Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana

V Addl District Judge

Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana, V Addl District Judge, is posted at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 105 court orders on record since 2009. 9 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, OP, AS cases.

105

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

SC/133/2007 Acquitted

Keesara P.S. vs Mallarapu Venkatesh

05 Aug 2010

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT): RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Present : Sri. M.R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FAC), R. R. District

Monday, on this the 3rd day of October, 2011

Sessions Case No. 133of 2007

Between :

The State of A.P., through P.S. Keesara,.. Complainant

And

A1. Mallarapu Venkatesh, s/o. Pochaiah, aged 26 years, occ: Agriculture, A2. Mallarapu Pochaiah, s/o.Venkata Swamy, aged 55 yrs, occ: Agriculture, A3. Mallarapu Manemma, w/o. Pochaiah, aged 45 years, occ: Housewife, All the above are r/o. Cheeryal village, Keesara mandal.

..Accused No.1 to 3

This Sessions Case is coming before me on 3.10.2011 in the presence of Sri K.Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri.

Kishan. V.V., Counsel for Accused and now this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1. The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Malkajgiri Division,

Cyberabad, filed chargesheet against the above accused for the offences committed by the later under section 304B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :

On 4.2.2006 at 8.45 pm a written complaint was lodged by PW1 stating that his daughter Sunitha was married to A1 on 11.2.2005 with a dowry of Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only), that after two months of her marriage the accused party sent back his daughter to his house for bringing additional dowry, that the complainant talked with the accused, that 2 they demanded Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) additional dowry, that he promised to arrange the same by ensuing Deepavali festival and left his daughter in the house of the accused, that at the time of Deepavali festival he gave Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only), that all the accused refused the said amount. Thereafter he again took his daughter to the house of the accused and left there, that since then all the accused increased their harassment further which was used to be informed by his daughter, that inspite of his assurance the additional dowry amount would be given, the accused did not relent. On 4.2.2006 all the accused killed his daughter. On the basis of the above complaint a case in Crime No.30 of 2006 for the offence under Section 304B IPC was registered by PW7 and took up investigation. Subsequently investigation was taken up by PW9 and PW11 and also by LW16 Asst. Commissioner of Police, Saroornagar Division.

3.During the course of investigation the statements of necessary witnesses were recorded, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted, that the dead body was referred for post mortem examination.

As per the post mortem examination the cause of death of the deceased was due to poisoning was not ruled out. It came to light that on 3.2.2006 the deceased was taken to the hospital because of her illhealth, that again on 4.2.2006 she was taken to Raghavendra Hospital, Kushaiguda where she was declared dead by PW5. It is further stated in the charge sheet there is every reason to believe that the deceased consumed some unknown poison being unable to bear the harassment by A1 to A3 for additional dowry and that there is no other compelling reason or circumstance for the deceased to die in a tragic manner. After the charge sheet is filed, the same was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy

District by the Xth Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri. After registering 3 the charge sheet as Sessions Case the same is made over to this court for trial and disposal.

4.After the accused are present before the court and upon hearing their counsel charges under Sections 498A and 304B IPC are framed. The accused denied the offences alleged. At the trial the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. PW1 is the defactocomplainant and father of the deceased. PW2 is maternal uncle of the deceased and circumstantial witness. PW3 and PW4 are also other circumstantial witnesses. PW5 is the

Doctor who treated the deceased and declared the deceased died. PW6 is mediator for inquest. PW10 is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Keesara mandal that conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW8 is the

Asst. Professor, Gandhi Medical College that conducted the post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. PW7 is the Investigating

Officer that registered the FIR. PW9 is the Asst. Commissioner of Police that arrested the accused. PW11 is the next Asst. Commissioner of Police that conducted the most of the investigation and filed chargesheet. The prosecution has also marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of accused Exs.D1 to

D3 are marked.

5. On completion of trial the accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

6.They denied evidence against them and stated that they have no defence evidence.

7.Point for determination is whether the Prosecution has

established the guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 498A &

304B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt :

8.PW1 in his chief examination stated that he agreed to give

Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only) towards 4 dowry, that at the time of marriage he gave Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), that he agreed to give balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) at the time of ensuing Deepavali festival, that when he offered an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) on the said festival day A1 refused to receive said amount on the other hand demanded to give

Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), that when he could not meet the said demand, A1 left his house leaving amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) offered and took away the deceased along with him, that thereafter he and others went to the house of the accused with the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) and requested A1 to A3 to take the amount, that all the three did not talk with him and did not accept to receive the said amount. The witness further stated when his wife went to the houe of the accused on the occasion of Pongal festival the accused refused to send his daughter, that the attempt made by his son to bring the deceased for the said festival did not yield any result, that his daughter used to inform over telephone that she is being harassed by the accused for additional dowry, that on 3.2.2006 she informed about the harassment, that on 4.2.2006 A1 informed him that the deceased suffered from fever, that she was taken to

Raghavendra Hospital in Kushaiguda, that the Doctor informed him the deceased was brought dead to the hospital. In the cross examination the witness stated that he has not stated to the police that he gave Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only) towards dowry at the time of marriage itself marked as Ex.D1.

9. PW2 in his evidence deposed he was present at the time of marriage talks, that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three laksh only) was agreed to be given as dowry, that while taking the bride after marriage to their house, accused raised dispute that sufficient dowry was not given, 5 that he and others stated they will think of giving additional dowry at the time of Deepavali festival, that the deceased informed him by phone that all the accused are beating and harassing her, demanding her to bring dowry, that he, PW1, wife of PW1and others went to the house of the accused with the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) and when the said amount was offered to A2 he threw away on the ground stating that they demanded Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only) but not Rs.1,,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only). After the above incident the deceased informed him by phone that when she wants to celebrate 1st marriage day the accused beat her and harassed that without giving dowry how she wants to celebrate the marriage day. In the cross examination the witness stated that at the time of betrothal function Rs.50,000/ (rupees fifty thousand only) was given and later the balance amount Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only) was given for house hold articles, etc.

10.PW3 in his evidence stated that Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only) was paid at the time of marriage as dowry and Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) was agreed to be given at the time of Deepavali festival, that the deceased informed by phone to her parents that she is being beaten and abused for Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), that thereafter he along with PW1 and others went to the house of the accused and convinced accused to give Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only) at the time of

Deepavali festival, that PW1 gave Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) to the accused during the Deepavali festival stating that balance amount will be given later, that, however, he was not present in the village on the festival day, he was told that accused did not accept to receive the amount. In the cross examination the witness admitted that he did not state in his statement to the police as in Ex.D2 i.e. the parents of the deceased agreed and gave 6

Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only) to the accused.

11. PW4 in her evidence stated that she is neighbour to the accused, that the deceased died in hospital, that she has taken for treatment of stomach pain. PW5 in his evidence deposed that the deceased was brought to the hospital on 4.2.2006 at about 10.00 am in a very serious condition with high fever, jaundice and anaemia, that the deceased was gasping, that her B.P. was very low, that while undergoing treatment she died at about 11.45 am, that the deceased died due to cardio pulmonary arrest, he issued

Ex.P2 medical record and Ex.P3 medical certificate. In the cross examination the witness stated that he do not know the cause for the cardio pulmonary arrest in this case. PW6 in his evidence deposed that during the time of inquest he was present, that he found bleeding from the nose of the deceased, that he found a blakish red colour mark around the neck of the deceased, that he signed on the Ex.P4 Inquest conducted by Mandal Revenue

Officer. In the cross examination the witness denied that he did not find any contusion over the neck of the deceased.

12.PW7 in his evidence deposed that on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 he registered the same as Crime No.30/2006 under Section 304B

IPC and issued Ex.P5 FIR. He also recorded the statement of PW1. In the cross examination the witness stated that PW1 stated that he agreed to pay

Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only) as dowry as in Ex.D1, that PW1 further stated that he agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) to A1 on Deepavali festival day, that A1 refused to receive the said amount and on the other hand demanded Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only). PW8 in his evidence deposed at the time of post mortem examination he found one abrasion Abrasion on Left Cheek of ½ X ½ cm. in 7

size, another abrasion on lower lip about ½ X ½ cm. in size, another

abrasion on back of chest about 11 cm. X ½ cm.fff on right side, one more

abrasion on back and right side of the abdomen about 1 cm. X ½ cm.,

multiple contusion of neck structure, hyoid and thyroid intact, he sent the viscera to FSL, that the chemical analysis report is negative. All the internal organs showed congestion, suggestive of Hypoxia. Due to insufficient clinical history and post mortem finding no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given and possibility of death from an unknown poison can not be ruled out unless and otherwise proved contrary. Ex.P6 is Post

Mortem report. Ex.P7 is the opinion of Forensic Doctor. In the cross examination the witness stated that the possibility of death from unknown poison can not be ruled out is imaginary. If a person was suffering from jaundice for over a long time and no proper medical treatment was given there will be possibility of death. Injury No.1 to 4 are possible if a person falls on a hard surface, injury No.5 can be caused due to post mortem.

Again the witness in the reexamination stated all the five injuries are ante mortem injuries. PW9 in his evidence deposed he got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased by Mandal Revenue Officer, examined and recorded the statements of necessary witnesses including PW5. In the cross examination he stated that PW2 was not stated in his statement that the accused raised dispute regarding payment of insufficient dowry when the bride and bridegroom were taken after marriage, that he has also not stated that additional amount would be given at the time of Deepavali festival, that it is not stated in the statement of PW2 that the deceased talked to him by telephone and informed that the accused are beating and harassing her, commenting without giving dowry how she wanted to celebrate the marriage day. PW3 stated in his statement as in Ex.D2. PW10 in his evidence 8 deposed that he conducted Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW6 and LW11 Susheela, that the panch witnesses came to the conclusion due to unknown poison the deceased died. Ex.P4 is the Inquest panchanama. In the cross examination the witness stated that at column

No.9 of Ex.P4 that there was bleeding from the nose of the deceased and it was doubted, that a grievous injury was caused to the head of the deceased.

