendant No.1 was mutated. To support the same Ex.B3 filed by the defendants it is clearly supporting the version of the plaintiffs, therefore, the defendant No.1 is not in actual possession, it is a symbolic possession, so it is in joint possession, therefore, it cannot be considered that the defendant No.1 is only exclusive owner to the suit schedule property and moreover during the proceedings the defendant

No.3 also died un-married, therefore, the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendant

No.2 and 4 to 6 are only the legal heirs who are on record already therefore, now preliminary decree should passed by dividing of 1/3rd shares only why because the Nathanial and his wife died leaving his two sons and two 14 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 daughters who are the husband of Plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.1 to 3 and during the proceedings the defendant No.1 died leaving behind the defendants No.4 to 6 and defendant No.3 died un-married and issueless and there are no legal heirs to her, therefore, the serving legal heirs are the plaintiff No.1 to 4, who are legal heirs to Mark Manohar and defendant No.2 and 4 to 6 who are the legal heirs of defendant No.1, so the suit schedule property is to be partitioned 1/3rd only, but not of 1/4th as prayed by the plaintiffs why because there are changable circumstances, if it so at the time of allotment of shares in final decree proceeding, it will be difficult to allot 1/4th share, therefore, to avoid the delay and to do proper justice, the

Court feels that it is better to decide this issue at the stage of preliminary decree.

10The PW.2 who is the plaintiff No.2 is examined, she stated that there was no partition during the lifetime of her father and the defendants also did not state during the lifetime of Mark Manohar who is the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 there was a partition and asper the partition the share of the Mark Manohar relinquished by taking his share amount, but when partition taken place and how much share of the Mark Manohar was relinquished and what was the amount taken by him and when the alleged relinquishment was done and where the relinquishment affidavits as stated by the defendants given these particulars are silent and moreover, Ex.B3 is totally contra to the version of the defendants taken in written statement and also the evidence of DW.1 15 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 and specifically taken a plea that by making false representation before the

Tahasildar, the defendants No.1 to 3 in collusion with each other they obtained the Ex.B3 and also Ex.A4, therefore, it is clear that basing on

Ex.B3 the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deeds infavour of defendant No.1 and the evidence of the PW.1 and 2, Ex.A1 to A3 and the admission of the defendants clearly supporting that the suit schedule property is a joint family property which was allotted to Mark

Manohar who was an ex-service men and he died leaving behind his legal heirs his wife and husband of plaintiff No.1, defendants No.2 and 3 who are the children. After his death of Thota Nathanial his wife also died and later the husband of the plaintiff no.1 died in the year of 2001 and in the year of 2011, the defendant No.1 died and also defendant No.3 died, therefore, as per the evidence during their lifetime there was no partition taken place and there is no relinquishment as alleged by the defendants, so it is clear that till now the suit property is in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants, and so also as per the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and DW.1 the suit schedule property is a joint family property, as such this issue is proved by the plaintiffs.

11.ISSUE No.2:

Whether the suit schedule property is exclusive property of defendant No.1?

As per the discussion at issue No.1, it is clear that the plaintiffs proved their version that the suit schedule property is a joint family 16 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 property, but not it is an exclusive property of defendant No.1 and when the issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, then the issue No.2 is automatically decides against the defendants, therefore, the suit schedule property is not in exclusive possession of the defendant No.1.

12.ISSUE No.3:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled 1/4th share in the even of partition?

To prove this issue, it was discussed at issue No.1 that the suit schedule prioperty is a joint family property which was allotted to Thota

Nathanial who was ex-service men and who died intestate on 10.10.1984 by leaving his wife by name T.Chandraleelamma who was also died on 06.05.2000 and after death of husband of plaintiff No.1 by name Thota

Nathanial and defendants No.1 to 3 who are the sons and daughters to the

Thota Nathanial were in possession and enjoyment of the property and the husband of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mark Manohar also died in the year of 2001 by leaving the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs to him and after that the defendant No.1 also died during the pendency of the suit by leaving his wife and children as defendants No.4 to 6 and after that, the defendant No.3 also died un-married and the plaintiff and defendants are only legal heirs, therefore, at the time of filing of the suit sought the relief for four shares, but the defendant No.3 died un-married and the defendants

No.2, 4 to 6 and plaintiffs are only the legal heirs, therefore, the suit schedule property is to be partitioned 1/3rd only, but not 1/4th why because 17 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012 to avoid the confusion at the time of deciding final decree by allotting shares the issue is decided at this stage by allotting the share of 1/3rd to the plaintiff No.1 to 4 and the defendant No.2 is entitled 1/3rd share alone and the defendants No.4 to 6 all are entitled for 1/3rd share.

As per the discussion on issue No.1 to 3, all the plaintiffs are entitled 1/3rd share and the defendant No.2 alone entitled 1/3rd share and the defendants No.4 to 6 who are being legal heirs of defendant No.1 are entitled 1/3rd share.

13.ISSUE No.4:

In the result, the suit is decreed by passing preliminary decree allotting the share of 1/3rd to the plaintiff on par with the defendants. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me in

the open Court, on this the 20th day of April, 2022.

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: P.W.1Thota Lilly RaniDW1 Thota Puneeth Chandra P.W.2Thota PranuthiDW2 Nicolas Ratnakar :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1977-78. Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06. Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11. Ex.A4: Pattedar passbook of D1. Ex.A5: Community and date of birth certificate of PW.2, issued by Tahasildar, Luxettipet obtained by Me-seva.

18 of 18O.S.No. 332 of 2012

FOR DEFENDANTS: Ex.B1: Original pattadar passbook with patta No. 987. Ex.B2: Original Title deed with patta No. 987. Ex.B3: Xerox proceeding copy, dated 22.01.2005 issued by MRO, Thimmapur village, vide Proc.No.418/1996. (admitted and confronted in cross)

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1 of 20

CC 14/2022

IN THE COURT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt. M.ARUNA, Chief Judicial Magistrate­cum­ Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Monday, this the 8th day of April, 2024

CALENDAR CASE No. 14 of 2022

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Karimnagar­III Town P.S., (Cr. No.44/2022 P.S., Karimnagar­III Town) 

Name of the Accused :A1 ­Thoutam Shiva Kumar, S/o. Bixapathi, Aged 39 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Business, N/o. Mustyala V/o. Cheryala Mandal of Siddipet District and later Sneha Nagar, Oddepalli, Hanmakonda, Warangal R/o. Road No.2, Shankar Nagar, Pirzadiguda, Hyderabad.

A2 ­Kotturi Anand, S/o. Sanjeev, Aged 36 years, Occ: Proprietor of Anand Online Centre­cum­Xerox Centre, Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar,R/o.H.No.14­94, Choppadahandi, Karimnagar District.

Charges:Section 420, IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty

Sentence or Order :The accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and

2 of 20

CC 14/2022

accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e., two mobile phones which were seized from the accused No.1 and 2 were already returned to its original owner i.e., accused No.1 and 2 by concerned P.S., vide Crl.M.P. Nos.19/2022 and 40/2022

dated 26.05.2022 holds good. In this

case there is no property marked and if there is any unmarked property is to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Raji Reddy, 

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri K.Srinivas, Advocate for accused No.1.

Sri Md. Kaleem Mohiuddin, Advocate for accused No.2.

This case came before me on 02.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Raji Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri K.Srinivas, Advocate for accused No.1 and Sri Md. Kaleem Mohiuddin, Advocate for accused No.2, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar­III Town P.S., filed charge sheet in Crime No.44/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 420, IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation

Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 against the accused No.1 and 2. 

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 08.03.2022 at 20.00 hours the complainant Aggedi Srinivas resident

3 of 20

CC 14/2022

of Vavilalapalli of Karimnagar came to police station III Town,

Karimnagar and lodged a report stating that he is living by doing agriculture and having developed acquaintance with the accused No.2 who is Proprietor of On­line­cum­Xerox Centre, Vavilalapalli,

Karimnagar. On 21.01.2020 the accused No.2 introduced accused No.1 and stated that accused No.2 established an organization in the name and style of "Welcome Club" and with dishonest intention offered him to pay Rs.6,000/­ and join in the Welcome Club and also offered benefit that if they join another person as a member, he would get Rs.16,200/­ per month from the "Welcome Club" towards monthly expenses and with such falsehood, the accused No.2 collected total amount of

Rs.48,000/­ and transferred to accused No.1, apart from him they also collected an amount of Rs.5,00,000/­ and even after receipt of amounts, the accused No.1 and 2 did not pay any money to them as assured and offered. When he asked the accused No.2 for money, with dishonest intention he skiped his involvement by saying to ask the accused No.1. Thus, the accused No.1 and 2 have cheated them with dishonest intention by illegally running Money Circulation Schemes.

Therefore, he requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the same, L.W.13/S. Rajesh, Sub­Inspector of Police,

P.S., Karimnagar­III Town registered a case Crime No.44/2022 under

Section 420 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the Prize Chits and Money

Circulation Scheme (Act­1978) and issued First Information Report.

4 of 20

CC 14/2022

During the course of investigation he examined L.W.1 and recorded his statement. Later he visited the scene of offence where he secured the

L.W.7/Amboth Ramesh and L.W.8/Burra Rangaiah and in their presence he prepared Crime Details Form.

4.On 09.03.2022 at 16.00 hours he received information about accused persons and accordingly, he along with his staff proceeded to

Anand Online­cum­Xerox Centre situated at opposite to the Court

Building, Karimnagar and where he apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 and when they were in a mood to give confession then, he secured

L.W.9/Lingampalli Nagaiah and L.W.10/Kurra Ravi and in their presence he interrogated them separately and on interrogation the accused have voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence apart from another Crime No.93/2022 under Section 420 of IPC at III­

Town P.S., Karimnagar, and basing on that confession he recovered two mobile phones under cover of confession and seizure panchanama i.e., one mobile is Vivo V7 and consisting Sim No.9866774111 from the accused No.2 and another mobile is one cellphone bearing Sim

No.7801031066 from the accused No.1 and the mobiles are returned to accused vide Crl.M.P. No.40/2022 and Crl.M.P. No.19/2022. Later accused No.1 and 2 were produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. Later he examined and recorded the statements of L.W's 2 to 6 and he made a requisition before the Hon’ble Court for taking the custody of the accused for three days and as per the Orders of the

5 of 20

CC 14/2022

Hon’ble Court, the accused No.1 and 2 were given custody of one day

i.e., on 17.03.2022. Later in view of his training he handed over the

C.D. file to L.W.14/P.Damodar Reddy, for further investigation and verified the investigation done by L.W.13 and found it on correct lines and later he made a requisition before the Hon’ble Court to take the accused into police custody and later he interrogated the accused No.1 and 2 in presence of L.W's 11 and 12. After completion of interrogation he produced the accused No.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand and later after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under

Section 420 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and Money

Circulation Banning Act.

5.This court has taken the cognizance against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 420, IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of

The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978

6.Charges for the offences under Section 420, IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 against the accused No.1 and 2 are framed, and the contents of charges are read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

P.W's. 1 to 12 and got marked Exs. P1 to P7.

