Smt.M.Padmaja

1

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: SMT M.PADMAJA, VII Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District.

DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

Sessions Case .No. 591 OF 2016

1Name of the complainant:The State through PS. Kushaiguda 2Name of accused:A1:Jedpiti Nagabhushan,S/o Sri Ramulu Aged 40 years, Occ: Stone cutter.

A2:Jedpiti Akkamma, W/o Sri Ramulu, Aged 70 years, Occ: Labour.

A3: Jadpiti Sri Ramulu S/o Late Balappa, Aged 80 years, Occ: Labour.

Case against A2 & A3 abated

All A1 to A3 are R/o H.No. 10-1/121, Nehru Nagar, Block-3 3Crime Number: 324/2014 4Offence Under Section: 498-A, 306 IPC 5PRC No.:79 OF 2015 6Plea of the accused:Not guilty 7Finding of court:Acquitted 8Sentence of order :In the result, the accused nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C 9Prosecution conducted by :Addl. Public Prosecutor 10 Defence conducted by:Sri K.Ravi Kanth

This Sessions Case is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri

K.Ravi Kanth, Counsel for Accused 1 to 3 and Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

2

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

1. This case is fled by the Sub Inspector of Police Kushaiguda police station in against accused 1 to 3 in Cr.No. 324/2014 for the offence under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC .

2.Accused 1 to 3 are brought before this court to face trial for the offence under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

3.The case of the prosecution is that: Deceased J.Anasuya is the wife of A1, A2 and A3 are his parents. The marriage of the deceased with A1 was performed about 18 years back. During their wedlock they were blessed with two children. She lodged oral complaint to police stating that from the last few years her husband and inlaws have been harassing her for petty reasons and picking up quarrels. Further they are insisting her to go away from their house, vexed with their attitude on 26.04.2014 at about 8.00 PM she attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene herself and set her ablaze.

4.Basing on her oral statement a case was registered in Cr.No. 324/2014 for the offences under sections 498-A and section 306 of IPC and woman burns case. On 30.04.2014 the complainant/ victim succumbed to injuries. On information about her death, the investigation agency altered section of law to 498-A and section 306 of

IPC. The investigation ofcer examined and recorded the statements of list witnesses 1 to 5, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama and prepared rough sketch. Later he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above said two mediators. He sent the dead body to postmortem examination after conducting inquest in the presence of two mediators.

After receiving PME report on 12.05.2014, he effected the arrest of accused 1 to 3 and produced him before the court for remand and after completion of investigation he fled charge sheet.

5.This case was committed by learned X Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at

Malkajgiri and it was made over to this court. In this case, copies of all case papers 3

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

were furnished to accused 1 & 2 by learned committal court and the same is ensured by this court under section 207 Cr.P.C. On hearing the accused 1 &2, this court framed the charges against them under section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty. As such matter was posted for trial.

6. At the time of trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P10.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused no.1 was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material deposed by prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. After closure of defence evidence, matter was posted for arguments.

8. On closure of trial, heard arguments on both sides.

9.POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under sections 498-A & 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.Before going further into the discussion the provision contained under section 498- A and 306 of IPC have to be taken in to notice briefy:-

Section 498-A of IPC : Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fne. Explanation.

—For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—

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

4

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

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

Section 306 of IPC . Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fne.

11.To prove the above said charges, prosecution adduced the evidence of Pws1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10.

12.PW1 Jadpiti Adi Laxmi is the daughter of the victim and complainant. PW2

Andyala Veera Swamy brother of victim. PW3 G.Srinivasulu is the Judicial ofcer who recorded Dying Declaration of the deceased. PW4 Shaik Iqbal has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW5 B.Jagan Reddy, is Investigation ofcer.

13.Before going further into the discussion the evidence of prosecution witnesses reiterated briefy for the sake of better appreciation.

14.PW1 Adhi Laxmi did not support the prosecution case. She clearly deposed that she does not know any thing about this case.