PW11 in his evidence deposed that Ex.P8 is the questionnaire copy from

LW16 Asst. Commissioner of Police to the Doctor and Ex.P9 is the reply by the Doctor. He filed charge sheet on completion of investigation. In the cross examination the witness stated that his investigation reveal that on 3.2.2006 the deceased was taken to the hospital because of illhealth and brought back, that PW1 did not state in his Section 161 Cr.P.C statement that he agreed to give Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) to A1 at the time of

Deepavali festival, that PW3 in his statement stated that the parents of the deceased agreed and gave Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only).

13.The accused in this case are charged with offences under

Sections 304B and 498A IPC. In order to establish the offence under

Section 304B IPC as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Durga

Prasad Vs. State of M.P., it has to be shown that apart from the fact that the woman died on account of burn or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage, it has also to be shown that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. In the instant case there is no doubt that the deceased in this case died within 7 years of her marriage. The evidence on record further indicates that there was certain amount of harassment against her by her husband and inlaws in 9 connection with dowry. However, the fact that her death is otherwise than in normal circumstances is not established before the court. As per the evidence of PW7 who was working as Managing Director of Raghavendra

Hospital at ECIL Xroads the deceased Sunitha was brought to the said hospital on 4.2.2006 at about 10.00 am in a very serious condition with the complaint of high fever, jaundice and anaemia. The deceased was further in gasping condition. Her B.P. was very low. He says that she was attended to by the doctors and inspite of their efforts she died at 11.45 am. He further says that the deceased died due to cardio pulmonary arrest. He admitted in the cross examination that he do not know the cause for cardio pulmonary arrest. As per the evidence of PW8 who conducted the PME, the report of the A.P. Forensic Science Laboratory with regard to the Viscera is negative.

He further stated that due to insufficient clinical history and post mortem finding no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given and possibility of death from unknown poison can not be ruled out unless otherwise proved contrary. With regard to this aspect in the cross examination he stated that the said opinion is imaginary. The word imaginary can also mean his view or thinking. When the chemical analysis report with regard to viscera by APFSL is negative, the possibility of death from unknown poison can be said to be matching with his view. In other words PW8 is also not sure whether the death is due to poisoning or not. It is to be noted by the time the victim was brought to the Raghavendra hospital with the complaints of high fever, jaundice and anaemia, she was gasping for breath. Ex.P2 report indicates that her condition was deteriorating. Ultimately the deceased died of cardio pulmonary arrest as per Ex.P3 certificate issued by PW5. Though the evidence indicate i.e. on the previous day also she was taken to another doctor it is not known on 10 what complaint she was taken to the doctor and as to what is the treatment given to her. Since the PW5 is not able to say as to the reasons for cardio pulmonary arrest and FSL report also do not confirm poisoning, the reasons for the death remained mysterious. The involvement of the accused in the death of the deceased is not established. Whether it is suicidal death or homicidal death is also not established. With meagre evidence on record, the court is not able to find out the accused are responsible for the death of the decease. The reasons stated by the learned counsel for the accused that the death of the deceased is under normal circumstances are not convincing.

Since the burden is on the prosecution and the same is not discharged properly the accused are only entitled for the benefit of doubt with regard to the offence under Section 304B IPC.

14. Coming to the offence under Section 498A IPC, the ingredients in the said offence can be said to be established. The evidence of the defacto complaint i.e. the father of the deceased goes to show that he agreed to give

Rs.3,01,016/ (rupees three lakhs one thousand and sixteen only) towards dowry, that at the time of marriage he has given Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), that he agreed to give balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) at the time of ensuing Deepavali festival, that accordingly he offered the said amount during Deepavali festival, that A1 refused to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) offered but on the other hand demanded Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), that when he could not satisfy the demand for Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only) A1 left the house without receiving the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only).

As per his further evidence he took PW3, LW4 Kontham Swamy, LW3 C.

Balaiah and women folk to the house of accused to convince them to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only). When they had gone A1 11 to A3 did not talk with PW1 and others and did not accept to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only). Hence all of them returned back to their village. As per the evidence of PW2 there is a small difference in the version. PW2 says that the entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only) was given at the time of marriage itself, that while leaving after the marriage the accused raised a dispute that insufficient dowry was given. He further says that as the deceased Sunitha informed over phone that all the accused are harassing and beating her with regard to the demand of dowry, PW1 and others went to the house of the accused with the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) and tried to convince the accused to receive the said amount and when it was offered to A2 at the house of the accused A2 has thrown it on the ground and demanded for Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only). The evidence of PW3 however shows that out of the agreed amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only) Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only) was given at the time of marriage and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) was agreed to be given at the time of ensuing Deepavali festival, that when the deceased Sunitha informed them about the demand of accused for Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only), an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ (rupees one lakh only) was offered to the accused on Deepavali festival day and the same was refused. It is also true that as per Ex.P1 complaint the entire amount of Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only) was given at the time of marriage itself. However in the said complaint it is further stated that after two months of the marriage the deceased Sunitha was sent to the house of her parents for additional dowry, that when PW1 thereupon talked with the accused that they demanded

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/ (rupees two lakhs only). It is no doubt

true there are variations with regard to the total amount of dowry offered and 12 paid at the time of the marriage in the evidence of these three witnesses. But the thread is not missing i.e. there is demand on the part of the accused for

additional dowry. At this juncture it is important to note that the reply given

by PW1 during cross examination to one of the questions is relevant i.e. after the complaint is filed with the police, the accused paid Rs.3,00,000/ (rupees three lakhs only) to him. This reply by PW1 itself proves sufficient to say that there is demand from the accused for dowry. The contention of the learned counsel for the accused that since there are variations with regard to the amount in the alleged dowry between the three witnesses their evidence amounts to prevaricative statements can not be accepted by the court for the reason that there is a time gap of five years from the date of marriage of the deceased to the date of deposing by the witnesses before the court. Further the witnesses are not educated persons, they can be said to be village rustics. As such such variations may occur in the evidence of such witnesses and especially due to time lag. It is also true that the witnesses have stated some thing more than what they have stated before police in their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. They can be said to be developments over what they have stated in their respective S.161 Cr.P.C statements. But it is to be noted they are not exaggerations, leaving the basic point itself. Since the victim died as stated above in mysterious circumstances, it is only the evidence of her close relatives that is available for scrutiny with regard to the establishment of offence under Section 498A IPC. In Ex.P1 complaint itself the defacto complainant (PW1) stated that his deceased daughter informed them about the harassment for additional dowry on number of occasions and he and others assured A2 and A3 that the same will be paid.

PW1 in his cross examination deposed that his deceased daughter used to inform him over telephone that she is being harassed for additional dowry at 13 her inlaws house. PW2 is maternal uncle of the deceased. He also deposed that the deceased Sunitha informed him over phone that all the accused are beating and harassing her demanding to bring dowry. It is to be noted here that a married girl would inform her travails and turbulances in her post married life at her inlaws place only to her parents and other closest relatives. She can not be expected to share such information with other than close relatives. It is to be stated her that with the advent of liberalisation sending of communications by phone has become more common in contrast to by way of letters which was more prevalent during preliberalisation era.

As such the communications made over phone to the close relatives has to be taken into account and evidentiary value has to be attached to such communications. In that back drop the evidence of PW1 and PW2 clearly indicate that there is harassment and it is for additional dowry on the deceased Sunitha by all the accused.

15.It this connection the evidence of PW1 and others is corroborating. PW1 in his evidence deposed that when he offered

Rs.1,00,000/ at the time of Deepavali festival A1 refused to receive the said amount and on the other hand demanded Rs.2,00,000/. He next stated that

A1 left his house leaving the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ and went away to his village. The next point is that when PW1, PW2 and others went to the house of the accused to convince the latter to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/, all the three accused did not talk with them and rejected their request to receive the amount of Rs.1,00,000/. The demand of the accused for

Rs.2,00,000/ additional dowry was also stated in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. He further stated in that statement when the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ was offered during Deepavali festival the accused refused to receive the same and went away.

16.PW2 the maternal uncle of the deceased deposed that when he,

PW1 and others went to the house of the accused and offered the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/ A2 threw the said amount on the ground stating that they demanded Rs.2,00,000/. The demand of additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/ by all the accused is also stated in his S.161 Cr.P.C statement by these witnesses. PW3 also deposed to the extent of additional demand of

Rs.2,00,000/ by the accused. He fairly conceded that he was not present on

Deepavali festival day, that he came to know that PW1 offered Rs.1,00,000/ during the Deepavali festival and that the accused refused to receive the said amount. The evidence of the above three witnesses and especially PW1 and

PW2 clearly establishes that there was demand for additional dowry by the accused and when PW1 offered Rs.1,00,000/ all the accused refused to receive the said amount. The next point is that PW1 deposed that when he sent his wife to the house of the accused to bring their deceased daughter on the occasion of Pongal festival the accused refused to send her. This point is also stated by PW1 in the course of his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement.

17.The next point is that though it is not stated with dates PW1 in his Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement stated that his deceased daughter used to inform by phone regarding the harassment meted out to her by the accused. In his evidence also he deposed that his deceased daughter used to inform by phone that she is being harassed in the house of the accused on the ground of dowry. Similarly there are other points in the evidence of PW2 and PW3 tallying their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements broadly.