6 of 20

CC 14/2022

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C., to answer the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

9. Heard both sides.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the case against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 420, IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that the accused on or before 21.01.2020 at Vavilalapalli,

Karimnagar cheated the complainant i.e., Aggedi Srinivas/P.W.1,

Gajjela Ravi/P.W.2, Komuravelli Venugopal/P.W.3, Valaboju Rajender

Prasad/P.W.4, Gajjela Shyam/P.W.5 and Nagireddy Kumar/P.W.8, by illegally collected money under the name of prize money which is banned and cheating the innocent persons. Hence, requested to convict the accused.

12.On the other hand, the counsels for the accused argued that they are no way connected with the alleged offence and they are falsely implicated in this case as there is no evidence. Hence, prayed this

Hon'ble Court to acquit the accused persons.

7 of 20

CC 14/2022

13.In order to establish the case of the prosecution they examined

L.W's 1 to 6, 8, 9 and 11 to 14 as P.W's 1 to 12 and also marked Exs.

P1 to P7. L.W.1/P.W.1 is the complainant and victim,

L.W.2/P.W.2/G.Ravi Raju, L.W.3/P.W.8/N.Kumar, L.W.4/P.W.3/

K.Venugopal, L.W.5/P.W.4/V.Rajendra Prasad and L.W.6/P.W.5/

G.Shyam, are the other victims, L.W.8/P.W.6/B.Rangaiah is anch for

Crime Details Form, L.W.9/P.W.7/L.Nagaiah, L.W.11/P.W.9/P.Raju and L.W.12/P.W.10/V.Srinivas are the mediators of confession and seizure panchanama L.W.13/P.W.11/S.Rajesh is the Investigating

Officer who arrested the accused No.1 and 2 and L.W.14/P.W.12/

P.Damoder Reddy is another Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet.

14.P.W.1/A.Srinivas, complainant and victim deposed that accused

No.1/Thoutam Shiva Kumar, established a 'Welcome Club' situated at

Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad, an N.G.O., and collected Rs.6,000/­ as a membership amount and he assured that if they pay the membership amount of Rs.6,000/­, then he will give Rs.16,800/­ as benefit and collected about Rs.5,00,000/­ from the members, in that he also joined as a member along with 5 others. i.e., L.W.2/Gajjela Ravi Raju,

L.W.3/Nagireddy Kumar, L.W.4/Komuravelli Venugopal, L.W.5/

Rajendra Prasad and L.W.6/Gajjela Shyam and they all have paid

Rs.6,000/­ each as a membership amount to accused No.1 and he himself gave Rs.48,000/­ to accused No.1. But after three (3) months,

8 of 20

CC 14/2022

the accused No.1 closed the Organization. Therefore, he lodged complaint against accused.

15.P.W.2/G.Ravi Raju is another victim deposed that he know the accused,complainant/P.W.1/A.Srinivas, P.W.3/Komuravelli

Venugopal, P.W.4/Rajendra Prasad and P.W.8/Nagireddy Kumar. He further deposed that a xerox centre on the name of "Anand Xerox

Centre" belongs to accused No.2/Kotturi Anand is there. He deposed that he know about the 'Welcome Club' of accused No.1 through accused No.2 and accused No.2 told him that if they pay Rs.6,000/­ as a membership club of accused No.1, then accused No.1 will give profit of Rs.16,000/­ including the profit. On believing the version of accused

No.2, he paid Rs.50,000/­ by way of cash to accused No.2 to handover the same to accused No.1. After paying the amount he saw the website on the name of 'Welcome Club'. But till today accused did not pay single paise to him and now accused closed the 'Welcome Club'. He along with P.W.1, L.W.3/Nagireddy Kumar, L.W.4/Komuravelli

Venugopal, L.W.5/Rajendra Prasad and L.W.6/Gajjela Shyam, went to police station and P.W.1 lodged complaint and police examined and recorded his statement on the next day of lodging complaint.

16.P.W.3/K.Venugopal, is also another victim deposed that he know accused No.1 and 2. He also know P.W's. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8. He deposed that accused No.1 created the website on the name of 'Welcome Club' and through that website the accused collected Rs.6,000/­ as a

9 of 20

CC 14/2022

package for family for holiday trip of 3 days and 4 nights to Goa,

Thirupathi and Shiridi and the person have to choose one place in single package, and in that package, he paid Rs.6,000/­ to go to Goa and accused No.1 assured that if he got joined single person, accused will give Rs.6,000/­ as a commission, then through him, he got joined 7 persons and paid Rs.48,000/­ to accused No.1 at the Xerox Centre on the name of "Anand Online Centre" of accused No.2 which is situated opposite of the Court Complex. But later accused did not lift his call and also not returned his amount. Police examined and recorded his statement.

17.P.W.4/V.Rajendra Prasad, is another victim deposed that he know accused No.1 and 2. P.W's. 1 to 3, 5 and 8. That accused No.1 established a Company on the name of ADS­APP and he introduced accused No.2 who was running Xerox Center opposite to the Court

Complex, Karimnagar. The accused No.2 informed him that if he invest

Rs.1,00,000/­ then accused can get Rs.15,000/­ as a profit and further said that if he join the other members then he can get more profits, then through him, he got joined 5 members and handed over

Rs.5,00,000/­ to accused No.1 and his amount also handed over to accused No.1 at the Office of accused No.1 at Tarnaka, Hyderabad.

Later he demanded to pay the amount also profit, later accused No.1 gave profit for 2 months. Then again he demanded, but accused did not lift his phone call and after making several calls, the accused lifted his

10 of 20

CC 14/2022

phone call once, then he demanded to return the amount, on that the accused promised to register the accused property situated at

Bacchannapet Village of Janagam District, but the accused did not registered the same. Later he came to know that some one lodged complaint before the police, Karimnagar­III Town and the same is known through P.W.1. Later he went to police station and they took his statement.

18.P.W.5/G.Shyam, victim deposed that he know P.W's. 1 and 2.

Previously accused No.1 was running the website on the name of “Indradhanasu” for the online business and he know the accused No.1 through that business from online. The accused No.1 told him that if he invest the amount in ADDS­APP, then he will get the double amount and accordingly, believing the same he gave Rs.50,000/­ to the accused

No.1 and on his behalf he got joined 4 or 5 members and after 1 month he came to know that the accused No.1 closed his Company/Business.

19.P.W.6/B.Rangaiah, panch for crime details form deposed that on 09.03.2022 while he was going towards Akira Hospital, opposite to the

Court, police called him and prepared panchanama and later they took his signature on it.

20.P.W.7/L.Nagaiah, mediator of confession and recovery panchanama deposed that he know the accused No.1 and 2 and also

L.W.10/Kurra Ravi. On 09.03.2022 police called him between 4 to 5 pm at Anand Complex, opposite to the Court while he was going to

11 of 20

CC 14/2022

tower circle and by that time, the accused No.1 and L.W.10 were there with the police and police enquired the accused No.1 about the commission of offence, on that the accused No.1 said that he is doing online business that if the person give the amount of Rs.6,000/­ he will provide Rs.12,000/­ and later they prepared confession panchanama and police seized cell phones (as per the orders in Crl.M.P. No.19/2022

dated 28.05.2022 the cell phones were returned to accused No.1 and 2)

and also seized brochures and he put his signature on brochures. Later police prepared confession and recovery panchanama.

21.P.W.8/N.Kumar, is also one of the victim deposed that he know

P.W's 1 and 2 and also the accused No.1 and 2 who are standing in the open court. In the year 2022, he received a phone call from the

Karimnagar III­Town and he stated to the police that he gave

Rs.50,000/­ to the accused No.1 for ADDS­APP group and the accused

No.1 stated that if he pay Rs.50,000/­ the accused No.1 will pay

Rs.20,000/­ per month and he received Rs.20,000/­ for 1 month, but later he has not received any amount and when he made a phone call to the accused it was not connected. Then he approached his mediator i.e., P.W.4/Rajendra Prasad who assured that he will get the amount from the accused No.1 and later he will give it to him, but he did not give the amounts.

22.P.W.9/P.Raju, deposed that he do not know the accused No.1 and 2 and he do not know anything about this case and he never acted as a

12 of 20

CC 14/2022

confession panch and police also not prepared confession panchanama in his presence, but police took his signatures on white papers at police station without disclosing anything and turned hostile to the case of prosecution and with the permission of this court in re­examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.9 denied the suggestion that on 17.03.2022 at 13.10 hours police, III Town called to police station and by that time the accused persons were in the custody of police and on enquiry they revealed about the commission of offence, later the police prepared confession panchanama and he put his signatures on panchanama, but now he is deposing false to help the accused. 

23.P.W.10/V.Srinivas, deposed that on 17.03.2022 at 6.30 pm P.W.9 called him to III Town police station that some of his relatives are at police station and they proceeded there where police took his signature on white papers without disclosing anything, and turned hostile to the case of prosecution and with the permission of this court in re­ examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.9 denied the suggestion that on 17.03.2022 at 13.10 hours Police, III Town called to police station and by that time the accused persons were in the custody of police and on enquiry they revealed about the commission of offence, later the police prepared confession panchanama and he put his signatures on panchanama, but now he is deposing false to help the accused. 

13 of 20

CC 14/2022

24.P.W.11/S.Rajesh, is the first Investigation Officer deposed that on 08.03.2022 at 02.00 hours P.W.1 came to police station and gave a written complaint and basing on it, he registered a case Crime

No.44/2022 under Section 420 of IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the Prize

Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Act­1978) and issued First

Information Report. During the course of investigation he examined

P.W.1 and recorded his statement. Later he visited the scene of offence where he secured the P.W.6 and L.W.7/Amboth Ramesh and in their presence he prepared Crime Details Form. On 09.03.2022 at 16.00 hours he received information about accused persons and accordingly, he along with his staff proceeded to Anand Online­cum­Xerox Centre situated at opposite to the Court Building, Karimnagar and where he apprehended the accused No.1 and 2 and when they were in a mood to give confession then, he secured P.W.7 and L.W.10/Kurra Ravi and in their presence he interrogated them separately and on interrogation the accused have voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence apart from another Crime No.93/2022 under Section 420 of IPC at III­

Town P.S., Karimnagar, and basing on that confession he recovered two mobile phones under cover of confession and seizure panchanama i.e., one mobile is Vivo V7 and consisting Sim No.9866774111 from the accused No.2 and another mobile is one cellphone bearing Sim

No.7801031066 from the accused No.1 and the mobiles are returned to accused vide Crl.M.P. No.40/2022 and Crl.M.P. No.19/2022. Later

14 of 20

CC 14/2022

accused No.1 and 2 were produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial custody. Later he examined P.W's 2, 3, 4 5 and 8 and he made a requisition before the Hon’ble Court for taking the custody of the accused for three days and as per the Orders of the Hon’ble Court, the accused were given custody of one day i.e., on 17.03.2022. Later in view of his training he handed over the C.D. file to L.W.14/P.Damodar

Reddy, for further investigation. 

25.P.W.12/P.Damodar Reddy, is the second Investigation Officer deposed that on 17.03.2022 he took up the investigation from P.W.11 and verified the investigation done by P.W.11 and found it on correct lines and later the P.W.11 made a requisition before the Hon’ble Court to take the accused into police custody and later he interrogated the accused No.1 and 2 in presence of P.W's 9 and 10. After completion of interrogation he produced the accused No.1 and 2 before the Hon’ble

Court for judicial remand and later after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of Prize Chits and

Money Circulation Banning Act.