15.PW2 A.Veera Swamy father of the deceased deposed that his daughter

Anasuya had committed suicide by consuming toddy when her mother in law quarreled with her. He further deposed that previously deceased Anasuya was also tried to commit suicide as she was suffering from mental illness.

16.PW3 G.Srinivasulu, is Retired District Judge the then 17th ACMM Nampally,

Hyderabad. He deposed that when he questioned the declarant regarding the burn injuries, she replied that on the last night at 8.00 PM she lit the oven to prepare food stuff and her saree scarf caught fre and sustained burn injuries. He further deposed 5

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

that when he asked about her relationship with her husband she revealed that he used to support his parents and in that process when Pw3 questioned what happened on the last night, “victim replied that her father in law Sri Ramulu picked up quarrel with her as she attended to cooli works. As and when she remained at home without going to cooli work her father in law used to quarrel with her. So much so by her mother in law and her husband supports them. After picking up quarrel, the declarant was kept in side the house and closed the door and bolted from out side she set ablaze. After sustaining injuries she put off fames by herself by pouring kerosene.

Then she was brought to Gandhi hospital. She further replied that none were assulted her. She further stated that her inlaw and her husband used to abuse her and since it became unbearable she committed suicide”. During cross examination no useful material was elicited by defence to dis credit his evidence.

17.PW4 Shaik Iqubal deposed that on the instructions of SI of police, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P5.

18.PW5 B.Jagan Reddy is Investigation Ofcer. He deposed that on 27.04.2014 he received CD fle from LW12K.Raghu Babu, examined and recorded the statement of

Lw1 / Victim/deceased. He further stated that he visited scene of offence, conducting scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in the presence of Lw6/L.Raju and

Lw7/B.Ganesh, drafted rough sketch and later recording the statements of

LW4/P.Swamy and LW5/ C.Ilamma. On 12.05.2014 he apprehended the Accused 1 to 3 and effected their arrest. Later he produced them before the court for remand. After completion of investigation, he fled charge sheet.

19.During the cross examination, he deposed that there is a delay of 9 days in recording Ex.P9 statement.

20.As seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the material available in this case. The prosecution case is that A1 to A3 being the husband and inlaws of the deceased (J.Anasuya) subjected her to both physical and mental torture, made 6

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

her life ruin and abetted her to commit suicide. Pws 1 and 2 are the daughter and father of the deceased did not depose any incriminating material about the involvement of the accused in harassment and abetment to commit suicide by deceased. The evidence of Pw2 shows that earlier also the deceased had attempted to commit suicide due to mental illness. Though he was cross examined by the prosecution, the prosecution did not deny the mental illness of the deceased which gives support to the version of PW2 about the mental illness of the deceased. PW2 is no other than father of the deceased. He will not have any reason to depose false hood. He denied for the suggestion that he compromised the matter and deposed false. PW3 Sri G.Srinivasulu the then District Judge, gave some incriminating material about the involvement of the accused. As per the dying declaration given by the deceased, it refects her state of mind. At one stage she deposed that when she lit the oven to prepare food stuff her saree was scarf caught fre and sustained burn injuries. Later she gave different version that her father in law picked up quarrel with her as she attended to cooli works. As and when she remained at home without going to cooli work her father in law used to quarrel with her. Her mother in law and her husband supports him. She further gave inconsistent statement from complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement that she was kept inside the house by accused and closed the door and bolted from out side. If she was bolted from out side who brought her from that room and who shifted to Gandhi Hospital was not elicited in Dying Declaration.

She further replied to a question that no one had assaulted her which all shows that her state of mind is not stable. Further her version was not supported by any of witnesses except investigation ofcer. Generally the court can convict the accused solely depending upon the dying declaration of the victim if it inspires the confdence of the court. In this case she had given different version in her dying declaration adding to that her own father / Pw2 categorically stated that she had been suffering from mental illness. Further there is a delay of nine days in recording her statement.