18.As already stated there are variations inter alia between the evidence of PW1 to 3 with regard to the amount of dowry initially agreed to be paid, actually paid during the time of marriage, agreed to be paid during ensuing Deepavali festival. A careful reading of the evidence of these three 15 witnesses goes to show that there is demand of dowry at the time of marriage, demand for additional dowry subsequently, attempt of the parents of the deceased to partially meet the said demand of the accused. The above said behaviour of A1 to A3 clearly amounts to harassment for additional dowry. The variations in the evidence of PW1 to 3 does not take away the punch in the prosecution case. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 especially indicates the harassment suffered by the deceased Sunitha in the hands of all the accused at various points of time on the ground of additional dowry.

Therefore, the court is of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 498A IPC alone are satisfied against A1 to A3.

19. In the result A1 to A3 are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for offence under Section 304B IPC. But A1 to A3 are convicted under

Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

20.The accused are informed about the order of acquittal and conviction under the above two sections respectively. They are questioned to state with regard to the quantum of sentence for offence under Section 498A

IPC.

21.A1 stated that his parents are suffering from diabetes and heart complaint, that he has to look after his parents, that as such he may be excused and taken a lenient view. A2 stated that he is suffering from diabetes and heart complaint, that he is taking medicines and as such he may be excused or a lenient view may be taken. A3 stated that she is suffering from diabetes, that she may be excused or a lenient view may be taken. The court has perused the record. There are no mitigating circumstances to take a lenient view against the accused in view of cogent and convincing evidence, that the suffering of A2 and A3 due to diabetes and B.P / heart complaint and their taking medicines is not a sufficient and 16 justifiable ground to take a lenient view. The court is therefore of the opinion that all the three accused reserve to be sentenced to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ (rupees one thousand only) each in default to suffer S.I for three months each. The period of judicial custody if any during crime stage shall be deducted from the total period of substantive sentence. They are accordingly sentenced.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 3 rd day of October, 2011.

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of prosecution PW1 Anthati Anjaiah PW2 Palakolla Agaiah PW3 Godolla Laxmi Narasaiah PW4 Gouti Savithri PW5 Dr. P. Bhadra Reddy PW6 Cheruku Krishna PW7 R. Prabhakar Rao PW8 Dr. B. Karunakar PW9 G. O. Harichander PW10 M. Venkatesham PW11 M. Ramesh Naidu

On behalf of accused : NIL 17

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of prosecution: Ex.P1 Report /complaint to police by PW1, Ex.P2 Medical record issued by PW5, Ex.P3 Medical certificte issued by PW5, Ex.P4 Inquest report, Ex.P5 FIR, Ex.P6 Post Mortem report, Ex.P7 Opinon of Forensic Doctor, Ex.P8 Questionnaire copy from LW16 to Doctor, Ex. P9 Reply by docor i.e. answers for questionnaire,

On behalf of accused : Ex.D1: Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.D2: Portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.D3: Reply letter to LW16 by PW8 dated 20.11.2006

Material Objects marked: NIL

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

SC/170/2008 Acquitted

L.B.Nagar P.S. vs P Ram Reddy and three others

12 Jan 2010

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT): RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Sri. M.R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Additional District & Sessions Judge, (FAC), Ranga Reddy District.

Monday, on this the 19 th day of September, 2011

S.C.No. 170 of 2008

Between :

The State of A.P.,through P.S. L.B. Nagar, .. Complainant

And

A11. Eerlapally Ram Reddy, s/o. Late Janga Reddy, aged about 25 years, occ: Business, R/o. Sheriguda village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal, R. R. District. A12. Siddanki Bhupal Reddy, s/o. Prathap Reddy, aged about 33 years, occ: Business, R/o. Pedda Amberpet village, Hayatnagar mandal, R.R. District. A13. Julakapalli Srinivas Reddy, s/o. Narsimha Reddy, aged about 31 years, occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.66, Mamatha Nagar, Nagole, L.B. Nagar, R.R. District. A14. Basheer, s/o. Anwar Basha, Aged about 22 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. Pedda Amberpet village, Hayatnagar mandal,

R.R. District. ..Accused No.11 to 14

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Ranga Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Prosecution and Sri.

Challa Narasimha Reddy, Counsel for Accused and now this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, PS L.B. Nagar, Cyberabad filed chargesheet against the above accused and others for the offence committed by them under

Section 147, 148, 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 149 IPC. It is to be stated the case against other accused i.e. A1 to A10 ended of in acquittal. The case against the present accused separated as some of them were apprehended some are subsequently surrendered, the case against them is now proceeding for trial and disposal.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 28.2.2005 at 11.45 am a complaint was filed by K. Sanjeeva Reddy 2 (PW4) stating that on the same day at about 10.00 am he along with his son K. Sai

Baba Reddy and one Sridevi went to Ranga Reddy District Court to attend a case in

Crime No.556 of 2004 of PS Vanasthalipuram. After attending the Court while coming out at 11.00 am the son of Narsimha Reddy, brother-in-law of Narsimha

Reddy, one Srinivas Reddy and others chased the deceased Sai Baba Reddy with knives and axes by throwing chilly power. The deceased collapsed at the spot. The offenders escaped after killing him. On the basis of he above complaint a case in

Crime No.197/2005 for offence under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigated into. The Investigating officer visited the scene of offence, conducted scene observation panchanama, seized three pairs of chappals, one single chappal, two gold pusthelu, ball-pen, refill, muslim cap which were stained with blood were collected. Necessary witnesses have been examined. The dead body was shifted to mortuary of Osmania General Hospital. There are injuries on left side of neck, left ear, forehead, back of head, left shoulder and to some of the fingers of right hand.

The dead body was referred for post mortem examination. The medical officer opined that the deceased died due to chop injury to neck with transection of vertebral column and spinal cord of C1-C2. It is elicited during investigation that the defacto complainant and other material witnesses grew suspicion against the relatives of one Late Narasimha Reddy of Sheriguda village and who is also deceased in Crime No.556 of 2004 of PS Vanasthalipuram in which crime the present deceased is accused No.1 and Sridevi is accused No.2. On 9.3.2005 A1 was arrested at his agricultural field situated at the outskirts of Pedda Amberpet village,

Hayatnagar mandal. He was acquainted by several other accused at that time. They were also taken into custody. During the interrogation A1 confessed the present offence. On the basis of his confession, the involvement of other accused came out. On the basis of the confession of A2 to A8, the five knives (sickles) used in the commission of the offence was recovered. Small amount of cash was also recovered from their possession. On the basis of confession of A1 the axe used in the commission of the offence, partly burnt shoe, ashes, partly burnt clothes along with controlled earth were recovered in the forest area near Police Academy on the way leading to Mancherevula village. Similarly at the instance of A9 one more knife (sickle) was seized.

3.During the course of investigation it came to light that the sister of A1 by name Pochamma was marriage to Madugula Narasimha Reddy of Sheriguda 3 village, Ibrahimpatnam mandal about 24 years back, that the said Narasimha Reddy worked as AIR Constable for 17 years and thereafter resigned to his job, that he was elected as Surpanch of Sheriguda Gram Panchayat on behalf of Telugu Desam Party.

Subsequently the Surpanch was reserved for B.C. Community as such Narasimha

Reddy became Mandal President of Telugu Desam Party for Ibrahimpatnam

Mandal, that in that capacity he did real estate business. He came into contact with one Laxmi Narasimha of Guremguda village in the year 2004. The said Narasimha

Reddy purchased the land belonging to Smt. Laxmi Narasimha. Sai Baba Reddy who is the deceased in the present case is husband of Smt. Pavani. Pavani is younger sister of Laxmi Narasimha. The deceased also used to do real estate business. Both Narasimha Reddy and the present deceased got acquitted with each other through the above said Laxmi Narasimha. Narasimha Reddy gave

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the deceased herein towards the land. In spite of several demands the said loan amount was not repaid. As such differences crop-up between both of them. The deceased Sai Baba Reddy felt that Narasimha

Reddy is interfering into his family affairs and moving closely with Laxmi

Narasimha, that he was also misbehaving with above said Sridevi who has intimated to the deceased herein. It is because of these grudges Sai Baba Reddy and

Sridevi murdered the above said Narasimha Reddy on 22.9.2004 in the apartment of

Sai Baba Reddy, dumped the dead body in Guremguda village and burnt it. This is the subject matter of Crime No.556/2004 for offence under Section 302 IPC of PS

Vanasthalipuram.

4.From the date of the above said crime No.556/2004 A1 developed animosity against the deceased Sai Baba Reddy and Sridevi. The accused sought the help of one Narsing Yadav. All the accused learnt that the murder case of deceased Narasimha Reddy was adjourned to 28.2.2005 and they planned to attack the deceased on that day. On that day at 11.00 am the deceased Sai Baba Reddy and

Sridevi and others came out and were talking at the Flag-mast in front of the court.

A2 went there and sprinkled chilly-powder on the face of the deceased. The deceased managed to run into the Court. He was chased by the accused. In that chasing A1 gave axe blow to the deceased at the Court steps. Even then the deceased was on the run. He took right turn in the Court waranda. Again A1 axed 4 him. The deceased again escaped and went towards Addl. Metropolitan Sessions

Judge Court hall. A1 caught the deceased and hit with axe on the neck three times.

After making sure the death of the deceased A1 & A2 threatened on lookers with knife and axe and escaped.

5. After the accused i.e. A1 to A10 were arrested T.I parade was conducted on them with PW4, PW3, PW2, PW12, PW18, PW19, PW20, PW8, PW15, LW15

Mahender has witnesses. On completion of investigation chargesheet is filed against the accused as stated above, showing the above accused i.e. A11 to A14 and one more accused i.e. driver of Sumo vehicle as A15 as absconding. The above accused A11 to A14 after judgment was delivered in the main case have surrendered themselves before the police. Hence the proceedings against them.