26.As per the version of the prosecution the accused No.2 is running

Xerox Center in front of the Court Complex, Karimnagar and he himself stated that the accused No.1 is established the organization on the name of "Welcome Club" and offered that if one person join in that he has to pay Rs.6,000/­ and for that he will get double amount, by

15 of 20

CC 14/2022

believing the same the L.W.1 and other persons got joined and later through them some other persons also got joined through one person to another and all are paid amount, but subsequently neither the accused

No.1 nor accused No.2 returned the amount as promised by them.

Therefore, complaint lodged by P.W.1 and basing on it registered a case against the accused No.1 and 2.

27.In order to prove the case of prosecution they listed the witnesses as L.W's 1 to 14, among them P.W'1 to 12 were got examined by the prosecution.

28.P.W.1 is the complainant and victim who deposed in his chief examination that the accused No.1 established a "Welcome Club" at

Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad and collected Rs.6,000/­ as membership amount and assured that he will give Rs.16,800/­ for the amount as a benefit and later collected Rs.5,00,000/­ from the members. But the counsel for the accused has taken a plea that there is no evidence filed by the prosecution to that effect. Therefore, submitted that without evidence the same cannot be considered. However, admittedly none of the alleged victims or any witnesses filed any receipt to show that the accused No.1 or accused No.2 collected the above said amount from them and there is no evidence filed by the prosecution also. Further plea of the prosecution is that there is no proof filed by the prosecution that the accused were running the organization in the name of

16 of 20

CC 14/2022

"Welcome Club" at Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad. Therefore, submitted that the accused No.1 and 2 were falsely implicated in this case.

29.As per the prosecution story the main allegation of prosecution is that the accused No.1 falsely created the online organization on the name of "Welcome Club" and collected amount from the innocent people as per his promise that he will give double amount to them and he took the help of accused No.2 to run that business as the accused No.2 is having Xerox Centre at Karimnagar infront of the Court Complex.

Therefore, the accused No.2 should have acquaintance to the general public in Karimnagar due to that reason the accused No.1 choosed business in Karimnagar with the help of accused No.2.

30.But on perusal of the entire evidence of P.W's 1 to 12 none of the witnesses told that they have proofs to show that they paid amounts as alleged by them and also the accused No.1 is running online business on the name of "Welcome Club". The investigation officer i.e., P.W.12 also not seized any material from the accused No.1 and 2, but the prosecution argued that basing on confession of accused No.1 and 2 they should be convicted. But without any evidence how the court will come to the conclusion that the accused are committed the alleged offence as argued by the prosecution.

31.The further version of P.W.1 is that, the office of accused No.1 is situated at Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad, but to support the same it is not mentioned in complaint, the prosecution also not investigated the

17 of 20

CC 14/2022

case to that extent. The further version of P.W.1 is that he gave

Rs.48,000/­ to accused No.1 at Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad, but there is no proof filed by the P.W.1 or the prosecution.

32.As per P.W.2 he gave the amount of Rs.50,000/­ to accused No.2 to hand over the amount to accused No.1 but for this also no proof filed and in whose presence he paid the said amount also not stated. The

P.W.2 qualification is M.B.A., but in his cross­examination he deposed that he do not know the office of accused No.1, and he paidamountto accused No.2 to handover it to accused No.1, but admittedly he neither take the receipt from accused No.2 nor accused No.1. Therefore, he being a highly educated person and also working as Insurance Agent, how he could blindly believe the version of accused No.2 and could hand over the amount to him.

33.The P.W.3 is also alleged to be victim and his qualification is

B.Com., and he is working as reported in CVR News Channel and he deposed that he gave Rs.48,000/­ to accused No.1 but he is also not enquired about the business of accused No.1, therefore being a educated person he is also not properly enquired about the alleged "Welcome Club".

34.P.W's 4 and 5 who are also alleged to be victims they are also not submitted any evidence to show that they paid the amount as per their version. P.W.6 is alleged to be witness to crime details form, but he is the only witness to crime details form, so his evidence can be used for

18 of 20

CC 14/2022

corroboration only. The P.W.7 is the panch for the seizure of cell phones of accused No.1 and 2, but the accused counsel submitted that the police falsely seized two cell phones of accused No.1 and 2.

Therefore, they were returned to the accused by the Hon'ble Court.

35.However, in this case the material evidence is proof of payment as alleged by the victims and also proof of running the alleged "Welcome

Club". But to that effect there is no evidence collected by the prosecution, so that not filed.

36.P.W.8 is also the victim he is also without verifying the business of accused No.1 he paid Rs.50,000/­ to him and he is not recovered any receipt to show that he gave amount of Rs.50,000/­ to accused No.1, therefore, there is no evidence against him. P.W.9 and P.W.10 are alleged to be witness by the time of taking into custody of accused and also confession, but they turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version.

37.P.W.11 is the first investigation officer who issued first information report and in his cross­examination also he deposed that the alleged victims are not submitted any proofs to show that they paid amount. P.W.12 is the second investigation officer and he deposed that as per his investigation the accused No.1 not received amount directly from P.W's 1 to 5, but he received amount through accused No.2 and he has not filed any receipt or evidence to that extent and further deposed that he has not investigated the case that the accused No.1 is

19 of 20

CC 14/2022

having his office at Dwaraka Hotel, Hyderabad and so also not visited during the investigation. Therefore, as per the above said discussion, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the charged offence beyond all reasonable doubt, so that accused are entitled for acquittal for the offences under Section 420 of IPC and

Sections 4 and 5 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978.

38.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Sections 4 and 5 of

The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The property i.e., two mobile phones which were seized from the accused No.1 and 2 were already returned to its original owner i.e., accused No.1 and 2 by concerned

P.S., vide Crl.M.P. Nos.19/2022 and 40/2022 dated 26.05.2022 holds good. In this case there is no property marked and if there is any unmarked property is to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer on this the 8th day of

April, 2024. 

Sd/­ Chief Judl. Magistrate­cum­ Asst. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

20 of 20

CC 14/2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: P.W.1 A.Srinivas.­­­NIL­­­ P.W.2 G.Ravi Raju. P.W.3 K.Venugopal. P.W.4 V.Rajendra Prasad. . P.W.5 G.Shyam. P.W.6 B.Rangaiah. P.W.7 L.Nagaiah. P.W.8 N.Kumar. P.W.9 P.Raju. P.W.10 V.Srinivas. P.W.11 S.Rajesh. P.W.12 P.Damoder Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Complaint dated 08.03.2021 by P.W.1. Ex.P2Crime Details Form by P.W.6. Ex.P3Confession­cum­Recovery panchanama by P.W.7. Ex.P4Nine signatures on confession panchanama by P.W.9. Ex.P5Nine signatures on confession panchanama by P.W.10. Ex.P6First Information Report by P.W.11. Ex.P7Confession panchanama dated 17.03.2022 by P.W.12.

FOR DEFENCE: ­­­NIL­­­

Material Objects Marked: ­­­NIL­­­ Sd/­ Chief Judl. Magistrate­cum­ Asst. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. ..

1 of 22

SC 43/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt. M. ARUNA, 

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 15th day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No. 43 of 2023

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class­ cum­Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, vide PRC No.20/2023

dated 14.06.2023)

Name of the Complainant:The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S., Choppadandi (Crime No.181/2022ofP.S., Choppadandi)

Name of the Accused :A1Bathula Lachaiah, S/o. Saraiah, Aged 35 years, Caste: Gangireddula, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Kammarikhanpeta Village of DharmaramMandalof Peddapalli District.

A2Bathula@Indira Yellamma, W/o. Saraiah, Aged 50 years, Caste: Gangireddula, Occ:Coolie,R/o. Kammarikhanpeta Village of DharmaramMandalof Peddapalli District.

A3Bathula Saraiah, S/o. Yellaiah, Aged 60 years, Caste: Gangireddula, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Kammarikhanpeta Village of DharmaramMandalof

2 of 22

SC 43/2023

Peddapalli District.

A6Ganta Anjamma, D/o. Lachaiah, Aged 25 years, Occ: Coolie, Caste: Gangireddula, R/o. Bommanapalli Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal of Karimnagar District.

Charge:U/s. 498­A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty 

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty

Sentence or Order :The accused No.1 to 3 and 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over and further the unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

 Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Raji Reddy, 

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri T.Goutham Reddy, Advocate for Accused.

This case came before me on 12.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Raji Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, Sri T.Goutham Reddy, Advocate for the Accused,

3 of 22

SC 43/2023

and upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Choppadandi P.S., has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.181/2022.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet is that on 06.12.2022 at 14.00 hours the complainant/L.W.1/Ganta Anjaiah came to the police station and lodged a report stating that he is resident of

Arnakonda village of Choppadandi Mandal and eking out livelihood by doing coolie work. He has three sons and one daughter. About eight years back, they performed his daughter's Bathula Yellamma marriage with Bathula Lachaiah (accused No.1) resident of Kammarikhanpeta

Village of Dharmaram Mandal of Peddapally District, and out of their wedlock his daughter was blessed with two sons. While it is so, accused

No.1 with the instigation of his mother Batula @ Indira

Yellamma/accused No.2, father Bathula Saraiah/accused No.3, paternal unclesBathulaKomuraiah/accusedNo.4andBathula

Lachaiah/accused No.5 had illicit relationship with another women by name Ganta Anjamma/accused No.6 and took her into his house. The accused No.1 to 6 used to beat and harass his daughter. In this regard

4 of 22

SC 43/2023

several panchayaths were held in the presence of elders, but the accused

No.1 did not changed his attitude. On 03.12.2022 at about 10.00 hours his daughter Yellamma came to his house crying and when they asked, his daughter informed that acused No.1 again brought said

Anjamma/accused No.6 to their house and when she asked the accused

No.1 about his acts, then the accused No.1 to 6 forcefully took their kids and beat her by saying why she is alive and whey would not she die and also necked her out of the house. Later on 04.12.2022 at about 08.00 hours, when they went outside of the house for their works and returned to house at 12.00 hours they found his daughter crying. On questioning his daughter she informed that due to the words and harassment of the accused, she felt pain and consumed rats poison. Immediately they shifted his daughter to Dwarakamai Hospital, Karimnagar for treatment and on the advise of doctors on 06.12.2022 while they were shifting his daughter to Prathima hospital for better treatment in an ambulance, on the way his daughter died. Further stated that due to the harassment of accused No.1 to 6 his daughter vexed with her life and committed suicide by consuming rats poison and died. Finally he requested to take necessary action against the accused persons.