21.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the statement allegedly recorded by police was not signed by the concerned police ofcer who recorded it. He 7

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

further argued that the said statement is fabricated by police for statistical purpose and it cannot be relied upon. As seen from the evidence of father of the victim and contradictory version of victim woman in her complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement and dying declaration. The absence of signature of the so called police ofcer gives doubt about the veracity of prosecution case. In the above considered circumstances her dying declaration not inspiring the confdence of this court and the court cannot act upon it without any corroborating evidence. In view of my above discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

22. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 498-A and 306 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months u/s 437 A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed and typed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of June, 2020.

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1: Jadpiti Adi Laxmi

PW2: Andyala Veera Swamy

PW3: G.Srinivasulun

PW4: Shaik Iqbal

PW5: B.Jagan Reddy

FOR DEFENCENIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 is requisition 8

SC.No. 591 of 2016

FAIR COPY

Ex.P4 is Dying Declaration

EX.P5 is inquest

Ex.P6: is 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW1(J.Anasuya)

Ex.P7: is Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P8: is rough sketch

EX.P9 is complaint

Ex.P10: is FIR.

FOR DEFENCE NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Fair copied by me compared with draft Judgment.

1

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: SMT M.PADMAJA, VII Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District.

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2020.

Sessions Case .No. 866 OF 2016

1Name of the complainant:The State through PS. Chandanagar 2Name of accused:Sandha Ganesh S/o Hari Aged 24 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No. 12-62, Beeramguda (V), Patencheru of Medak District.

3Crime Number: 284/2016 4Offence Under Section: 366 IPC 5PRC No.: 20 OF 2016 6Plea of the accused:Not guilty 7Finding of court:Acquitted 8Sentence of order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 366 of IPC and the accused is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C 9Prosecution conducted by :Addl. Public Prosecutor 10 Defence conducted by:Sri G.V.Vasanth Rao

This Sessions Case is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri

G.V.Vasanth Rao , Counsel for Accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. This case is fled by the Inspector of PoliceChandanagar PS against accused for the offence under section 366 of Indian Penal Code (hereafter call it as IPC ).

2.Accused is brought before this court to face trial for the offence under section 366 of IPC.

3.The case of the prosecution is that : On 24.04.2016 at about 8.30 AM minor victim girl (Pw3) left her house on the pretext of attending the betrothal ceremony of 2

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

her friend and married accused. On the same day during night hours, complainant / father came to know about her marriage and hence he lodged the complaint. Basing on his complaint a case was registered in Cr.No. 152/2016 for the offence under section 363 of IPC.

4.During the course of investigation, the investigation ofcer examined the list witnesses, recorded their statements and visited scene of offence. He had sent the victim girl to shelter home and served notice on accused under section 41 A Cr.P.C, when the accused had absconded and failed to comply the terms of notice, investigation ofcer effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the court for remand. During their enquiry the accused confessed the offence. After completion of investigation he fled charge sheet.

5. This case was committed by learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate Miyapur,

Kukatpally, R.R.District and it was made over to this court. In this case, copies of all case papers were furnished to accused by learned committal court and the same is ensured by this court under section 207 Cr.P.C. On hearing the accused , this court framed the charges against the accused under section 366of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them, for which he pleaded not guilty. As such matter was posted for trial.

6. At the time of trial, prosecution examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P8.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/s 313

Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material deposed by prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. After closure of defence evidence, matter was posted for arguments.

8. On closure of trial, heard arguments on both sides.

9.POINT FOR CONSIDERATION: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt 3

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

of accused for the offence punishable under section 366 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT

10.Before going further into the discussion the provision contained under section 366 of IPC has to be taken in to notice:-

Section 366 of IPC : Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage , etc.—Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fne; and whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defned in this Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid.

11.In order to punish the accused for the offence under section 366 of IPC the prosecution must prove the following essential ingredients (i) that accused kidnapped or abducted the victim girl who is a minor.

(ii) he must have knowledge or intention to compel the victim to marry any person against her will or having knowledge that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

12.To prove the charge, prosecution adduced evidence of Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8. All the material witnesses except the investigating ofcer turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

4

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

13.The gist of the prosecution case is that accused had induced the minor daughter of complainant and made her to come with him and kidnapped her and married her.