6. After the accused are present before the Court and upon hearing their counsel charges under Section 302 IPC, Section 302 read with Sections 149, 148

IPC, Section 120-B read with 302 and Section 149 IPC are framed against the accused. The accused denied the charges against them. At the trial the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW21 and marked Ex.P-1 to P-10.

7.PW4 is defacto complainant and eye-witness to the incident. He is also father of the deceased. PW1 is eye-witness. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW7, PW8,

PW12, PW15, PW18 and PW19 are shown as eye-witnesses. PW5, PW6, PW9,

PW10, PW11, PW13 and PW14 are shown as circumstantial witnesses. PW16 is a photographer who took the scene of offence. PW17 is panch witness for scene of offence, rough sketch and for seizures. PW21 is Inspector of Police and

Investigating officer. After completion of the trial the accused are examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence against them. They stated that they have no defence evidence.

8. Point for determination is whether the Prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against the accused as stated

above beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9.The defacto complainant is PW4 deposed that the deceased is his son, that the deceased attended the Court on 28.2.2005. He and others were waiting at 5 the car. Four or five persons came near deceased and one of them sprinkled chilly- powder on the face of the deceased. The deceased starting running back into the

Court hall. One of the offender started chasing the deceased with an axe in his hand.

He tried to stop that offender. The said offender axed on the neck of the deceased.

The nearby Advocates raised alarm against the offender. The offender threatened them with axe in his hand. The offender ran away outside and escaped. Police came to the spot. They tried to shift the deceased to the hospital. On the way the deceased died. Thereafter the dead body was shifted to Osmania hospital. He filed

Ex.P2 complaint before the police. The accused in the Court hall were also present at the time of offence. In the cross-examination the witness stated that earlier in his evidence in this case against A1 to A10 he identified A1 and A2 in the Court, he do not remember whether he stated at that time that he can identify the other accused in the case. He do not remember the contents of Ex.P2 complaint. He do not remember that he stated the names of only two offenders. The accused in the Court were not shown to him in the Test Identification parade. He has not given the description particulars of the accused herein in his complaint.

10.PW1 in his evidence deposed that he do not know either the deceased or PW4, that on the day of incident he was outside the Court premises, that he can not identify the accused i.e. A11 to A14, that he was not examined by the police. This witness is declared as hostile by Addl. P.P. PW12 in his evidence deposed on the date of incident he was Court constable at II Metropolitan Magistrate Court, L.B.

Nagar, that he found one person wearing kurtha-pyzama with an axe in his hand escaping from the Court premises, that he and one Ravinder chased that offender, that the offender escaped on a T.V.S. Moped, the said Ravinder who is an Advocate has thrown a stone on the offender, the stone as hit the head of the offender. PW3 in his evidence deposed on the date of offence he went to II Addl. District Judge Court, that he saw one person with a talwar in his hand, the said talwar hit to his right hand near wrist. He sustained a bleeding injury. He also sustained fracture to his right hand above wrist. He also sustained bleeding injury on his temporal region when he tried to ward off the injury. The said offender escaped immediately. He could not observed any other followers of the said offender.

11.

11.PW5 in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident he and his senior were appearing for the deceased in Crime No.556/2004 of PS

Vanasthalipuram, the deceased was returning after the case was adjourned. He was still in the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court to attend his work. He learnt after a while that a murder has taken place in front of II Addl. District Judge Court in the

Ranga Reddy District Court. PW6 in his evidence deposed that he is a blacksmith living in Peddamberpet, that no body came to him for preparing hunting sickles and axe. He cannot identify any person in that connection. This witness is declared as hostile by Addl. P. P.

12.PW7 in his evidence deposed when he was waiting at II Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, L.B.Nagar he heard some thing going on outside the Court hall,

that he heard shouting within a few seconds. He came out and found one person going out on the corridor, that the public and the advocates tried to chase him. The said offender ran towards outer compound wall of the District Court building and escaped by scaling the compound wall on the date of offence, he had not seen the accused in the Court premises. PW8 in his evidence on the date of incident he found one person running out of the corridor with an axe in his hand. He tried to throw a small wooden stool on the said offender. But the stool was tied to another object. He tried to throw a file in his hand on the face of the offender. But he was threatened with the axe by the offender. He did not found any followers with the said offender.

13.PW9 in his evidence deposed that he was attending to his Bench Clerk duties in the II Metropolitan Magistrate Court at the time of offence. On that day the deceased and one woman attended to their case. After both of them are going out he heard some shoutings. He came to know that some body was axed. PW10 in his evidence deposed at the relevant time he was working as an attender in the II

Metropolitan Magistrate Court at L.B. Nagar, that he was called both the deceased and one woman Sridevi they entered into the Court hall. After a while they left.

After a few seconds he heard shoutings with a murder took place in the Court premises. PW11 in his evidence that on the date of incident he did not attend to his

Job typist work in the Ranga Reddy District Court premises. On the next day he 7 came to know from the newspapers that a murder took place inside the court premises. This witness is declared as hostile by Addl. P.P.

14.PW12 in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident as a court PC he was attending to II Metropolitan Magistrate Court. On that day he found one person with a axe in his hand going away after axing one person. He did not find any followers to the said offender. PW13 in his evidence deposed that he was inside the II ADJ Court hall, that on hearing shoutings he came out and found public running. The Presiding Officer of the Court at that time asked him to take him to the chambers. Accordingly he was attending to the Presiding Officer. PW14 in his evidence deposed that at the relevant time he was attending to his work as Bench

Clerk in the II ADJ Court hall, that one Advocate came and informed the Presiding

Office about a murder took place in front of the court hall, that the Presiding Officer stopped the proceedings and resumed to his chambers. He found one person axed and lying in pool of blood. He can no identify whether the accused in the Court hall were also present among the public on the date of offence.

15.PW15 in his evidence deposed that on the date of offence while he was in his Govt. Pleader's chamber he heard some shoutings outside his chambers. He found one person escaping with a knife in his hand. He has not seen any of the accused present in the Court hall on that day.

16.PW16 in his evidence deposed that at the request of the Inspector of

Police, L.B. Nagar he has taken photographs of the scene of offence and handed over the photos to the I.O. It is to be stated here since the photographs were seen along with the main case they could not be marked in this case. PW16 in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident the Inspector of Police, PS L.B. Nagar requested to act as panch witness for scene of offence, that he along with one

Bharatha Laxmi another Advocate acted in that capacity. He found one chappal stained with blood, that he also found a pair of kholapuri chappal. He further found one gold pustelu at the scene of offence. He also found one refill of a ball-pen. At the steps outside the Court premises he found chilly-powder on the floor. Outside 8 the compound wall of the Court he found a knife in the bushes. Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama. In his presence Ex.P6 rough sketch was also prepared.

PW18 in his evidence deposed that on the date of incident he produced some prisoners from the Central Prison, Cherlapally at various courts in Ranga Reddy

District Court Head Quarters. He found shouting by Advocates and litigant public, that he did not find any of the accused present in the Court hall on that day. PW19 in his evidence deposed in the same manner as that of PW18. This witness is also armed AR constable. PW20 in his evidence deposed in the same manner as that of

PW18 and PW19. This witness also accompanied some prisoners of Cherlapally jail. He further told that he did not find the accused in the Court hall on the date of offence. PW21 in his evidence deposed about the receipt of Ex.P2 complaint from

PW4, registering the same as Ex.P8 is FIR, visited the scene of offence, conducting scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P9, seizing of three pairs of chappals, one single chappal and to gold pustelu and other material objects, recording of statements of 31 witnesses in all, referring the dead body to the post mortem examination, conducting Ex.P11 Inquest panchanama, arresting A1 to A10 on various dates, filing of charge sheet showing A11 to A15 absconding. Subsequently he learnt that A11 to A14 surrendered before the Hon'ble Court and obtained bail from the Hon'ble High Court.

17.It is to be stated except the evidence of PW17 Panch witness for scene of offence, PW21 Investigating officer the evidence of remaining witnesses is of no use to the prosecution case. Most of the witnesses turned hostile. Defacto- complainant is PW4 though stated that he saw the accused herein in the Court hall at the time of offence, there is no substance for the same in his evidence. All the remaining witnesses stated that they have not found either the accused herein or any other followers of the offender that axed the deceased, thereby even the persons leave alone the participation of the accused herein at any stage of the offence is not established before the Court. It is a fact that along with A1 to A10 the accused herein have not been apprehended. It is after the disposal of the main case against

A1 to A10 the accused herein surrendered before the committal court and obtained 9 bail from the Hon'ble High Court. Either the names of the accused herein or other physical features or any other particulars belonging to them are stated either in the complaint or in the Section 161 Cr.P.C statements of any of the witnesses. As such none of the offences alleged against the accused are established. All the accused are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

18. With regard to the material objects marked in the main case i.e. MO1 to

MO27 it is to be stated none of those properties are marked in the instant case. As per the committal order of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy

District the case against A15 Sumo Driver (name not mentioned) is separated and numbered as PRC No.20 of 2008 and the same is still pending with the said court.

As such the case property is directed to be transmitted to the committal court for preserving the same.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 19 th day of September, 2011.