3.Basing on the complaint, L.W.17/M.Upendra Chary, Sub­Inspector of Police Choppadandi registered a case in Crime No.181/2022 for the

5 of 22

SC 43/2023

offences under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC and issued First

Information Report. During the course of investigation, L.W.17 visited

Government Hospital, Karimnagar and he examined the dead body and later he took the photographs with the help of L.W.5/Gaddam Shekar and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of L.W.9/Ganta Saravva. L.W.10/Cheepalli Gangaiah and

L.W.11/Jakkula Saraiah and also examined and recorded the statements of L.W.1/Ganta Anjaiah, L.W.2/Ganta Bujjamma,

L.W.3/Tekumatla Komuraiah, L.W.4/Ganta Komurelli @ Komuraiah and

L.W.5/Gaddam Shekar. Later he referred the dead body for Post Mortem

Examination and the L.W.16/Dr. Md. Abdul Waseem, conducted Post

Mortem Examination and he preserved viscera for chemical analysis and report. Later, he handed over the dead body of deceased to L.W.1 and he visited the scene of offence situated at Arnakonda Village and where he secured L.W.12/Tekumatla Saraiah and L.W.13/Tekumatla Yakub to act as panchas and in their presence he prepared Crime Detail Form. During the further investigation he collected the Post Mortem Examination report from L.W.16. The preserved viscera also, sent to the Regional

Forensic Science Laboratories through the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Rural, Karimnagar for chemical examination and report and he

6 of 22

SC 43/2023

received the report through L.W.16 and as per the report of RFSL the cause of death of deceased is Zinephosphide a Rodenticide poisoning.

4. Basing on reliable information on 21.01.2023 he along with his men rushed to the Kammarkhanpet Village, where he arrested accused

No.1 and interrogated him and during the interrogation accused No.1 voluntarily confessed about the commission along with accused No.2, 3 and 6. Therefore, he was produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand after completion of arrest formalities. L.W.17 further deposed that on 22.01.2023 he visited the scene of offence at Dharmaram Village and he secured L.W.14/Madasu Sravan and L.W.15/Kasam

Nagabhushanam and he observed the scene minutely and then he prepared second Crime Details Form, where he examined and recorded the statements of L.W.6/Bathula Yellamma, L.W.7/Bathula Bheemaiah and L.W.8/Bathula Bakkaiah and as per their statements the involvement of Bathula Komuraiah/A4 and Bathula Lachaiah/A5 was not established and after obtaining permission from Commissioner of

Police dated 28.02.2023 he issued notices under Section 41­A of Cr.P.C., to accused No.2, 3 and 6 who appeared before the L.W.17 and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence along with accused No.1 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 and 6 by deleting the

7 of 22

SC 43/2023

names of alleged accused No.4/Bathula Komuraiah and accused

No.5/Bathula Lachaiah. 

5.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC, against the accused No.1 to 3 and 6 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class­cum­Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, vide PRC No.20/2023.

6.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 and 6, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C, and as the offence is exclusively triable by the

Hon’ble Court of Sessions, so the case was committed to the Hon'ble

Court of Sessions, Karimnagar under Section 209 of Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

7.On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 and 6 before this court, charges under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC, has been framed against them, and read over the contents and explained to them in

Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined P.W's 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. P1 to P10.

8 of 22

SC 43/2023

9.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 and 6 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating material available in the prosecution evidence, for which, they denied and reported no defence evidence.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 3 and 6 for the offences punishable under Section 498­A,

306 read with 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt"?

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to dispose the case on merits. However, as per the charge sheet, the version of the prosecution is that on or before 04.12.2022 at Arnakonda Village, the accused No.1 being husband of Bathula Yellamma (deceased), subjected her to cruelty having illicit relationship with accused No.6 and kept her in his house and the accused No.2 and 3 also supported the accused 

No.1. Further the accused No.1 beat the deceased often and pressurized the deceased by saying that if the deceased listen his words she should stay with him or else directed to leave his house, and also the accused 

No.1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the accused persons have committed the offences charged under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC.

9 of 22

SC 43/2023

13.On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that they are falsely implicated in this case and they are no way concerned with the alleged offence, and the prosecution also failed to prove it's case against the accused, as such the accused are entitled for the acquittal for the charged offences against them 

14.POINT:

In order to prove its case, the prosecution listed as many as 18 witnesses and examined P.W's 1 to 14, got marked Exs. P1 to P10.

L.W.1/P.W.1/G.Anjaiah, complainant and father of the deceased,

L.W.3/P.W.2/T.Komuraiah, relative of the deceased, L.W.4/P.W.3/

G.Komurallai.paternal uncle of the deceased, L.W.5/P.W.4/Gaddam

Shekar, photographer, L.W.10/P.W.5/S.Gangaiah, L.W.11/P.W.6/

J.Saraiah and L.W.9/P.W.7/Saravva, are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama L.W.12/P.W.8/T.Saraiah and L.W.13/P.W.9/

T.Yakub, are the panch witness for first Crime Details Form,

L.W.7/P.W.10/B.Bheemaiah and L.W.8/P.W.11/B.Bakkaiah are the witnesses and as per their statement the involvement of alleged accused

No.4 and 5 is not established, L.W.14/P.W.12/M.Sravan, panch witness for second Crime Details Form, L.W.16/P.W.13/Dr. Md. Abdul Waseem, is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased

10 of 22

SC 43/2023

and preserved viscera of the deceased and L.W.17/P.W.14/M.Upendra

Chary is the Investigation Officer.

15.The other witnesses i.e., L.W.2/Ganta Bujamma, mother of the deceased, L.W.6/Bathula Yellamma, one of the witness and

L.W.15/Kasam Nagabushanam, panch witness for second Crime Details

Form, were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

16.P.W.1/G.Anjaiah, complainant and father of the deceased by name

Yellamma deposed that the accused No.1 is the husband of deceased, accused No.2 is the mother­in­law of deceased, accused No.3 is the father­in­law of the deceased and accused No.6 is the concubine to accused No.1. He further deposed that at about 8 years back, his deceased daughter marriage was performed with accused No.1 and they were blessed with two male children who are aged about 5 and 2 years respectively. Thereafter, accused No.1 brought accused No.6 to his house and kept her as a concubine and harassed his deceased daughter to sent her to parent’s house and accused No.1 also bet the deceased indiscriminately and when the neighbours interfered, the accused No.1 said them not to interfere in their quarrel. He also further deposed that when accused No.6 and her deceased daughter quarreled as to why she came to her house and later accused No.1 to 3 and 6 with common intention necked out his deceased daughter and also said to go and die.

11 of 22

SC 43/2023

Then his deceased daughter came to his house and informed about the incident. On the next day of her arrival to his house her deceased daughter was alone at his house and he along with his wife i.e.,

L.W.2/Ganta Bujamma went to attend coolie work, then her deceased daughter took the rat bags and consumed it. After their arrival to their house at 04.00 p.m., they observed that their deceased daughter was consumed poison and when they asked her daughter who was in conscious, then she revealed that she consumed poison, then immediately they shifted her daughter to private Hospital, Karimnagar, where she underwent treatment for two days and thereafter on the advise of the doctors again shifted her to Prathima Hospital on the way she died, and further deposed that the reason for the committing suicide of her daughter is due to the attitude of accused No.1 that accused No.1 brought accused No.6 as a concubine and kept in the house of accused

No.1 and that accused No.2 and 3 supported accused No.1 and due to that harassment her deceased daughter committed suicide. 

17.P.W.2/T.Komuraiah, relative of deceased deposed that the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused No.1 and they were blessed with two male children. At about one year back, the deceased quarreled with the accused persons that accused No.1 brought accused No.6 by name Anjamma to their house as a concubine.

12 of 22

SC 43/2023

Therefore, the deceased came to her parent's house at Arnakonda Village and after two or three days she consumed poison and by that time he was there as his house is very near to the house of the parent's of the deceased, then immediately, they shifted to Prathima Hospital,

Karimnagar from Government Hospital, Karimnagar on the advise of doctors for better treatment, but she died there.

18.P.W.3/Ganta Komuralli, deposed that accused No.1 is the husband of the deceased and accused No.2 and 3 are her in­laws and accused No.6 is brought by accused No.1 as a concubine. The marriage of deceased was performed with accused No.1 at about ten years back and they were blessed with two male children. At about one year back, accused No.1 brought accused No.6 to his as a concubine, thereafter disputes arose between the deceased and the accused, due to those quarrels the deceased came to his house at Arnakonda Village and then she informed them that the accused persons harassed her and kept the children of the deceased with them and necked out her and due to that she consumed poison on 04.12.2022 when he was absent at his house and came to his house at evening hours after attending coolie work and found that deceased consumed poison, then immediately, shifted her to

Government Hospital, Karimnagar and on the advise of the doctors he shifted her to Prathima Hospital for better treatment where she died.

13 of 22

SC 43/2023

19.P.W.4/Gaddam Shekar, photographer deposed on 06.12.2022 police Choppadandi called him to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar to take the photographs of the deceased female person and accordingly, he took the photographs and handed over the same along with CD to them.

20.P.W.5/Gangaiah, deposed that at about one and half years back, he went to Civil Hospital, Karimnagar to see the deceased by name

Yellamma, where police conducted inquest panchanama of the dead body of the deceased in his presence and later they took his signature.

21.P.W.6/J.Saraiah, deposed that on 06.12.2022 he went to Civil

Hospital, Karimnagar on his personal work where he saw the family of the deceased, then police conducted inquest panchanama of the dead body of the deceased in his presence and thereafter they took his signature on inquest panchanama.

22.P.W.7/G.Saravva, deposed that police, Choppadandi called her to

Government Hospital, Karimnagar where she found the dead body of the deceased by name Yeallavva and police prepared inquest panchanama in his presence and she put her thumb impression on it.

23.P.W.8/T.Saraiah and L.W.13/P.W.9/T.Yakub, deposed that police came to the scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in their presence and they put their signatures on it.

14 of 22

SC 43/2023

24.P.W.10/B.Bheemaiah and P.W.11/B.Bakkaiah, deposed that they resided at Dharmapuri Village by erecting huts and the accused persons were also resided beside their huts. The accused No.1 and deceased were living happily for some period, but after some time there were some disputes arose between accused No.1 and deceased and due to said disputes, accused No.1 bet the deceased and kept the children with him, then the deceased went to her parent's house and later they came to know that the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison. 

25.P.W.12/M.Sravan, deposed that on 22.01.2023 at morning hours he along with his daughter were standing in front of his house and they found that one police vehicle stopped at Darmaram Village near to servicing centre and his house is situated near to servicing centre and the scene of offence is situated near to his house and the police came to the scene of offence and observed the scene and later they prepared the

Crime Details Form in his presence and took his signature. 

26.P.W.13/Md. Abdul Waseem, deposed that on 06.12.2022 he received a requisition from Sub­Inspector of Police, Choppadandi to conduct Post Mortem over the dead body of the deceased by name

Bathula Yellamma and accordingly, he conducted Post Mortem and found blackish fluid in stomach and no external injuries found and he sent samples of liver and kidney to the Forensic Laboratory, Karimnagar

15 of 22

SC 43/2023

and as per the report dated 23.12.2022 the cause of death of the deceased is due to consumption of Zinc Phosphide a rodenticide poison.

Later he handed over the report to the police, Choppadandi.