14.The facts of the case does not fall under the provisions of section 366 of IPC.

The essential ingredients to constitute the offence under section 366 of IPC is that he would have knowledge or intention to compel the victim girl by a third person to marry or she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. In this case, the allegation is that accused had kidnapped the minor victim girl from the lawful guardianship of her father and married her. The appropriate charge is Section 366 of

IPC. Prosecution in order bring the guilt of accused had examined Pws 1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to P8.

15.Before going further into the discussion, the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reiterated as follows:-

16.PW1 M.Kumar Yadav and PW2 M.Bharathi are the parents of victim girl. Pw1 is the complainant. Both the witnesses deposed that their daughter Aparna(Victim girl) went to attend the engagement function of her friend, and later they came to know through Chandanagar PS that she marred the accused without their consent. Hence he lodged complaint. During cross examination both these witnesses clearly deposed that the victim girl was aged above 18 years as on the date of her marriage.

17.PW3 Aparna is victim girl. She completely resiled from her earlier version. She gave inconsistent version from that of her 161 Cr.P.C Statement. In chief examination she deposed that as on the date of her marriage she was 17 years old, where as in the cross examination she stated that she was aged about 18 years.

18.PW4 is the investigating ofcer. He deposed about the receiving of complaint from PW1, registration of case in Cr.No. 152/2016 issuing of EX.P5 FIR, visiting scene of offence, etc. During the course of investigation he obtained bonafde certifcate of victim marriage photographs and CD of victim, produced the victim before the court, 5

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

for recording 164 Cr.PC Statement and arrest of accused etc. later he altered section of law to 366 of IPC and fled charge sheet.

19.Pws 1 & 2 are material witnesses. They both gave self contradictory version from their complaint and 161 Cr.P.C statement. They clearly deposed that as their daughter married the accused against their wish and consent, they lodged complaint.

During cross examination they deposed that the victim girl was not minor as on the date of her marriage. However, prosecution produced bonafde certifcate but for the reasons better known to the prosecution they did not opt to get it marked. During cross examination of Pws 1 and 2 they stated that the contents of bonafde certifcate are not genuine. When the parents of victim girl stated that the contents of bonafde certifcate are not genuine, it is for the prosecution to prove it as true by examining the authority of said document.

20.As seen from the prosecution case they did not establish the essential ingredients to attract the offence u/s 363 or 366 of IPC. They did not fle date of birth certifcate or birth certifcate of victim to know whether she was minor or not by the date of her marriage, which is a key ingredients to attract the above charges. Further all the material witnesses categorically deposed that as the victim got marriage without their consent, they lodged this report out of anger. Victim girl never deposed that she was forced / induced by accused in going with him. During cross examination they clearly deposed that victim was major by the date of the alleged incident and hence the act of their elopement and marriage does not constitute any offence and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges.

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 366 or 363 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months u/s 437 A Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of June, 2020.

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

6

SC.No. 866 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1: M.Kumar Yadav

PW2: M.Bharathi

PW3: M.Aparna

PW4: M.Venu Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

EX.P1: Complaint

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3

Ex.P5: Fir

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C Statement

EX.P7: Section alteration memo

Ex.P8: Bonafde Certifcate.

FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Fair copied by me compared with draft Judgment.

1

SC.No. 74 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

Present: Smt M.PADMAJA, VII Addl.Assistant Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District.

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE , 2020.

Sessions Case .No. 74 OF 2016

1Name of the complainant: R.Nagarjuna Reddy. 2Name of accused: A1: G.Laxminarayana S/o Late G.Rajaiah, Aged 83 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3-39, Main Road, Uppal, Hyderabad. And Also his business situated atH.no. 2-3-48/1/A, Main Road Uppal, Hyderabad, R.R. District.