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(F.T.C): R.R. DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : PW1 :B. Babu PW2 :Mohd. Moin Shareef PW3 :D. Kumar Yadav PW4 : K. Sanjeeva Reddy PW5 :K. Rama Swamy PW6 :R. Venkata Chary PW7 :Dandem Ram Reddy PW8 :D. Damodar Reddy PW9 :B. Srikanth PW10:K. Ram Kishan PW11:N. Sateesh Kumar 10

PW12:K. Karunakar Reddy PW13:V. Venkata Setty PW14:G. Venkateshwarlu PW15:G. Rama Rao PW16:Yanala Laxma Reddy PW17:Kukala Nageshwar Rao PW18:R. Raja Ratnam PW19:Bala Kishan PW20:Vedurdha Chandramouli PW21:T. Srinivas Reddy

FOR DEFENCE :NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P-1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1

Ex.P-2 : Xerox copy of complaint

Ex.P-3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6

Ex.P-4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW11

Ex.P-5: Signature on Scene of offence panchanama of PW17

Ex.P-6: Signature on Rough sketch of PW17

Ex.P-7 : Original complaint

Ex.P-8: FIR

Ex.P-9: Scene of offence

Ex.P-10: Rough sketch

Ex.P-11: Inquest panchanama

FOR DEFENCE :NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS :NIL

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(F.T.C): R.R. DISTRICT

CMA/179/2008

Ms Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions vs Vijay Krishna residency Flat owners Association

22 Mar 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present : Sri. M. R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

C.M.A. No. 179of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions, A Partnership Firm having its Office at: Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency, L. B. Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, rep. by V.V. Krishna Rao, s/o. B. Rama Rao, aged about 39 years, occ: Business, r/o. Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency, L.B. Nagar,

Malkajgiri, Hyderabad... Appellant/ Respondent No.2/

Defendant No.2

And

1. Vijay Krishna Residency Flat Owners Association, rep. by its Secretary Y. Ravi, s/o. Late Singara Babu, aged about 40 years, occ: Business, r/o. Plot No.107, Flat No.202, Vijay Krishna Residency,

Saptagiri Colony, Secunderabad. .. Respondent No.1 / Petitioner /

Plaintiff

2.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation,

Malkajgiri Division. .. Respondent No.2/ Respondent No.1

Defendant No.1

This appeal is preferred against the Order and Decree in I.A.314 of 2008 in O.S.No.320 of 2008 passed on 28.7.2008 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.

Between:

Vijay Krishna Residency Flat Owners Association, rep. by its Secretary Y. Ravi, s/o. Late Singara Babu, aged about 40 years, occ: Business, r/o. Plot No.107, Flat No.202, Vijay Krishna Residency,

Saptagiri Colony, Secunderabad. .. Petitioner / Plaintiff

And

1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Division.

2. M/s. Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions, A Partnership Firm having its Office at: Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency, LB Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, rep. by V.V. Krishna Rao, s/o. B. Rama Rao, aged about 39 years, occ: Business, 2 r/o. Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency,

L.B. Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad... Respondents /Defendants

This is an appeal coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P.

Pandu Ranga Rao, Counsel for Appellant/Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 and Sri. P.

Sunil Kumar, Counsel for Respondent No.1/ Petitioner /Plaintiff. Respondent No.2 /

Respondent No.1/ Defendant No.1 set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

Appellant herein is 2nd respondent in the I.A.No.314/2008 and also defendant in the concerned O.S.No.320/2008 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge -cum- XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate at Malkajgiri, R.R. District. The C.M.A is filed to set-aside the order passed in the above I.A.No.314/2008. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner in the above said I.A. and also plaintiff in the suit. The 2nd respondent herein is respondent No.1 in the above said I.A and defendant No.1 in the suit. The

Interlocutory Application was filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 C.P.C for grant of Interim Injunction directing the 1st respondent to remove illegal and unauthorised construction made by respondent No.2 in Plot No.107 of Survey No.237 situated at Sapthagiri Colony, Ramakrishnapuram within the limits of Malkajgiri

Municipality which is in violation of sanctioned plan or any related works on the 3rd floor and to stop further construction during the disposal of the suit.

2. In the accompanying affidavit the Secretary of petitioner's association (Respondent No.1 herein) stated that respondent No.2 (appellant herein) is the

Managing Partner of Vijaya Krishna Residency, that the Vendee of the said property purchased the same from rightful owners and got registered on 19.4.2006, that they incorporated Partnership Firm in the name and style of M/s. Sri. Vijaya Krishna

Constructions of which respondent No.2 is the Managing Partner. Respondent No.2 has constructed double storied building comprising residential units in the name and style of

V.K. Residency after obtaining approval from Malkajgiri Municipality on 10.2.2006 to sell the same to the prospective purchasers, with proportionate undivided share in the lands. Respondent No.2 offered residential units consisting 900 square feet and 1100 square feet from ground floor to 2nd floor with an undivided share of land area, that petitioner and others purchased the residential units by paying sale considerations to 3 respondent No.2 and occupied the same, that after passing of few months the respondent

No.2 constructed third floor on the suit property without obtaining approval from the 1st respondent-Municipal-Corporation (Respondent No.2 herein) and sold the same to other purchasers. Those purchasers themselves got regularised the said 3rd floor flats by paying taxes. Then all the flat owners formed into an association in the name and style

Vijaya Krishna Residence Flats Association, vide Registration No.593.

3.After completion of and on selling of the flats on the 3rd floor, the respondent No.2 herein illegally started construction of the 4th floor without obtaining any permission from the 1st respondent-Municipal-Corporation (Respondent No.2 herein) and intended to utilize the relaxation of building regularisation scheme issued by the Government. The said proposal was objected to by the petitioner's association and demanded not to make construction of 4th floor. Further respondent No.2 forcibly started construction by making life threats to the plaintiffs and other flat owners on 13.7.2008. The 2nd respondent with the help of anti-social elements dumped construction material on the third floor and started construction.

4.When a police complaint is filed at PS, Malkajgiri the latter stated that it is a civil dispute and unless a direction is given by the court they would not interfere in the dispute. A complaint was also given to the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation.

None of its officials even visited the suit property. Hence, ad-interim injunction is required as prayed for above.

5. It appears before the trial court respondent No.1 alone filed counter and respondent No.2 was set exparte. In its counter, respondent No.1-Municipal

Corporation stated that the 3rd floor was constructed without obtaining permission from the Corporation, that the occupants of the flats on the 3rd floor submitted applications for regularisation of their respective unauthorised construction, that those applications are not yet processed due to the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court, that the respondent No.2 intended to construct 4th floor without obtaining sanction from the

Municipal Corporation with an intention to bring the said construction within the regularisation scheme. It is further, stated that the construction of 4th floor is not even qualified for regularisation as the corporation is authorised to receive application for regularisation of structures which are existing as on 16.12.2007. As the said structure on 4th floor was started recently, the same does not fall within the provisions of regularisation scheme. As such the Municipal Corporation issued notice to respondent

No.2 under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955. It called upon 4 respondent No.2 to remove the unauthorised construction within 7 days. As the respondent No.2 failed to adhere to the said show cause notice a final notice was issued under Section 636 of the Act on 23.7.2008. The petitioner without waiting for the action on the part of Municipal Corporation approached the court in a hasty manner. Since the

Corporation is a responsible statutory authority and shall follow the process of law, it would abide by any direction issued by the Court in addition to its taking action as per the provisions of the Act.

6.In this appeal, it is to be stated in Ex.B2 Sale Deed there is mention at page 4 (last two lines) that the appellant can carry on construction of 3rd and 4th floor and can sell the same to others. At the same time it is to be noted that the applications of the occupants of the flats of the 3rd floor for regularisation of unauthorised constructions are pending with the Municipal Corporation. It appears due to the directions given by the

Hon'ble High Court of A.P they are kept pending. It is also to be noted here as stated in

paragraph No.2 of the counter filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri the construction over and above the 3rd floor of the suit schedule property was intended to be constructed by the appellant herein without obtaining sanction from the Municipal-Corporation with an unlawful intention to bring the said structure within the regularisation scheme. It is further stated by the Dy.

Commissioner by no stretch of imagination the said structure over and above the 3rd floor is qualified for regularisation as the Municipal Corporation is empowered to receive the application for regularisation of structures which are existing as on 15.12.2007 and since the structure in the 4th floor of the suit schedule property is started recently the same does not fall under the purview of regularisation scheme. On that ground the Municipal Corporation has issued notice to the appellant under Section 452 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 and as the respondent failed to adhere to the above said notice find notice was issued under Section 636 of the Hyderabad

Municipal Corporation Act. In view of the above said factual and legal position with regard to the building, the court is unable to accept the contention of the appellant to set aside order and decree dated 28.7.2008 in I.A.314 of 2008, merely on the basis of the averments under Ex.B2 Sale Deed referred to above i.e. appellant has reserved his right to construct even third and fourth floors. Since the Municipal Corporation is vested with certain powers under the Building Regularization scheme, it can consider the applications of occupants of the flats in the third floor keeping in view the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. The Municipal Corporation can also proceed with the notices under Sections 452 and 636 of the Act issued by it with regard to the structures in the 4th floor of the suit schedule property. With the above observations the 5

C.M.A is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of November, 2011.

Sd/-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(F.T.C) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT // TRUE COPY//

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Present : Sri. M. R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District

WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011

C.M.A. No. 179of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions, A Partnership Firm having its Office at Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency LB Nagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, rep. by V.V. Krishna Rao, s/o. B. Rama Rao, aged about 39 years, occ: Business, r/o. Flat No.401, S.S.V. Residency LB Nagar,

Malkajgiri, Hyderabad...Appellant/ Respondent No.2/

Defendant No.2

And

1. Vijay Krishna Residency Flat Owners Association, rep. by its Secretary Y. Ravi, s/o. Late Singara Babu, aged about 40 years, occ:Business, r/o.Plot No.107, Flat No.202, Vijay Krishna Residency, Saptagiri Colony,

Secunderabad. .. Respondent No.1 / Petitioner /

Plaintiff

2.The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Division.