27.P.W.14/M.Upendra Chary, Investigation Officer deposed that on 06.12.2022 at 14.00 hours P.W.1 came to P.S., and lodged complaint and basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.181/2022 for the offences under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC and issued First

Information Report. Later he visited Government Hospital, Karimnagar and he examined the dead body and later he took the photographs with the help of P.W.4 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W's 5 to 7 and also examined and recorded the statements of P.W's 1 to 4 and L.W.2/Ganta Bujjamma. Later he referred the dead body for Post Mortem Examination and the P.W.13 conducted Post Mortem Examination and he preserved viscera for chemical analysis and report. Later, he handed over the dead body of deceased to P.W.1 and he visited the scene of offence situated at

Arnakonda Village and where he secured P.W's 8 and 9 to act as panchas and in their presence he prepared Crime Detail Form. During the further investigation he collected the Post Mortem Examination report from P.W.13. The preserved viscera also, sent to the Regional

Forensic Science Laboratories through the Assistant Commissioner of

16 of 22

SC 43/2023

Police, Rural, Karimnagar for chemical examination and report and he received the report through P.W.13 and as per the report of RFSL the cause of death of deceased is Zinephosphide a Rodenticide poisoning.

He further deposed that while the efforts are in progress and basing on reliable information on 21.01.2023 he along with his men rushed to the

Kammarkhanpet Village, where he arrested accused No.1 and interrogated him and during the interrogation accused No.1 voluntarily confessed about the commission of offence along with accused No.2, 3 and 6. Therefore, he was produced before the Hon’ble Court for judicial remand after completion of arrest formalities. P.W.14 further deposed that on 22.01.2023 he visited the scene of offence at Dharmaram Village and he secured P.W.12 and L.W.15/Kasam Nagabhushanam and he observed the scene minutely and then he prepared second Crime Details

Form, where he examined and recorded the statements of P.W's 10, 11 and L.W.6/Bathula Yellamma and as per their statements the involvement of Bathula Komuraiah/A4 and Bathula Lachaiah/A5 was not established and after obtaining permission from Commissioner of

Police dated 28.02.2023 he issued notices under Section 41­A of Cr.P.C., to accused No.2, 3 and 6 who appeared before the L.W.17 and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence

17 of 22

SC 43/2023

along with accused No.1 and after completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 and 6. 

28.Heard both sides and as per the prosecution version, the accused

No.1 brought the accused No.6 to his house as a concubine and when the deceased who is wife of accused No.1 questioned about that, then the accused No.1 along with his parents i.e., accused No.2 and 3 and also accused No.6 harassed the deceased, due to that she vexed with her life so committed suicide by taking poison. Therefore, submitted that the accused are liable for the offences under Section 306, IPC. 

29.But the accused counsel submitted that none of the witnesses who were listed by the prosecution are supported the version of prosecution, so that the ingredients under Section 306 of IPC not proved, so requested to acquit the accused.

30.P.W.1 is the father of the deceased, he sated that due to abetment made by the accused, his daughter committed suicide. In cross examination of P.W.1, the counsel for the accused taken a plea that there is no complaint lodged by the P.W.1 or his deceased daughter.

Therefore, as per the version of P.W.1, the deceased informed about the alleged harassment to him one month prior to her death and also not conducted any panchayath in presence of elders. Therefore, submitted that the deceased committed suicide due to her health issues only.

18 of 22

SC 43/2023

31.However, basically if there is any harassment made by the accused first of all it should be informed to the parents and also they will be conducting panchayaths. But admittedly, no panchayath conducted, even no complaint lodged by the P.W.1 or deceased before her death for that alleged harassment.

32.P.W.2 is the relative to the P.W.1 and deposed that the deceased committed suicide after two or three days of coming to her parents house. But the P.W.1 deposed that on the same day she committed suicide, therefore, the both versions are contra.

33.P.W.3 is the paternal uncle of the deceased, but the counsel for the accused submitted that the accused No.6 is a married women and if she brought by the accused No.1, the deceased should have inform the same to P.W.1 and his family otherwise, she should lodge complaint, but she did not do anything therefore, she has committed suicide due to her ill­ health, but admittedly the deceased also not taken any steps before committing suicide by lodging complaint against the accused No.1 and 6.

34.P.W.4 is the photographer who took the photographs of dead body at Government Hospital, Karimnagar on request of police and there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased. Therefore, there is no need to discuss about the evidence of P.W.4.

19 of 22

SC 43/2023

35.P.W.5 is the panch witness for inquest, but in cross­examination he deposed that he do not know about the inquest panchanama, but on instance of police, he put his signature on white papers, so he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

36.P.W.6 is another inquest panch, he deposed in cross­examination that he do not know about the panchanama, but on instance of police and when he went to Government Hospital, Karimnagar he put his signature on white paper. So his evidence also not at all supporting about the inquest panchanama of deceased at Government Civil

Hospital, Karimnagar.

37.P.W.7 also being a panch for inquest who is also not supported the alleged panchanama which is conducted by the prosecution. P.W's 8 and 9 are the panch for crime details form who are also not supported the prosecution case as they deposed in their cross­examination that they do not know anything about the crime details form, but on instance of police they put their signatures on crime details form.

38.P.W.10 who is the circumstantial witness, therefore, the accused counsel deposed that his evidence cannot be considered without direct evidence. Hence, as per his evidence there were some disputes arose between the P.W.1 and deceased, but what are those disputes and from

20 of 22

SC 43/2023

which year the disputes started is not deposed. Therefore, his evidence is not at all useful to the prosecution.

39.P.W.11 who is the neighbour who deposed that due to the disputes between accused No.1 and deceased, the accused No.1 bet her so that she committed suicide, but what are those disputes and whey the disputes arose between them is not deposed. Therefore, his evidence also not supporting the version of prosecution. P.W.12 is the nearby resident and when he was standing at his house the police came to scene and prepared crime details form, but in cross he is not elicited anything to support the prosecution.

40.P.W.13 who is the doctor and as per his evidence he sent the sample to the FSL and received report and then handed over to police, but the counsel for the accused not cross­examined the P.W.1 because there is dispute about the death that the cause of death of deceased is due to consuming poison.

41.The P.W.14 is the investigation officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. As per his investigation he received complaint and issued First Information Report and recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared crime details form and also confession in the presence of witnesses. But in whose presence the alleged crime details form and confession panchanama are recorded they are are not

21 of 22

SC 43/2023

supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, as per the evidence of

P.W's 1 to 14 as discussed above, the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC is not attracting and there is no sufficient evidence to convict the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused are entitle for acquittal.

42.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 and 6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498­A, 306 read with 34 of IPC, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over and further the unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer on this the 15th

day of April, 2024.

Sd/­

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1 G.Anjaiah.­­­None­­­ P.W.2 T.Komuraiah. P.W.3 G.Komurallai. P.W.4 Gaddam Shekar. P.W.5 S.Gangaiah. P.W.6 J.Saraiah. P.W.7 Saravva.

22 of 22

SC 43/2023

P.W.8 T.Saraiah. P.W.9 T.Yakub. P.W.10 B.Bheemaiah. P.W.11 B.Bakkaiah. P.W.12 M.Sravan. P.W.13 Md. Abdul Waseem. P.W.14 M.Upendra Chary.

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Complaint by P.W.1. Ex.P2Four photographs along with C.D. by P.W.4. Ex.P3 Signature on inquest panchanama by P.W.5. Ex.P4 Inquest panchanama by P.W.7. Ex.P5Crime Details Form dated 07.12.2022 by P.W.8. Ex.P6Crime Details Form dated 22.01.2023 by P.W.12. Ex.P7FSL Report by P.W.13. Ex.P8Post Mortem Examination report by P.W.13. Ex.P9First Information Report by P.W.14. Ex.P10Permission letter No.43/D3/CCRB/2023 dated 28.02.2023 from Commercial of Police, Karimnagar by P.W.14.

FOR DEFENCE: ­­­Nil­­­

Material Objects ­­­Nil­­­ 

Sd/­

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

..

1 of 20

SC 510/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT :: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT: Smt. M. ARUNA, 

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No. 510 of 2021

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, vide PRC No.19/2021 dated 20.10.2021)

Name of the Complainant:The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S.,Gangadhara(Crime No.106/2021ofP.S., Gangadhara)

Name of the Accused :Dasari Nithish, S/o. Lachaiah, Aged21years,Caste: SC/Madiga, R/o. Garshakurthi Village of Gangadhara Mandal.

Charge:U/s. 306 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the Accused:Not Guilty 

Finding of the Court:Not Guilty

Sentence or Order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and hence, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The M.O.1 i.e., Cell phone of OPPO Company shall be returned to it's original owner after expiry of appeal time and if any

2 of 20

SC 510/2021

unmarked property is to be destroyed after appeal period.

 Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Raji Reddy, 

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended by:Sri K.C. Murthy, Advocate for Accused.

This case came before me on 02.04.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Raji Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, Sri K.C. Murthy, Advocate for the Accused, and upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Gangadhara P.S., has filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of

Indian Penal Code in Crime No.106/2021.

2.The brief facts of the case as per charge sheet is that on 25.06.2021 at 19.00 hours the complainant/L.W.1/Galipelli Laxmi came to the police station and lodged a report stating that she is resident of

Acahmpally N/at of Mallapur Village and eking livelihood by doing rolling beedi. About one year back, her husband Komuraiah went to Dubai for his livelihood, and during eight months she along with her daughter/deceased (Galipalli Akhila) are staying at her parent’s Village

Mallapur, due to ill­health of complainant. Now and then her deceased daughter used to talk with on Dasari Nithish (accused) on phone and also expressed that she was loving him. On 25.06.2021 at 11.00 hours,

3 of 20

SC 510/2021

due to ill­health of her mother Macha Mallamma, the complainant took her to Karimnagar hospital for check up at that time her father Macha

Anjaiah went to work and the deceased alone in the house and in the evening at about 06.00 pm when the complainant returned to home found the doors closed when she entered into the house and she noticed her daughter that she was hanging to ceiling fan and died, then she along with her mother made hues and cries and the neighbours came.

Further the complainant expressed that her daughter is hale and healthy and having no other worries and further expressed that her daughter loving one Dasari Nithish and vexed with her life and committed suicide by hanging and died and expressed suspicion on the death of her daughter. Finally she requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, L.W.17/Md. Fasiuddin, Station House

Officer, P.S., Gangadhara has registered a case in Crime No.106/2022 under Section 174, Cr.P.C., and further took up the investigation and issued First Information Report, examined and recorded the statement of

L.W.1. On the next day of incident i.e., on 26.06.2021 L.W.17 went to the scene of offence and he secured L.W.6/Kalyani Sairam to take the photographs of the dead body and also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of L.W.11/Sundaragiri Chandrababu,

L.W.12/Galipalli Mallaih and L.W.13/Kannam Laxmi. Later he

4 of 20

SC 510/2021

forwarded the corpus to the District Headquarters Hospital and conducted autopsy to know the cause of death and during that time

L.W.17 examined and recorded the statements of L.W's 1 to 6 and prepared Crime Detail Form and drawn the rough sketch in the presence of same mediators. On 28.06.2021 he handed over the C.D. file to the

L.W.18/N.Naresh Reddy, Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S., Gangadhara for further investigation.

4.During further investigation of the case, L.W.18 secured the presence of L.W's 7 to 10 and examined and recorded their statements.