A2:G.SrinivasS/o G.Laxminarayana Aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.no. 2-3-48/1/ A, Main Road Uppal, Hyderabad, R.R. District. 3Offence Under Section: 307, 347, 409, 420 of IPC R/w. 120

(b) of IPC 4PRC No.: 36 OF 2015 5Plea of the accused: Not guilty 6Finding of court: Acquitted 7Sentence of order : In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence under section 307, 347, 409, 420 of IPC R/w. 120 (b) of IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C 8Prosecution conducted by : Addl. Public Prosecutor 9Defence conducted by: Sri Venugopal Reddy

This Sessions Case is coming before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri

Sri Venugopal Reddy, Counsel for Accused and Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and upon perusal of the material papers on record having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. Accused 1 &2 are brought before this court to face trial for the offence under sections 307, 347, 409, 420 of IPC R/w. 120 (b) of IPC .

3.The case of the prosecution is: Complainant repeatedly approached him and his 2

SC.No. 74 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

partners informing that they are having land properties to give it for development.

The said land situated in Sy.No. 129, 104 and 108 total admeasuring Ac 4-19 gts at

Uppal village and mandal, Uppal. Upon the repeated requests of A2, the complainant along with his partners proceeded to A2 and introduced his father i.e., A1 to the complainant and his partners and took them to the above said land. On the same day they returned back to their ofce situated at Sri Krishna Chitra Mandir Main Road,

Uppal, R.R.District and inturn consequent to their discussion they entered into an understanding dated 02.12.2014 in which A1 executed for the development of the said land, both accused forced this complainant to pay an advance and accordingly they paid an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- on the same day and on the terms of understanding and the remaining amount of Rs. 91,00,000/- has to be paid to the accused on the date of entering into the memorandum of understanding wherein the accused accepted to show the original documents along with link documents of land on 16.12.2014 i.e., the proposed date of memorandum of understanding.

Complainant further alleged that as per the terms they entered into Memorandum of understanding, on 16.12.2014 they paid an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by way of cash and cheque and the accused had issued receipt for the same. As per the terms and conditions of memorandum of understanding, the complainant and his partners have to obtain for the high rise building permission and after that they enter into development agreement with accused. When the complainant questioned about the original documents accused replied that the said originals are in the locker and asked him to come back on the next day i.e., on 17.12.2014. When they approached him, one or other pretext the accused dodged the matter and failed to show the original documents. Finally on 09.07.2015 the accused invited the complainant to collect the original documents which are required for obtaining permission for raising building .

Believing him the complainant went to the residence of accused by that time wife of the accused and his younger son were quarreling with each other. When he insisted the son of the complainant for original documents, he disclosed that the proposed property is in dispute among the family members and is not at fnaliied. He further came to know that OS.No.1445/2012 and OS.no.595/2015 are pending against this 3

SC.No. 74 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

accused regarding the subject land. When the complainant consulted ythe accused number of times even for cancellation of MOU and for return of amounts but the accused did not respond. Finally on 12.07.2015 the accused approached him at his residence along with his partner and he came to know that the properties covered under MOU are joint family properties and some suits are also pending against those properties and requested the accused to return the amount. But he roared with a loud voice and shouted that come after a week and take back the amount. Inspite of repeated requests, as there was no response from accused fnally on 09.08.2015 the complainant along with his partners and elders namely 1) S.Janga Reddy 2) K.Ranga

Reddy 3) P.Bhavani Shankar went to the accused no. 1and 2 at their ofce and on seeing the complainant immediately accused called his men from out side and some henchmen of the accused came there with deadly weapons like iron rods and swords and they have driven them out from their house and threatened him with dire consequences and accused also slapped the complainant and threaten him that they will not return the amount and do what ever he want. He further threatned the complainant that he will initiate criminal case infuencing the police and illegally detained the complainant in the ofce of accused from 11.00 am to 11.30 PM. After intervention of the above said elders, the complainant was set free from their illegal detention. Further accused threatened with dire consequences that they will kill the complainant and hence the complainant rushed to the police station and lodged report.

4.As there was no action, he fled private complaint before III Metropolitan

Magistrate at LB Nagar, the court examined the complainant and taken cogniiance

since the offence is triable by the court of sessions the case is committed to this court.