.. Respondent No.2/ Respondent No.1

Defendant No.1

CLAIM :The Appellant/ R2 filed the CMA under Section XLIII Rule 1 (r) of C.P.C praying the court to setting aside the order passed in I.A.314 of 2008 in O.S.No.320 of 2008 on the file of Addl. Junior Civil Judge- cum-XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District on 28.7.2008.

VALUATION :A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid as per Article3(1) (a) of Schedule-II of A.P. S.V. & C. F.

CMA FILED ON: 25.8.2008

CMA NUMBERED ON: 25.8.2008

This Civil Misc. Appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Pandu Ranga Rao, Counsel for Appellant/Respondent No.2/ Defendant No.2 and Sri. P. Sunil Kumar, Counsel for Respondent No.1/ Petitioner /Plaintiff.

Respondent No.2 / Respondent No.1/ Defendant No.1 set exparte and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth decrees as follows:

That the CMA of the appellant/D2 be and the same is hereby dismissed with costs as follows:

1.That the Respondent No.2/ D1 Municipal Corporation is hereby directed to proceed under Sections 452 and 636 of the Municipal Act with regard to the structures in the 4th floor of the petition schedule property.

2.That the appellant/D2 do pay to the Respondent No.1/Petitioner a sum of Rs.3/- towards the costs of CMA.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 23rd day of November, 2011.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC): R.R. DISTRICT

COST MEMO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For AppellantFor Respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.Stamp on Appeal Rs.3/- Rs.-- 2.Stamp on powerRs.- - Rs.-- 3.Stamp on process Rs. - -Rs.- - 4.Advocate FeeRs.- -Rs.-- T O T A L:Rs. 3/-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC): R.R. DISTRICT

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY

That the entire house consisting of plot and building thereon bearing

Municipal “VIJAYAKRISHNA RESIDENCY” on the 4th floor in premises Nos.

35-26/4/1 and 35-26/4/2 on plot No.107, admeasuring in all 390 square yards or equivalent to 326.04 square meters under Survey No.237, situated at Saptagiri

Colony, Ramakrishnapuram within the limits of Malkajgiri Municipality, R.R.

District and bounded by :

North :Neighbour's plot.

South :H.No.35-237/7 on plot No.107.

East :30' wide road.

West :Neighbour's land.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC) : R.R. DISTRICT

CMA/133/2008

Mr. Shaik Mohammed Mansur Ali vs Sri.Mukesh Jaiswal

15 Feb 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Present : Sri. M. R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District

THURSDAY, THE 29th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

C.M.A. No. 133of 2008 Between: Shaik Mohammed Mansoor Ali, s/o. Mohd. Ali, aged 35 years, R/o.GBR Swimmingpool, Plot No.108, opp: Happy Homes Aprts., Upperpally,

Rajendranagar mandal, R. R. District. ..Appellant/ Defendant

AND

1.Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, W/o. Motilal, Jaiswal, Aged 45 years, occ: Employee,

2.Smt. Anitha Jaiswal, W/o. Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged 39 years, occ: Housewife, Both R/o. D-22, P & T colony, Chilkadpally,

Hyderabad. .. Respondents/ Plaintiffs

This appeal is preferred against the Order and Decree in I.A.4535/2007 in

O.S. 2874/2007 passed on 4.4.2008 on the file of Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District.

Between:

1.Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, W/o. Motilal, Jaiswal, Aged 45 years, occ: Employee,

2.Smt. Anitha Jaiswal, W/o. Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged 39 years, occ: Housewife, Both R/o. D-22, P & T colony, Chilkadpally,

Hyderabad. .. Plaintiffs

AND Shaik Mohammed Mansoor Ali, s/o. Mohd. Ali, aged 35 years, R/o.GBR Swimmingpool, Plot No.108, opp: Happy Homes Aprts., Upperpally,

Rajendranagar mandal, R. R. District. .. Defendant

This CMA is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

K. Mohan, Counsel for Appellant /Defendant and Sri. Thakur Singh, Counsel for

Respondents /Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

O R D E R

1.The appellant is respondent before the trial court. He is also defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs herein for perpetual injunction. The case of the plaintiffs herein is that they have purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed bearing document No.1066 of 2005 on 9.2.2005 and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that they also got mutated their names in the Municipal records and on receipt of demand notice from Rajendranagar municipality they paid property tax, that since the appellant who is not at all concerned with the suit property tried to interfere with it on 19.12.2007, suit was filed for perpetual injunction. The Interlocutory application was filed for grant of interim injunction. Aggrieved against the order passed in the

Interlocutory application, the present miscellaneous appeal is filed by appellant – respondent.

2.As per the counter affidavit in the I.A. the suit property was originally belongs to one Chinna Jangaiah, that he died leaving behind his legal heirs, that one D. Ashok who succeeded property from Jangaiah has executed agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney on 26.11.2007 in favour of the appellant herein and also delivered possession, that in fact petitioners are trying to grab the property. Thereupon the said D. Ashok and respondent in the I.A. filed a suit for grant of perpetual injunction against the petitioners in O.S.No.2842 of 2007 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District and the matter is pending. It is also stated in the said counter affidavit that the petitioners-plaintiffs claims to have purchased the suit property from G. Vasantha Kumari who purchased the same from the above Chinna Jangaiah through his G.P.A. Holder

S.Jangaiah. According to the appellant-defendant, the original owner Chinna

Jangaiah has not given any G.P.A in favour of S. Jangaiah and that no possession was delivered in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, it is prayed in the counter affidavit to dismiss the Interlocutory Application. Before the trial court the respondents–plaintiffs marked Ex.P-1 certified copy of sale deed dated 9.2.2005,

Ex.P-2 demand notice for payment of property tax, Ex.P-3 receipt issued by

Rajendranagar Municipality for collection of tax, Ex.P-4 encumbrance certificate and Ex.P-5 original sale deed belonging to the respondents-plaintiffs' vendor. The appellant-defendant filed certified copy of agreement-cum-General Power of

Attorney through which he purchased the suit property as Ex.R-1 and copy of plaint in O.S.No.2842 of 2007 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court,

Ranga Reddy District. According to the respondents–plaintiffs the suit property was sold by the above said Chinna Jangaiah in favour of Vasantha Kumari and that she sold the same in favour of them. But the case of the appellant–defendant is that the above said Chinna Jangaiah died intestate and his successor D.Ashok executed an agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant– defendant. The trial court came to the opinion that at Interlocutory stage the Court has to see with whom the possession of the suit property rests. It was of the opinion that except Ex.R-1 certified copy of agreement of sale-cum-

G.P.A the appellant-defendant has not filed any document to show that he is in possession of the suit property. On the other hand lower court opined that the respondents– plaintiffs not only filed certified copy of sale deeds (Ex.P-1) under which they purchased the property but also filed link document under which their vendor purchased the property. Apart from the above, demand notice from

Rajendranagar Municipality to pay the property tax and the receipt indicating payment of the said property tax was also filed. As such the trial court opined that the possession clearly rests with respondents-plaintiffs.

3.During the course of arguments in the present appeal it is brought to the notice of the Court that the suit filed by appellant herein and D. Ashok against the respondent herein on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge was dismissed on merits. The said suit was also filed seeking permanent injunction. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that O.S.No.2874 of 2007 in which the impugned order at interlocutory stage was passed is still pending. It is, further, brought to the notice of this Court that against the dismissal of the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.2842 of 2007 dated 16.2.2009 on the file of VIII Addl. Senior Civil Judge

no appeal is preferred till the date of arguments. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs that their sale deed clearly shows as to where from the respondents have got the property. On the other hand Ex.R-1 the alleged agreement of sale-cum-General Power of Attorney do not indicate as to how D. Ashok got the property except stating that he is absolute owner of the suit property. As already stated by the trial court it is not not clear as to whether

Chinna Jangaiah has any other legal heir or not apart from D. Ashok. The recitals of Ex.R-1 agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney do not disclose as to how D. Ashok succeeded to the property. There is also difference in the name of original owner i.e. Ex.P-5 sale deed under which vendor of the respondents purchased the property shows her vendor is D. Chinna Jangaiah where as Ex.R-1 agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A under which D. Ashok executed the same indicates that he is son of D. Jangaiah. Apart from the above discrepancies in view of the certified copy of the sale deed (Ex.P-1) under which the respondent herein purchased the suit property from their vendor Vasantha Kumari and that the certified copy of sale deed (Ex.P-2) under which the said Vasantha Kumari purchased the property from D. Chinna Jangaiah, the demand notice issued by

Rajendranagar Municipality demanding payment of tax to the suit property and the tax receipt under which the tax was paid clearly indicates that the respondents herein are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Apart from the above the non-filing of any appeal by the appellant herein and D. Ashok against the dismissal of O.S.No.2842 of 2007 on 16.12.2009 which was filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents herein goes to show that there are no merits in the present appeal. C.M.A is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court on this the 29th day of February, 2012.