On the strength of the statements of L.W's 1 to 10 it is clear that the accused contacted with the deceased on phone and expressed his desire of loving the deceased and later suspected the character of deceased and not talking with her on phone and blocked her mobile. On that the deceased and her friends L.W.4/Kannam Joshna and L.W.5/Kolipaka

Mayutha went to accused and asked him about his attitude, on that the accused abused the deceased in the presence of L.W’s 4 and 5 that the deceased is characterless and said that to die by consuming poison or to hang, due to that abetment and humiliation by the accused, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. Therefore, L.W.18 altered the

Section from 174, Cr.P.C., (Suspicious) to 306, IPC (Abetment of suicide).

5 of 20

SC 510/2021

L.W.17 did not seize the saree which is used for hanging and there is no possibility to seize it, as it was gone along with corpse in cremation.

5.While efforts are being continued to apprehend the accused on reliable information on 06.07.2021 L.W.18 apprehended the accused at

Madhuranagar 'X' Road, Gangadhara at 09.00 am and secured the presence of L.W.14/Munige David and L.W.15/Kannam Raju and on interrogation, the accused voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and basing on that confession he recovered the cell phone of the accused and took the screen shots of the Whatsapp chat and he obtained certificate under Section 65­B of Indian Evidence Act. After completion of arrest formalities he produced the accused before the

Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of

IPC.

6.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC, against the sole accused by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada, vide PRC No.19/2021.

7.On appearance of the accused, the copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C, and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar

6 of 20

SC 510/2021

under Section 209 of Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge at Sircilla, for disposal according to law. Later during the course of issuance of summons, as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court for the State of Telangana,

Hyderabad, vide Orders in Dis. No.346/E1/2021 dated 01.06.2022 this case is transferred to this Court from Assistant Sessions Judge, Sircilla for disposal according to law. 

8.On appearance of the accused before this Court, charge under

Section 306 of IPC, has been framed against him, read over the contents and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to establish it's case, the prosecution has examined P.W's 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. P1 to P12 and M.O.1.

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

11. Heard both sides.

12. Now the point for consideration is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC , beyond all

reasonable doubt"?

7 of 20

SC 510/2021

13.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused under the pretext of loving Galipalli Akhila he used to talk with her and later deserted her by stating that the character of said Galipalli

Akhila is not good and also abetted her to commit suicide by consuming poison or to hang, as such, on 25.06.2021 she having vexed with her life and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan with a saree and died at Mallapur Village. Therefore, the accused committed the offence charged under Section 306 of IPC.

14.On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that he is no way connected with the alleged offence and only in order to implicate the accused a false case has been foisted against him and except the panch for confession of the accused/L.W.14/P.W.11, and the doctor/L.W.17/ P.W.13 who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and the Investigation Officers i.e., L.W.17/P.W.12 who issued the First Information Report and L.W.18/P.W.14 who filed charge sheet all other witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove it's case against the sole accused, as such the accused is entitled for the acquittal for the charged offence.

14.POINT:In order to prove its case, the prosecution listed as many as 18 witnesses and examined P.W's 1 to 14, got marked Exs. P1

8 of 20

SC 510/2021

to P12 and M.O.1. L.W.1/P.W.1/G.Laxmi, is the complainant and mother of the deceased, L.W.2/P.W.2/M.Mallamma and L.W.3/P.W.3/

M.Anjaiah, are the grand parents of the deceased, L.W.4/P.W.4/

K.Joshna, is friend of the deceased, L.W.7/P.W.5/S.Rani, is cousin of the deceased, L.W.8/P.W.6/G.Komuraiah, is father of deceased,

L.W.6/P.W.7/ K.Sairam, photographer, L.W.9/P.W.8/ S.Mahesh and

L.W.10/P.W.9/S.Babai relatives of the deceased, L.W.12/P.W.10/

G.Mallaiah, panch witness for inquest and crime details form,

L.W.14/P.W.11/M.Davidu, panch witness for confession statement of accused, L.W.17/P.W.12/Md. Fasiuddin and L.W.14/P.W.14/ N.Naresh

Reddy are the investigation officers L.W.16/P.W.13/Dr. N.Laxmikanth is the Duty Medical Officer and conducted autopsy over dead body.

15.The other witnesses i.e., L.W.5/Kolipaka Mayutha, L.W.11/

Sundaragiri Chandrababu, L.W.13/Kannam Laxmi and L.W.15/Kannam

Raju were given up by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

16.P.W.1/G.Laxmi, deposed that deceased is her daughter and she was studying degree in Trinity College, Karimnagar, but she used to talk with someone and she do not know with whom she talked through the phone, but she is in suspicious that her daughter/deceased talked with the accused and she did not tell her that the accused asked

Rs.10,00,000/­ to get marry her and that her daughter herself refused to

9 of 20

SC 510/2021

marry the accused. Due to some health issues her daughter might have committed suicide and the accused is no way concerned to the death of her daughter and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor requested this court to declare the

P.W.1 as hostile and in the re­examination she denied the suggestion that whatever she stated earlier before this court in her chief examination is true, and further she denied the suggestion that as she compromised the matter with the accused she is deposing false.

17.P.W.2/M.Mallamma and P.W.3/M.Anjaiah, deposed that the deceased by name Akhila is their grand daughter and she was studying

Degree in Karimnagar on the date of incident she was not present at their residence, but when they returned to their home, they found that the deceased committed suicide, but what is the reason for her suicide is not known to them and the accused is no way related to the committing of suicide of their grand daughter, but on instigation of their village elders and others they deposed against the accused in their chief examination. Police never examined and recorded their statements and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor requested this court to declare them as hostile and in the re­examination they denied the suggestion that whatever they stated earlier before this court in their chief examination is true, and further

10 of 20

SC 510/2021

they denied the suggestion that as they compromised the matter with the accused they are deposing false.

18.P.W.4/K.Joshna, deposed that she is resident of Mallapur Village.

She know the deceased by name Akhila and she is resident of her

Village. She do not know the reason for committing of suicide by the deceased and the deceased also not revealed anything with her, but she came to know about the committing of the suicide by the deceased.

Police also not examined and recorded her statement and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­examination she denied the suggestion that she stated to the police as per her chief examination whatever deposed earlier, and further she denied the suggestion that as she compromised the matter with the accused she is deposing false.

19.P.W.5/S.Rani, deposed that she is resident of Achampally Village.

The deceased is her cousin and P.W's 2 and 3 are grand parents of deceased, but she do not know the accused and she saw the accused in the first instance at the court hall at the time of giving his evidence. He further deposed that he do not know with regard to the love affair of the deceased with accused and that he do not know whether the accused suspected the character of the deceased and the accused never made phone call to the deceased and he do not know anything about this case, but on previous date of his chief examination he gave his evidence on the

11 of 20

SC 510/2021

instance of parents of the deceased as they are his relatives. Police also not examined and recorded his statement and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­examination she denied the suggestion whatever stated earlier before this court in her chief examination is true, and further she denied the suggestion that as she compromised the matter with the accused she is deposing false.

20.P.W.6/G.Komuraiah, deposed that P.W.1 is his wife and deceased is his daughter and by the time of incident he was residing in foreign country for his livelihood as such, he do not know anything about this case and the P.W's 1 to 3 are having suspicious on accused, therefore, lodged complaint against the accused. He further deposed that his daughter never told about her love with the accused and the accused never denied marriage and demanded dowry of Rs.8,00,000/­ or

Rs.10,00,000/­. The accused is no way concerned to the death of his daughter and his daughter committed suicide due to her health issues, and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­examination he denied the suggestion whatever stated earlier before this court in his chief examination is true, and further he denied the suggestion that as he compromised the matter with the accused he is deposing false.

21.P.W.7/K.Sai, Photographer deposed that about one year back,

Police Gangadhara called him to take the photographs at the Mallapur

12 of 20

SC 510/2021

Village and accordingly, he proceeded and took the photographs of the deceased girl and later he handed over the photographs (seven in number) along with C.D. to the police.

22.P.W.8/S.Mahesh, deposed that deceased by name Akhila is daughter of his co­brother and she was studying Degree in Karimnagar.

His co­brother went to foreign country for his livelihood, but there is no relationship between the accused and deceased on the name of love and someone told to depose the same before this court, therefore on previous date of adjournment he deposed the same. The accused never suspected the character of deceased and the accused is no way related to the committing suicide of the deceased and there is no instigation by the accused to commit suicide. Police never examined and recorded his statement, and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­ examination he denied the suggestion whatever stated earlier before this court in his chief examination is true, and further he denied the suggestion that as he compromised the matter with the accused he is deposing false.

23.P.W.9/S.Babai, deposed that the deceased by name Akhila is his sister’s daughter and she was studying Degree in Karimnagar. His brother­in­law went to foreign country for his livelihood, but there is no relationship between the accused and deceased on the name of love and

13 of 20

SC 510/2021

someone told to depose the same before this court, therefore, on previous date of adjournment he deposed the same. The accused never suspected the character of deceased and the accused is no way related to the committing suicide of the deceased and there is no instigation by the accused to commit suicide. Police never examined and recorded my statement and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­ examination he denied the suggestion whatever stated earlier before this court in his chief examination is true, and further he denied the suggestion that as he compromised the matter with the accused he is deposing false. 

22.P.W.10/G.Mallaiah, deposed that he do not know anything about this case and he never witnessed the Inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also police never prepared Crime Detail Form in his presence, but on instance of police he put his signature on Crime Detail

Form and he do not know the contents of Crime Detail Form and also inquest and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the re­ examination he denied the suggestion whatever stated earlier before this court in his chief examination is true, and further he denied the suggestion that as he compromised the matter with the accused he is deposing false. 

14 of 20

SC 510/2021

23.P.W.11/M.Davidu, deposed that about 1 year and 7 months back, while he was proceeding towards Gangadhara 'X' Road on his bicycle, police called him to 'X' Road Gangadhara where the accused was in the custody of police and police asked him to enquire the accused about the commission of offence and accordingly, he enquired the accused, who stated that for the last three years the accused fell in love with one

Galipalli Akhila (deceased) and during that period the accused asked the said G.Akhila that she is having illegal intimacy with another person, and accused said that he will not talk with her and also blocked her contact number, due to which the deceased went on mental depression and committed suicide and he also saw the phone data and the chatting of deceased with the accused and later the chatting data was collected by the police in his presence and they prepared confession panchanama in his presence, and later he put his signature on it.

24.P.W.12/Md. Fasiuddin, deposed that on 25.06.2021 at 19.00 hours, P.W.1 came to police station and given a written petition, basing on it, he issued First Information report vide Crime No.106/2022 under

Section 174, Cr.P.C., and further took up the investigation and during the investigation he recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on the next day of incident i.e., on 26.06.2021 he went to the scene of offence and he secured P.W.6 to take the photographs of the dead body and also

15 of 20

SC 510/2021

conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of

L.W.11/Sundaragiri Chandrababu, L.W.13/Kannam Laxmi and P.W.10.

Later he forwarded the corpus to the District Headquarters Hospital and conducted autopsy to know the cause of death and during that time he examined and recorded the statements of P.W's 2 to 4 and 7 and

L.W.5/Kolipaka Mayutha and prepared Crime Detail Form. On 28.06.2021 he handed over the C.D. file to the L.W.18/P.W.14, for further investigation.