5.This case was committed by III Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at LB Nagar and it was made over to this court. On hearing the accused on 30.11.2018 this court framed the charges against the accused 1 & 2 under section 307, 347, 409, 420 of

IPC R/w. 120 (b) of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them for which they denied. As such matter was posted for trial, and from that day onwards the case 4

SC.No. 74 OF 2016

FAIR COPY

is coming for trial. Inspite of number of adjournments and number of conditional orders there was no representation from the complainant and fnally their evidence was closed. Since there is no evidence from the complainant side the examination of the accused was dispensed under section 313 Cr.P.C.

6.The complainant case is that the accused had cheated the complainant and his partners on the pretext of giving lands for development and entered into MOU, and when they insisted for original documents accused attempted to commit murder illegally detained him with conspiracy. Since there is no evidence adduced by complainant to support his case this court cannot fnd the accused guilty. In view of the above said discussion prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for acquittal.

7. In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 307, 347, 409, 420 of IPC R/w. 120 (b) of IPC and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to stenographer, typed and transcribed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08th day of June, 2020.

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

NIL

VII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Fair copied by me compared with draft Judgment.

1

OS. No. 1324 of 2018

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. M.PADMAJA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2020

OS.No.1324 of 2018

Between:

Gopu Raja Venkat S/o Late Gopu Galaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, R/o Flat no. 1404. B-Block, Green Grace Apartments, Beside Oakridge international school, Khazaguda, Nanakramguda, Road, Hyderabad.

….Plaintif AND

1. M.V.S.M.Sarma S/o Late M.N.Sitarama Rao, Aged 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 12A, Saptasikhara Resorts Ltd., Gandipet, R.R.District.

2. K.Surya Rao S/o K.Venkata Subba Rao, Aged 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o Plot No. 12A, Saptasikhara Resorts Ltd., Gandipet, R.R.District.

….Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri

D.Venkat Reddy, counsel for plaintif and defendants remained exparte and on hearing the arguments of plaintif and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This is the suit fled by the plaintif for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from causing interference into the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

2.The case of the plaintif is that according to the plaintif he is the absolute owner and possess of of open plot no. 246 in sy.no. 245 & 246 admeasuring 2

OS. No. 1324 of 2018

FAIR COPY

1200 sq.yds situated at Manchirevula Village, Rajendranagar Mandal having purchased the same from original owner and possessor by way of registered sale deed dated 27.04.2017 doc.no. 2304/2017 and since then he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment.

3.The plaintif further submitted that after purchasing the said property, he had constructed a room with asbestos sheets and Gram Panchayath assigned

H.No. 5-106/246 and the plaintif is paying the property tax regularly. The plot was also registered by the plaintif before the Hyderabad Metropolitan

Development Authority vide proceedings No. HMDAL126704/Lrs/SKP/Plg/

HMDA.2015-2016 dated 16.04.2017.

4.The plaintif further submitted that originally the land in sy.no. 245 and 246 admeasuring Ac 3-09 gts belongs to one P.Narsimha Reddy @ Narsa Reddy, he executed an agreement of sale cum GPA doc.No. 1919/2000 dated 06.05.2000 in favour of one K.P.V.Subbaiah and the said K.P.V.Subbaiah divided the same into plots and the plot no. 246 was sold to Lokam Venkateshwar Rao and Smt Billa Saritha vide doc.no. 1250/2002 dated 06.03.2002. The said Lokam

Venkateshwar Rao and Smt Billa Saritha sold the same to M.Chakradhar under registered sale deed vide doc.no. 7286/2006 dated 16.05.2006. Later the said

M.Chakradhar sold the said property to K.P.V.Subbaiah through a registered agreement of sale cum GPA dated 23.10.2009 and on behalf of Chakradhar his

AGPA holder K.P.V.Subbaiah sold the plot to plaintiffs vendor vide doc.no.

2304/17 dated 27.04.2017.