Sd/-

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(F.T.C) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

// TRUE COPY //

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT) :: RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Present : Sri. M. R. SATYANARAYANA, B.A., B.L., V Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), R.R. District

THURSDAY, THE 29th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

C.M.A. No. 133of 2008 Between: Shaik Mohammed Mansoor Ali, s/o. Mohd. Ali, aged 35 years, R/o.GBR Swimmingpool, Plot No.108, opp: Happy Homes Aprts., Upperpally,

Rajendranagar mandal, R. R. District. ..Appellant/ Defendant

AND

1.Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, W/o. Motilal, Jaiswal, Aged 45 years, occ: Employee,

2.Smt. Anitha Jaiswal, W/o. Mukesh Kumar Jaiswal, Aged 39 years, occ: Housewife,

Both R/o. D-22, P & T colony, Chilkadpally,

Hyderabad. .. Respondents/ Plaintiffs

CLAIM :The Appellant/ defendant filed the CMA under Order XLIII Rule 1 read with Section 104 C.P.C praying the Court to set-aside the order passed in I.A.4535/2007 in O.S.No.2874/2007 passed on 4.4.2008 on the file of Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

VALUATION :A fixed Court fee of Rs.3/- is paid as per Article3 (1) (a) of Schedule-II of A.P. S.V. & C. F.

CMA FILED ON: 16.6.2008

CMA NUMBERED ON: 16.6.2008

This Civil Misc. Appeal is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K. Mohan, Counsel for Appellant /Defendant and Sri. Thakur Singh, Counsel for Respondents /Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and upon perusal of the material papers on record and the matter stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth decrees as follows :

That the CMA of the Appellant /Defendant be and the same is hereby

dismissed with costs as follows:

1.That there are no merits in the present appeal.

2.That the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, on this the 29th day of February, 2012.

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC): R.R. DISTRICT

COST MEMO

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For AppellantFor Respondents

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC): R.R. DISTRICT

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY

All that the Plot No.2, Phase-II in Survey No.25 & 26, admeasuring 210 square yards, Ward No.2, Block No.4, situated at New Friends Colony, Upperpally village, Rajendranagar Municipality, R.R. District and bounded by :

North :30 feet wide road, South :Plot No.4, East :Plot No.1, West :Plot No.3

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

(FTC) : R.R. DISTRICT

SC.MU/284/2012 Acquitted

P.S. Pahadi Shareef vs Syed Ghouse

03 Apr 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.DISTRICT &SESSIONS JUDGE:

(F.T.C), AT L.B.NAGAR:RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: Sri. M.R. SATYANARAYANA B.A B.L

FAC VADDL.DIST.&SESSIONS JUDGE

DATED THIS THE 3rdt DAY OF APRIL, 2013.

S.C.No. 284 OF 2012 Name of the complainant : The Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Pahadi shareef Name of the Accused : A-1: Syed Ghouse S/o. Syed Omer, Aged 23 years, Occ:Driver H.No. 18-12-419/A/100 Hafeezbabad Nagar, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad.

A-2 : Mohammed Meraj S/o. Mohd. Khaja, Aged 30 years, Occ: Bandmela shop,R/o. Ramjan colony, Kalapathar, Hyd.

A-3 : Mohd, Khadeer S/o. Mohd. Faker, Aged 30 years, Occ: Real Estate Business, R/o. 19-3-294/68/42, Fathimanagar, Ottepally, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

A-4 : Syed Khaled S/o. M.A. Hakeem, Aged 32 years, Occ: Business R/o. Plot No.172, Noor Colony, Vattepaly,Hyd.

A-5 : Mohd Feroz S/o. M.A. Hakeem, Aged 34 years, Occ: Business R/o. H.No.3-2-171/1, Ali Mazid, Veerannapeta, Mahaboobnagar District.

A-6 : Mohd. Ahmed S/o. Abdul Mazeed, Aged 26 years, Occ: Driver R/o.H.No. 3-2-174, Veerannapet, Near Ali Majid, Mahaboobnagar District.

Crime No : 394/2011

Offence Under Section : 307, 120 B r/w 34 IPC.Against A1, A6 120 B against A2 to A5.

Plea of the accused : Not guilty

Finding of the court : Found not guilty 2

Sentence of order ; Accused is not found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307,120B r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Prosecution conducted by : Public Prosecutor K.Ranga Reddy

Accused defended by : Sri Md Yousuf Sab for A2 to A4 Sri Syed Shoukat Ali for A5 to A6 Sri Mujeeb for A1 Advocates.

This case coming before me for hearing on 24-4-2012in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Advocates for the accused and the matter having sttod over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The S.I of police P.S.Phadishareef filed charge sheet against the above accused for the offences committed by A1,A6 under Section 320,120B r/w 34 IPC and A2 to A5 for offence under Section 120B IPC.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

On 29/9/2011 at 4am the statement of PW7 was recorded at Osmania Hospital where in he stated that 11 years back his marriage was perform with Yasmeen, that he has four daughters and one son, that about 4 months back he married Riya Praveen who was already having three children through her first husband. In that connection due to the disputes arose a complaint was filed at P.S Kachanbagh by him on the ground that his second wife is not send along with him. Bearing the same in mind on 29/9/2011 at 12.30am when he and his friends came out of Phadi shareef darga his brother in law that is A1 and others armed knives and attempted to kill him. He sustained bleeding injuries on his head, on two hands, two legs, left of ribs. He was shifted to Osmania Hospital.

3. Basing on said complaint a case in Crime No.394/2010 for offences under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC has been registered. On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed against the above accused as stated above. It came to light during investigation that the complaint facts are true and correct. The statements of necessary witnesses are recorded. The accused were also arrested and send to court for judicial custody.

4. Learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate at L.B.Nagar before whom the charge sheet was filed committed the same to court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy

District where it was registered as Sessions case and transfered to this court for trail and disposal.

5. After the accused is present before the court and upon hearing his counsel charges under Sections 307,120B r/w 34 IPC is framed against A1, A6 . Charge under Section 120 B IPC is framed against A2 to A5. All the accused denied the offences alleged against them.

6. At the trail prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked 31 documents.PW7 is the defacto complainant and injured, PW1 and PW8 are eye witnesses. PW2 is the second wife of PW7.PW3,PW4 are punch witness for scene of offence.PW5 and PW6 punch witness for confession and seizure for A1 to A6. Pw9 is investigating officer.

7. On completion of trail accused are examined under Section 313 Crpc. All the accused denied the incriminating evidence against them and that they have no defence witnesses.

8. Point for determination is whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused A1,A6 for offence under Section 307, 120 B r/w 34 IPC and A2 to A5 for offence under Section 120 B IPC.

9.PW7 the injured deposed that some unknown offenders attacked and stabbed him, that he do not know the contents of his statement recorded.

10. PW1 deposed some unknown persons attacked PW7 and escaped immediately.PW2 in her evidence deposed that she do not know PW7, that A1 is her younger brother. She do not know other accused. She do not know facts about the case.PW3 deposed that police have obtained his signatures on some scribed papers that he do not know their contents. Police have not seized any material in presence EXP3 and EX P4 are his signatures. PW4 in his evidence deposed that police obtained his signatures on some scribed papers. Police have not prepared rough sketch of scene of offence or they have not conducted scene of offence panchanamma in his presence, that they also have not seized any materials in his presence.PW5 deposed police obtained his signature on some papers stating that a dispute was compromised and my signature is required as witness. The evidence of PW6 is also in the same tenor as that of PW5. PW8 deposed that he do not know about the incident that he has not shifted PW7 to hospital. PW1 to

PW8 are declared hostile.

11.PW9 in his evidence deposed in consonance with prosecution case. Through this witness EXP22 FIR , EXP23 scene of offence panchanamma , EXP24 rough sketch of scene of offence panchanmma , EXP25 to EXP28 confession panchanamma of A1 to A4, EXP29 confession panchanamma of A6,EXP30 seizure panchanamma of A5,EXP31 is medical legal certificate of PW7 etc are marked.

12.It is to be stated it appears after the filing of charge sheet both the parties have entered into compromise out the court. As such none of the prosecution witnesses deposed anything against any of the accused.

Even though the evidence of investigating officer is corroborating with the prosecution case the same cannot made use of either by the court or by the prosecution to take an adverse interference against the accused as material witnesses turned hostile. The offences alleged against the accused are not established beyond all reasonable doubt. They are acquitted under Section 235(1)

Crpc. Unmarked non valuable property shall be destroyed after appeal time

Dictated to personal Assistant transcribed by him,corrected and pronounced by

me in the open court on this the 3rd April of 2013.

V ADDL.DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE

R.R.DIST.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 Meraj Farooq Baig

P.W.2 Rehena Parveen

P.W.3 Syed Ameer

P.W.4 Md. Taheer

P.W.5 V.Krishna

P.W.6 R.Jangaiah

P.W.7 Syed Dilgeer Ali Shah

P.W.8 Shraiffuddin

P.W.9 S.Venkatesham

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE :

Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECTION: EX.P1 161CrPC Statement of PW1 EX.P2 161CrPC Statement of PW2 EX.P3 Signature on Scene of offence pachanamma EX.P4 Signature on Rough sketch Map EX.P5 Signature on Scene of offence pachanamma EX.P6 Signature on Rough sketch Map EX.P7 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A1 EX.P8 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A2 EX.P9 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A3 EX.P10 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A4 EX.P11 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A6 EX.P12 Signature on Seizure Panchanama of A6 EX.P13 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A1 EX.P14 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A2 EX.P15 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A3 EX.P16 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A4 EX.P17 Siganature on Confession Panchanama of A6 EX.P18 Signature on Seizure Panchanama of A6 EX.P19 Siganature on Complaint EX.P20 161CrPC Statement EX.P21 161CrPC Statement EX.P22 F I R EX.P23 Scene of offence pachanamma EX.P24 Rough sketch EX.P25 Confession Panchanama of A1 EX.P26 Confession Panchanama of A2 EX.P27 Confession Panchanama of A3 EX.P28 Confession Panchanama of A4 EX.P29 Confession Panchanama of A6 EX.P30 Sezuire Panchanama of A6 EX.P31 MLC ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE : Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil V ADDL.DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE R.R.DIST.