25.P.W.13/Dr. N.Laxmikanth, Duty Medical Officer, District

Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar deposed that basing on the requisition dated 26.06.2021 from the Police, Gangadhara on 26.06.2021, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Galipalli

Akhila, D/o. Komuraiah, aged 19 years and got issued Post Mortem

Examination report wherein he opined the cause of the death is due to "hanging".

26.P.W.14/N.Naresh Reddy, Investigation Officer deposed that on 28.06.2021 and he took up further investigation of this case from

P.W.12, later he secured the presence of P.W's 5, 6, 9 and L.W.9/Sunke

Mahesh and examined and recorded their statements. On the strength of the statements of P.W's 1 to 7, 9 and L.W.5/Kolipala Mayutha and

L.W.9/Sunke Mahesh. He made a requisition before the learned Judicial

16 of 20

SC 510/2021

Magistrate of First Class, Vemulawada for alteration of Section from 174,

Cr.P.C., to Section 306, IPC. Later he made a requisition before the local

Tahsildhar, Gangadhara to submit the original First Information Report and inquest report before the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada. On reliable information on 06.07.2021 he apprehended the accused at Madhuranagar 'X' Road, Gangadhara at 09.00 am and secured the presence of P.W.11 and L.W.15/Kannam Raju and interrogated the accused and the accused voluntarily confessed the commission of offence and basing on that confession he recovered the cell phone of the accused and took the screen shots of the Whatsapp chat of 11 pages and he obtained certificate under Section 65­B of Indian

Evidence Act, and after completion of arrest formalities he produced the accused before the Court for judicial custody. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

27.As per the prosecution story, the deceased committed suicide due to the abetment of accused. Therefore, the parents of the deceased i.e.,

P.W's. 1 and 6 were examined, and in their chief examination they deposed the incriminating evidence against the accused. But whereas, in the cross­examination they totally turned hostile, and did not support the version of prosecution. Though the learned Additional Public

17 of 20

SC 510/2021

Prosecution re­examined the P.W's 1 to 4 they did not accept their earlier chief examination. Therefore, the P.W's 1 to 4 might have compromised the matter after their chief examination with the accused.

28.The other witness for the alleged Crime Details Form i.e., P.W.10 turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version and the other witnesses L.W's 11 and 13 for Crime Details Form were not examined by the prosecution. P.W.11 witness for confession and recovery panchanama though deposed that in his presence police prepared confession panchanama and he put his signature on it and in the cross­ examination accused failed to cross­examine the P.W.11 hence, the cross­examination of P.W.11 is treated as nil. But the P.W.14 who is the investigation officer and who investigated the case said that he conducted Crime Details Form in the presence of P.W.10 and L.W's11 and 13, but P.W.10 turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution is failed to prove the Crime Details Form and confession panchanama of the accused. When the parents and grandparents of the deceased turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution, then it is clear that they settled the matter out of the court with accused.

29.As seen from the evidence of P.W's 1 to 14 the P.W's 1 to 4 are only deposed in their chief against the accused, but in cross examination they totally denied the chief examination given by them in this court. The

18 of 20

SC 510/2021

P.W's 5, 6, 8 to 10 are also not supported the prosecution case. The

P.W.13 is a Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, but there is no dispute with regard to the death of deceased, so the evidence of P.W.13 is not at all useful. The P.W.14 is the

Investigating Officer and he investigated the case and filed the charge sheet, but the witness who were examined and whose statements are alleged to be recorded by him are also turned hostile.

30.Therefore, there is no supportive evidence of P.W.4 as per her version, so that as seen from the evidence of P.W's. 1 to 4 they compromised the matter with the accused, so that reason they might have hostiled. So on considering the above said discussion, there is no grounds to prove the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the accused that he abeted the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal, so the point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 of I.P.C. and hence, he is acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The M.O.1 i.e., Cell phone of

OPPO Company shall be returned to it's original owner after expiry of

19 of 20

SC 510/2021

appeal time and if any unmarked property is to be destroyed after appeal period.

Dictated to Stenographer directly on computer on this the 3rd day

of April, 2024.

Sd/­

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE

P.W.1 G.Laxmi.­­­None­­­ P.W.2 M.Mallamma. P.W.3 M.Anjaiah. P.W.4 K.Joshna. P.W.5 S.Rani. P.W.6 G.Komuraiah. P.W.7 K.Sairam. P.W.8 S.Mahesh. P.W.9 S.Babai. P.W.10 G.Mallaiah. P.W.11 M.Davidu. P.W.12 Md. Fasiuddin. P.W.13 Dr. N.Laxmikanth. P.W.14 N.Naresh Reddy.

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Complaint by P.W.1 Ex.P2Photographs seven in number and C.D. by P.W.7. Ex.P3 Signature on confession panchanama dated 06.07.2021 by P.W.11. Ex.P4 First Information Report by P.W.12. Ex.P5Crime Details Form by P.W.12. Ex.P6Inquest panchanama by P.W.12. Ex.P7Requisition dated 26.06.2021 by P.W.13. Ex.P8Post Mortem Examination report by P.W.13 Ex.P9Section Alteration Memo, dated 06.07.2021 by P.W.14.

20 of 20

SC 510/2021

Ex.P10Requisition given to Tahsildhar by P.W.14. Ex.P11Eleven pages Whatsapp screen shots from the M.O.1 cellphone by P.W.14. Ex.P1265­B Certificate, dated 06.07.2021 by P.W.14.

FOR DEFENCE: ­­­Nil­­­

Material Objects M.O.1 Cell phone of OPPO Company.

Sd/­

PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

..

1 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :

AT: KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT.M.ARUNA,

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Friday, this the 15th day of July, 2022

SESSIONS CASE NO.12 of 2021

(On committal made by the Learned IInd Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar vide PRC No.38 of 2020

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Inspector of Police, Karimnagar I Town PS in Cr.No.270 of 2020.

Name of the Accused :A1: Pathangi Bhumaiah S/o Rayamallu, aged 61 years, Chakali, Occ: Watchman of New Heaven Lodge, R/o Vidyanagar, Karimnagar. A2: Dayyala Ravi S/o Mallaiah, aged 46 years, Kurma, R/o H.No. 2-10-709, Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. A3: Jadav Raju S/o Vydhyanath, aged 25 years, Are, R/o H.No. 3-1-360, Indiranagar, Karimnagar.

Charges:U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, against accused No.1 and for the offence U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against accused No.2 and 3.

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “ Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty”

Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, against accused No. 2 and 3, hence they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 2 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. MO.1 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period. Mos.2, 3 and 5 shall return to the owners who are legally entitled, after expiry of appeal time, if not they are confiscated to the state, MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri G. Laxman, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri K. Gopala Krishna, Advocate for accused No.1 and 2, Sri Raju Nunavath, advocate for accused No.3.

This case is coming before me on 13.07.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Laxman, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri K. Gopala Krishna, Advocate for accused No.1 and 2, Sri Raju Nunavath, advocate for accused No.3, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1)The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Karimnagar I Town filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 270 of 2020 for the offence punishable U/Sec.

370 of IPC, Sec.3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 against the accused No.1 to 3.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case as per charge sheet is that on 20.09.2020 at 1430 hours, LW-1/M. Srinivas, SI of Police,

Karimnagar I Town lodged a written complaint with SHO, Karimnagar requesting for necessary legal action stating that he received reliable information that prosecution was running in New Heaven Lodge, at

Mukarampura, Karimnagar. On that information, the LW.1 obtained 3 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 permission from ACP, Karimnagar vide C.No.351/K-T/2020, date 20.09.2020 and proceeded to said lodge along with LWs.4 to 6 and

LW.10 and 11, while searching in the lodge at 1430 hrs, they found

A1 to A3 along with LWs.2 and 3 have been running prostitution by procuring girls from other places for commercial purpose and living on such earnings. The confessional statement of A1 to A3 have been recorded and LW.1 seized Rs.6,000/- and one Jio cell phone from the possession of A1, (3) condoms and one OPPO cell phone from the possession of A2 and (3) condoms and realme cell phone from the possession of A3. Later, LW.1 took the custody of A1 to A3, brought them to police station and requested to take necessary action.

3)Basing on the complaint a case was registered in Cr.No.270 of 2020 under section 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Act against A1 to A3 and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW-12 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1 to 6. Later he issued

Notices U/Sec. 41-A Cr.PC against A1 to A3 to appear before the

Hon’ble Court, whenever their presence is required to face trial in this

case. Thereafter, LW.12 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of LW.8 & 9 and incorporated the details in crime details form. After completion of investigation, the LW.12 has filed charge sheet U/Sec.3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic Act of IPC against the accused No.1 to 3.

4 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

4)The case was taken on file for the offence U/Sec.370 of IPC and

Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, against accused

No.1 and for the offence U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention

Act against accused No.2 and 3 by the learned 2nd Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar vide PRC No.38/2020 and on

appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, the copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C. and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions,

Karimnagar U/sec.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to the Court of Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Karimnagar for disposal according to law.

5)Charges for the offence U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, against accused No.1 and for the offence U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.2 and 3 are framed, and the contents of charges are read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6)In order to establish its case, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Ex. P-1 to P-11 and marked material objects No.1 to 5.

5 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

7)After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C, to answer the incriminating material found against them in the prosecution witnesses for which they denied and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence closed.

8) Heard both sides.

9)Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the case against the accused No.1 for the offence U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act and for the offence U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.2 and 3, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10) The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that A1 doing prostitution with victims/LWs.2 & 3 in the New Heaven

Lodge, Karimnagar allowing by A2 and A3, which occurred on 20.09.2020 at 1400 hrs, at New Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar.

Therefore, the accused No.1 to 3 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic

Prevention Act against accused No.1 and for the offence punishable

U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.2 and 3.

11)On the other hand, the defence counsel argued that PW.1, 2 and 4 are the police officials and PW.3 is the panch witness for 6 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 confession and recovery panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore it is a false case.

Hence requested to acquit the accused No.1 to 3.

12)The main allegations of the prosecution is that on 20.09.2020 at 1400 hrs, at New Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar, A1 doing prostitution with victims/LWs.2 & 3 in the New Heave Lodge, Karimnagar by allowing A2 and A3. Thereby the accused No.1 to 3 charged for the offence punishable U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act against accused No.2 and 3.

13)Inorder to establish the case of the prosecution they examined

LWs.1, 4, 6 to 11 and 12 as PWs.1 to 9 and also marked Exs.P1 to

P11. LW1/PW1 is the complainant, LW6/PW2 is police personnel who assisted the LW.1, LW7/PW3 is owner of Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar,

LW4/PW4 is police personnel who assisted the LW.1, LW8/PW5 and

LW.9/PW.6 are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama, LW.10/PW.7 and LW.11/PW.8 are the panch for confession and recovery panchanama, LW.12/PW.9 is the investigation officer.