5.These documents are fled to prove the original title and consequential transfer. The plaintif submitted that he made an application before HDFC bank 3

OS. No. 1324 of 2018

FAIR COPY

for sanction of loan and on verifcation of the documents, the bank authorities approved a plot purchase loan for an amount of Rs. 36,00,000/-.

6.The plaintif submitted that the defendant who has no right title or interest is trying to interfere and obstruct the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property and more particularly on 27.06.2018 and also on 05.07.2018 at about 10.30 am. But the plaintif could resist the force but still apprehending that the defendants may connect their threat into action. Hence the suit.

7.Summons were sent to D1 & D2 but they could not be served and hence the plaintif took permission of the court and published the notice by way of publication in a widely circulated newspaper Sakshi local edition. But the defendants failed to appear and hence they remaned exparte.

6.The plaintif is examined as PW1 and Ex. A1 to A15 are marked.

7.Heard the arguments submitted by the plaintifs.

8.Now, the points that arise for determination are:

Whether the plaintif is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

9.Point

I have closely perused the documents, they are plaintif title deeds and link documents. Plaintif also fled the building permission and also the permission obtained from HMDA. To prove that the house was assessed to tax, the plaintif fled Ex.A4 to A15 tax receipts. In a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintif has to prove his prima facie title and possession on the date of fling of the plaint. The documents fled by the plaintif are not challenged and they amply established the plaintiffs prima facie title and possession of the plaintif 4

OS. No. 1324 of 2018

FAIR COPY

over the suit schedule property on the date of fling of the suit. Hence the court is of the considered opinion that the plaintif is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from causing interference into lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintif over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed and transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of June, 2020.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

PW1: G.Raja Venkat

FOR DEFENDANT: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

EX.A1: CC of registered sale deed doc.no. 2304/17 dated 27.04.2017

EX.A2: CC of AGPA doc.no. 2595/2009 dated 23.10.2009

Ex.A3: CC of registered sale deed doc.no. 7286/06 dated 16.05.06

Ex.A4: CC of AGPA doc.no. 1919/2000 dated 08.05.2000

Ex.A5: CC of registered sale deed doc.no. 1250/2002 dated 08.03.2002

EX.A6: Copy of complaint given to PS Narsingi dated 27.06.2018

Ex.A7: Original application for approval of residential building before HMDA vide fle NO. 013981/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA/23072018 dated 30.10.2018

EX.A8: original approval building permission by HMDA in application no. 013981/SKP/R1/U6/HMDA /23072018 dated 05.11.2018

EX.A9: Original letter addressed to vice chairman & Managing Direcotr to HMWS & SB by HMDA dated 05.113.2018 5

OS. No. 1324 of 2018

FAIR COPY

EX.A10: Original letter addressed to chairman & MD. To Central power distribution company by HMDA ated 17.11.2018

EX.A11: approval house plan by HMDA

Ex.A12: original receipt and charges paid to HMDA dated 08.10.2018

Ex.A13: original home loan agreement by HDFC bank dated 11.05.2017

Ex.A14: original property tax receipts (2 nos) dated 30.09.2019

EX.A15: original property tax demand bill (3 nos) dated 16.09.2019

FOR DEFENDANTS: NIL

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

Fair copied by me compared with draft Judgment.

1

O.S. No. 1466 of 2019

FAIR COPY

IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SMT. M.PADMAJA

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE, 2020

O.S. No. 1466 OF 2019

Between:

1. S.Venkata Jaya Sameera, W/o Late S.Raghu Ram, Aged 32 years, Occ: House wife.

2. S.Ikshvak S/o Late S. Raghu Ram, Aged 06 years, Occ: Student, Rep by his mother i.e., plaintif no.1.

3. S.Vijayalaxmi W/o Late S.V.K.Murthy, M/o Late S.Raghu Ram, Aged 59 years, Occ: House wife.

All are R/o H.No. 1-104/8, Plot no. 19/A, Opp. Pochamma Temple, Aravind Nagar, Nagaram, Medchal Malkajgiri District. ….Plaintifs. AND

1. The Tahsildar, Keesara – Mandal, Medchal – Malkajigiri District.

2. All concerned. ….Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri

Y.Bhaskar, Advocate for the plaintifs and defendant No.1 and 2 remained exparte and on hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is the suit fled by the plaintifs for declaration that the plaintifs are the legal heirs of deceased S.Raghu Ram who died on 01.09.2017.