14)LW1/PW1 is the complainant deposed that on 20-09-2020 at 1430 hrs when he was in police station he received reliable 7 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 information from unknown persons that there was a prostitution going on at New Heaven Lodge at Mukarampura, Karimnagar. After receiving that information, he obtained permission from ACP,

Karimnagar town vide C.No.351K-T/2020, dated 20-09-2020 the Ex.P1 is the permission letter obtained from ACP, dated 20-09-2020. Latter, he proceeded along with LWs.4 to 6 with the LWs.10 and 11 to the scene of offence and they searched the scene of offence where they found five persons. Out of them three male and two female and they enquired them and on enquiry they reveled that their names as

Pathangi Boomaiah/A1, S/o Rayamallu and Dayyala Ravi/A2, S/o

Mallaia, Jadav Raju/A3, S/o Vidyanath all are resident of Karimnagar and the female names are Banoth Kamala/LW.2 W/o Devender, Bukya

Saritha/LW.3 W/o. Srinivas and further the accused No.1 revealed that he has been running brothel house by procuring women and offered rooms for A2 and A3 for sexual acts to earn money. Latter, he recorded the confession statement of A1 to A3. Ex.P3 is the confession and recovery panchanama and seized Rs.6,000/-. The seized amount is fixed deposited by the II Additional Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, so the fixed deposited bond is marked as

M.O.1 and one Jio cell phone is also seized from the possession of A1 and it is marked as a M.O.2 and Oppo cell phone from the possession of A2 and it is marked as M.O.3 and also seized three condoms which were marked as a M.O.4 and Real me cell phone from the possession 8 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 of A3 and it is marked as M.O.5 in presence of LWs.10 and 11. Latter, he brought the accused along with the seized properties to the police station and also brought the victim to the police station and he lodged complaint on 20-09-2020. Ex.P2 is the complaint, basing on the complaint LW.12 registered a case and police examined and recorded his statement.

15) LW6/PW2 is the police personnel deposed that, the LW1/PW1 informed that there was a prostitution at New Heaven Lodge,

Mukarampura, Karimnagar. Later, he along with LWs. 4 and 5 accompanied with LW.1 to New Heaven Lodge, Mukarampura where they found one person by name Bhoomaiah/A1 was standing out side and they entered into the house and where they found two females by name Kamala and Saritha and two male persons by name Ravi/A2,

Raju/A3 and where they found two panchas in their presence they enquired about the particulars of the above said persons and the A1 stated that the lodge is not running, therefore they are running the prostitution to get the money and later they seized one cell phone and Rs.6000/- from A1 and two cell phones seized from A2 and A3 and also seized two condom packets. Later they brought the above said seized property along with the accused and also victims to the police station and the victims were sent to the Swadar Home. Later,

LW.1 registered a case. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

9 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

16)LW7/PW3 is the house owner to New Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar deposed that he was running lodge for his livelihood and due to some renovation work he was not running the lodge. He do not know anything about his case and the accused No.1 was never worked as watchman to his lodge. Police did not examine him and recorded his statement U/Sec. Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement.

17)LW4/PW4 is the police woman constable who assisted the LW.1/

PW.1 deposed that she was working as a Police constable, at I town

Police Station Karimnagar and on 17-09-2020 at about 2.00 p.m., she was on duty at police station, at the time PW.1 received information that there was prostitution going on at New Heaven Lodge, at

Mukarampura, Karimnagar, then the PW.1 informed to her and also

LW.5, PW.2. Later, herself, PW.2 along with PW.5 accompanied with

PW.1 to New Heave lodge, Mukarampura, Karimnagar and where the

PW.1 secured two panchas the LWs.8 and 9 and they reached at 2.30 p.m., where they searched the lodge and found that one person at outside of the room and two male persons inside of the room and also two female persons and on enquiry by the PW.1 the persons who stands outside of the room said that his name is Pathangi

Bhumaiah/A1 S/o Ramaiah and the persons who were inside of the room by names Dayyala Ravi/A2 and Jadav Raju/A3 and the two female persons by name Banothu Kamala/LW.2 and Bhukya

Saritha/LW.3, but they did not give the rational answers to the PW1.

10 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

Later, the PW1 enquired the A1 on which he reveled that his name is

Pathangi Bumaiah, he is working as a watchman, but the lodge was not running due to some reasons, therefore to gain money easily he is doing prostitution with LW.2 and 3 and later in presence of panch witnesses seized Rs.6000/- and cell phone from A1. Later, PW.1 enquired A2 and A3 then they revealed that A2 and A3 to fulfill their desires they are doing prostitution and later the PW.1 seized two cell phones and two condom packets and after that the PW.1 brought A1 to A3 to the police station.

18)LW.8/PW.5 and LW.9/PW.6 who are the panch witnesses for crime details form deposed that they do not know anything about this case.

Police never called them any place and also not prepared anything in their presence, but police took their signatures on white papers.

Ex.P5 and P6 are the signatures of PW.5 and PW.6 on crime details form respectively.

19)LW.10/PW.7 and LW.11/PW.8 who are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of accused deposed that, they do not know the accused persons and they do not know anything about this case. Police called them to I Town Police Station,

Karimnagar and took their signatures. Ex.P7 and P8 are the three signatures on confession and recovery panchanama, dated 20.09.2020.

11 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

20)LW.12/PW.9 is the investigating officer deposed that on 20.09.2020 at 1700 hrs, he received a complaint from PW.1, basing on that he registered a case in Cr.No. 270/2020 and issued Ex.P9 FIR.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 6. Later he visited scene of offence and prepared Ex.P10 CDF in presence of PW.5 and 6 and als issued 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused No.1 to 3. Later, he seized Rs.6,000/- from A1, one jio cell phone, three condoms, one oppo cell phone from

A2, three condoms and one realme cell phone from A3 which was seized through Ex.P11 confession and recovery panchanama by LW.1.

The seized property was deposited in the Court. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offence U/Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

21)The case of the prosecution is that, on 20.09.2020 at 17.00 hrs, basing on reliable information received by the PW.1 that there was prostitution going on in the New Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar and upon that information, the PW.1 took permission from the ACP, Karimnagar then proceeded to the scene of offence with his staff members i.e.,

LWs.4 to 6 and LWs. 10 and 11, where they found A1 to A3 along with

LWs.2 and 3. The A1 was doing prostitution with LW.2 and 3, then immediately they secured two panchas, basing on the confession of

PW.7 and 8 in their presence the A1 revealed that due to non running of the business by the New Heaven Lodge, Karimnagar, the A1 doing 12 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021 prostitution by procuring woman i.e., LW.2 and 3 with A2 and A3 for their livelihood and they gave accommodation to do prostitution of A2 and 3 with LWs.2 and 3. Therefore, basing on that confession, seized

Rs.6,000/- from A1, one Jio cell phone, three condoms, one oppo cell phone from A2, three condoms and one realme cell phone from A3.

Therefore, the prosecution stated that they proved the prosecution evidence with the cited witnesses who are LW.1 to 12, therefore, the accused committed the offences for the charges against them.

22)To support the above said version, the prosecution cited the witnesses as LW.1 to 12, among them LW.1 is examined as PW.1 who is the SI of police complainant and the evidence of LW.2 and 3 are closed. LW.6 who is the police constable is examined as PW.2. The

LW.7 who is the lodge owner is examined as PW.3. LW.4 who is the woman police constable is examined as PW.4. LW.8 and 9 are the panch witnesses for crime details form are examined as PW.5 and 6.

LW.10 and 11 who are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama are examined as PW.7 and 8 and the LW.12 is examined as PW.9 who is investigation officer and filed charge sheet.

Among the LWs.1 to 12, the prosecution is examined number of witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P11 and also marked material objects No.1 to 4.

13 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

23)PW.1 is the SI of police, who is having interest in this case being the police officer who filed complaint. PW.2 and 4 are the constables from the police station in which PW.1 is also working. But PW.5 and 6 are the independent witnesses and as per the prosecution version in the presence of PW.5 and 6, the PW.1 visited the scene of offence and prepared crime details form in their presence, but as per the evidence of PW.5 and 6 they turned hostile and deposed that police did not prepare anything in their presence and even in cross-examination by the learned APP nothing was elicited. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the scene of offence panchanama which was conducted in the presence of PW.5 and 6.

24)Further, the PW.7 and 8 who are the independent witnesses and as per the prosecution version in the presence of PW.7 and 8, the

PW.1 seized the property and basing on confession made by the A1 to

A3. But as per the evidence of PW.7 and 8, they turned hostile and deposed that no confession made in their presence and no property seized by the PW.1 in their presence. Therefore, as per the prosecution version, the A1 to A3 confessed to have committed the offence and later basing on confession they seized the property in presence of PW.7 and 8, but both the PW.7 and 8 turned hostile even in cross-examination by the learned APP nothing was elicited.

Therefore, the confession and seizure of the property not proved by the prosecution and the victims by name Banoth Kamala and Bhukya 14 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

Saritha were also not examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has examined number of witnesses and out of them the panch witnesses for crime details form and panch witnesses for confession and recovery were turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case and the prosecution has failed to examine the victims i.e., LW.2 and 3 before this Court, therefore their evidences was closed and prosecution has not taken any step to reopen their evidence.

Therefore, the entire evidence of PW.1 to 9 is not supporting the version of the prosecution and the defence counsel also stated that the PW.1, 2 and 4 who are being the officials of the case, who filed charge sheet their evidence only cannot be considered. The investigating officer who is PW.9 stated that while he was working in the police station he received complaint from the PW.1 and later he investigated the case and filed charge sheet, but when the scene of offence panchanam and confession cum recovery panchanama is not proved by the prosecution and when the independent witness i.e.,

PW.5 to 8 are turned hostile, then how this Court can believe that the

A1 to A3 committed the charged offences, therefore the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral

Traffic (Prevention) Act and U/Sec. 370 of IPC.

15 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

25)In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.370 of IPC and Sec. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act against accused No.1 and for the offence punishable U/Sec. 3, 5, 7 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, against accused No.2 and 3, hence they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

MO.1 shall be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period. Mos.2, 3 and 5 shall return to the owners who are legally entitled, after expiry of appeal time, if not they are confiscated to the state, MO.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer and after corrections, pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 15th day of July, 2022.

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1- M. Srinivas -NIL- PW2- N. Raju PW3- G. Girijapathi PW4- B. Latha PW5- N. Kiran Kumar PW6- M. Umar PW7- Ravula Madhu PW8- K. Srinivas PW9- G. Vijaya Kumar 16 of 16 SC.No.12 of 2021

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1Permission letter obtained from ACP, Karimnagar vide C.No. 351K-T/2020, dated 20.09.2020. Ex.P-2Complaint Ex.P-3Confession cum recovery panchanama Ex.P-4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P-5Signature on crime details form by PW.5 Ex.P-6Signature on crime details form by PW.6 Ex.P-7Three Signatures on confession and recovery panchanama,

dated 20.09.2020 by PW.7

Ex.P-8Three Signatures on confession and recovery panchanama,

dated 20.09.2020 by PW.8

Ex.P-9First information report Ex.P-10Crime details form Ex.P-11Confession and recovery panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL--

Material Objects Marked: M.O1: Net cash of Rs.6,000/-, M.O2: Jio Cell phone, M.O3: Oppo Cell phone, M.O4: Condome, M.O5: Realme Cell phone.

PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.