2.Case of the plaintifs:

The plaintif no.1 is the wife, plaintif no.2 is the son and plaintif no.3 (mother of deceased) are the legal heirs of S.Raghu Ram, who died on 01.09.2017 leaving behind the plaintifs as his legal heirs. During his life time 2

O.S. No. 1466 of 2019

FAIR COPY

he acquired suit schedule property properties under a registered sale deed doc.no. 1503/2007 dated 03.12.2007. After his death the plaintifs became absolute owners and possessors of schedule property left by deceased. On 14.08.2018 plaintifs approached the 1st defendant and obtained family members certifcate through Meeseva, but the authorities refused to issue legal heir certifcate and advised them to approach the civil court for legal heir certifcate. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant No.1 (MRO) remained exparte. Publication is fled in respect of the defendant No.2 (All concerned) and no objections are fled to this suit from anybody.

4.The plaintif No.1 got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.

5.Heard the arguments submitted by the Counsel for the plaintifs.

6.Now, the points that arise for determination are:

1) Whether the plaintifs are to be declared as legal heirs of late S.Raghu Ram?

2) To what relief.

7.Point No.1 :

The plaintifs fled chief examination afdavit of PW1 by reiterating the plaint pleadings. They fled Ex.A1 to A5 to prove that they are the legal heirs of deceased S.Raghu Ram, who died on 01.09.2017 leaving behind them as his legal heirs. During his life time he purchased suit schedule property under

EX.A1. Except the plaintifs there are no other legal heir to succeed the suit property left by S.Raghu Ram. Though plaintifs approached 1st defendant for issuance of legal heir certifcate, but the said authorities refused and stated that they are not having any authority to issue legal heir certifcate.

3

O.S. No. 1466 of 2019

FAIR COPY

From the un-rebutted testimony of PW1 the plaint allegations are proved and it is held that the plaintifs are the legal heirs of late S.Raghu Ram. The declaration cannot be granted against all concerned and the plaintifs cannot ask for declaratory decree against “All concerned”. Sec.34 of the Specifc Relief

Act deals with declaratory decree. Sec.34 of the Specifc Relief Act says that:

“Discretion of Court as to declaration of status of right:- Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny, his title to such character or right, and the

Court may in its discretion make therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintif need not in such suit ask for any further relief”.

In view of the above provision, the plaintifs cannot ask for declaration against “All concerned”. In view of above all reasons the plaintifs are entitled for declaration that the plaintifs are the legal heirs of the deceased S.Raghu

Ram. This court did not examine the validity of title of plaintifs in this case because there is no denial of title under section 34 of Specifc Relief Act. Hence to this extent the suit relief for declaration cannot be granted. Hence point No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintifs and against defendants.

8.POINT NO.2: In view of my fndings on point No.1, the suit is to be decreed.

9.In the result, the suit isdecreed against the defendant No.1 and it is hereby declared that the plaintifs are the legal heirs of S.Raghu Ram. The suit against defendant No.2 (all concerned) is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of JUNE, 2020.

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

4

O.S. No. 1466 of 2019

FAIR COPY

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

PW1: S.Venkata Jaya Sameera

FOR DEFENDANTS: Exparte

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1: Certifed copy of registered sale deed doc.no. 1503/2007 dated 03.12.2007

Ex.A2: Original Aadhar card of plaintif S.Venkata Jaya Sameera, S.Ikshvak (minor) and S.Vijayalaxmi ( mother of the deceased).

Ex.A3: Market value certifcate

Ex.A4: Electricity bill.

EX.A5: original death certifcate of S.Raghu Ram

FOR DEFENDANTS:Nil

VII ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Fair copied by me compared with draft Judgment.