Order Record 97 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC.MU/282/2012	P.S. Jeedimetla vs Syed Aslam	22 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.MU/249/2012	P.S. Shamshabad vs Korra Narsing	08 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.MU/265/2012	P.S. Dundigal vs Rasheed Ali Baig	04 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.MU/284/2012	P.S. Pahadi Shareef vs Syed Ghouse	03 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.MU/14/2012	PS Chandanagar vs Y Lakshmaiah	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
SC.MU/75/2012	PS L B Nagar vs S Gyana Karunakar	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/98/2012	PS Nacharam vs Syed Parvez	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/131/2012	PS Pahadishareef vs A Mahesh	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/220/2012	PS Moinabad vs M Mahipal Reddy	01 Apr 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA.MU/166/2012	Chadive Yoginath Reddy vs P.S. Rajendra Nagar	30 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/72/2008	M.Ellamma vs M.Anjaiah and 14 others	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA.MU/138/2012	Aleti Ramakrishna vs P.S. Sanathnagar	28 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/473/2007	Chiluka Yadaiah, vs V.Shekar,	26 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/552/2011	P S Ibrahimpatnam vs G Ramulu	26 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/317/2012	P.S. Narsingi vs Md. Moin Hamza	25 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/148/2003	M.Raji Reddy vs Y.Shyam Reddy	19 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/225/2012	PS Meerpet vs Mohammed Majeed	12 Mar 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA.MU/193/2012	Padechula Prabhakar vs P.S. L.B.Nagar	20 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/193/2012	PS Uppal vs Mohd. Shareef	20 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/283/2012	P.S. Medipally vs Addula Amarender Reddy	20 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/196/2011	P S RAJENDRA NAGAR vs Vssidrath reddy	11 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/125/2012	PS Shivarampally vs A Srinivas Yadav	11 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/91/2012	ps RGIA shamahabad vs PENDYALA MAHESH AND TWO OTHERS	08 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/160/2012	PS Pet Basheerabad vs M Nathandany	04 Feb 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/146/2012	PS Ghatkesar vs B Sadanandam	21 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/196/2012	PS L B Nagar vs K Jagadish Kumar	18 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/40/2012	PS L B Nagar vs B Hari Prasad	08 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/171/2012	P.S.MEERPET vs VENKATA CHARY	07 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/974/2000	Md Shakeer vs The C.R.P.C. Hyd Centre and others	02 Jan 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/222/2005	G.Dhanajan and other vs Nitin kumar and others	31 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/140/2011	kenche kumar vs PS NACHARAM	31 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/131/2011	PS Sanath Nagar vs A Prakash	31 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/510/2011	P S Meerpet vs Vadde Lazar	31 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/144/2012	PS Pahadishareef vs K Mounika	21 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/123/2012	PS L B Nagar vs K Sreenu	19 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/55/2012	PS Shamshabad vs T Madhu	12 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/809/2007	Baby Sundhu vs G.Srinivasa Rao and other	11 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/129/2012	PS Medipally vs K Upender Goud	11 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/418/2011	P S Shamshabad vs P Murali Goud	10 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/15/2012	P S Maheswaram vs A Takriya	07 Dec 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/13/2012	Alwal P.S. vs Rahi Lingareddy	23 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/20/2012	P S Shivarampally vs P Sathya Narayana	22 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CRLA/106/2011	R SUDHAKAR vs PS KPHB KUKATPALLY	20 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/449/2011	P S Kandukur vs A Venkataiah	16 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/487/2011	P S L.B.Nagar vs Andugula Mahes	14 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/130/2012	PS Pahadishareef vs Mohd Rafiq	02 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/105/2008	Dr. P.N.Prasad vs Dappu Narsimha	01 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/576/2011	P S Shivarampally vs Syed Feroz	01 Nov 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/21/2002	Smt. Y.Adilaxmi vs Syed Sadiq	31 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/459/2011	P S Uppal vs T.Narsimha Rao	16 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/234/2012	PS L B Nagar vs S Shekar Goud	12 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/555/2011	PS Manchal vs S Sreenu	10 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/378/2011	ps RGIA shamahabad vs Gaddam upender	03 Oct 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/470/2011	PS Nacharam vs Ms.Mosin Shareef	29 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/369/2007	Malkajgiri P.S. vs Shaik Mohammed Jaaber alias S.M.Jabeer	18 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/119/2007	Ms Sterling Roadways vs The National Insurance Company Limited and other	17 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/607/2007	Ms. LIC Housing Finance Limited vs Sri Raj Varma and 3 others	14 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/183/2011	P S RGI Airport vs B Narsavva	12 Sep 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/169/2011	p s jeedimetla vs Kommu Prabhakar	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/172/2011	P S KUSAIGUDA vs Vsvadapally bhargava ramudu and pyapakayala kumari	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/572/2011	PS Shamshabad vs S. Gopal	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/661/2008	p s jeedimetla vs R Manohar and other	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/154/2012	PS Kushaiguda vs G Uma Venkateshwar Rao	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/182/2012	PS Kukatpally vs A Sriramulu	31 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/540/2007	G.Krishna reddy vs Beri Ravinder	17 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/202/2007	Dr. M.S.Gowd and 2 others vs Tatineni Srihari and another	16 Aug 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/210/2012	PS Saroornagar vs J Balraj	31 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/221/2012	PS SANATH NAGAR vs P SUBRAMANYAM	25 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/226/2007	Chandanagar P.S. vs Surukanti Indra Reddy died	13 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1301/2007	Golla Anjaiah vs Ch.Harinath and other	12 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/1143/2007	Smt.D. Amrutha and another vs Smt.Anthamgari.Laxmamma and 4 others	11 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC.MU/589/2011	PS Medipally vs T Srihari	03 Jul 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/678/2007	V.Srinivas Reddy vs Ch.Venkat Reddy and 2 others	29 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OP/1129/2007	Mirza Ahmed Baig Alias Gouse vs A.K.Ansari and other	26 Jun 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/46/2012	p s vansatli puram vs Vsgillal srinivas reddy	04 May 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/508/2008	p s moinabad vs Vsadula babu	07 Apr 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/143/2008	Smt. G.Vidya vs K.Sudhakar Reddy	26 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/111/2007	ps shamahabad vs Gurrala Raju	26 Mar 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/21/2008	Sr Nalla Pochamma Society vs Smt. P.Devamma	18 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
OS/661/2006	Nama Pradeep Kumar vs A.Jagannatha Swamy	18 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/140/2011	p s alwal vs Vsalla ramesh	18 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/142/2011	p s malkajgiri vs Vsmohd amhed bilal	13 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/330/2007	Ibrahimpatanam P.S. vs Chinthala Venkatesh	06 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/215/2011	p s moinabad vs Vskammadanam narsimulu	04 Jan 2012	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/532/2008	RAMARAPU SANTOSH AND 2 OTHERS vs Vsps vanstlipuram	29 Dec 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/168/2011	p s jeedimetla vs Vssyed nizamuddin and others	25 Nov 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/179/2008	Ms Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions vs Vijay Krishna residency Flat owners Association	23 Nov 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/7/2008	D.P.Jagan Mohan vs State Bank of Hyderabad	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/112/2007	The Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajendrangar Mandal, R R Dist. vs Mrs. G.Venkatamma	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/129/2007	P.Bhanu Kiran vs C.Sashi Rekha	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/130/2007	P. Bhanu Kiran vs Asha Modi	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/131/2007	P.Bhanu Kiran vs C.Rajendra Kumar	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
AS/152/2007	M.S.Suresh vs The Govt .of Andhra Pradesh	30 Aug 2011	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/133/2007	Keesara P.S. vs Mallarapu Venkatesh	05 Aug 2010	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CMA/179/2008	Ms Sri Sai Vijay Krishna Constructions vs Vijay Krishna residency Flat owners Association	22 Mar 2010	Order On Exgibit	—
CMA/133/2008	Mr. Shaik Mohammed Mansur Ali vs Sri.Mukesh Jaiswal	15 Feb 2010	Order On Exgibit	—
SC/170/2008	L.B.Nagar P.S. vs P Ram Reddy and three others	12 Jan 2010	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2013		9
Mar 2013		8
Feb 2013		8
Jan 2013		6
Dec 2012		13
Nov 2012		10
Oct 2012		6
Sep 2012		5
Aug 2012		9
Jul 2012		6
Jun 2012		2
May 2012		1

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana handled?

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana has handled 105 court orders since 2009 at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 2 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana hear?

Based on available records, Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Civil matters (Original Petitions, Appeal Suits) at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana currently posted?

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana is posted as V Addl District Judge at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana available online?

Yes. 9 judgments by Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana dispose cases?

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana disposes approximately 2 cases per month, based on 105 orders handled over their tenure at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana serving?

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana has been serving at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2009.

Case Types

SC 67%

OP 9%

AS 8%

OS 7%

CMA 6%

CRLA 5%

Posting History

May 2011 — Apr 2013

V Addl District Judge · 101 orders
Sep 2009 — May 2011

V Addl District Judge · 4 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Other Judges at this Court

Sri A.karna Kumar

Principal District and Sessions Judge

264 orders

Sri. Vinod Kumar

I Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

1 orders

Smt. Ch.ashalatha

Chairman, Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal for Rang...

143 orders

Sri.Y.Sathyendra

III Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

173 orders

Sri. K. Jayaram Reddy

IV ADJ-IV Addl.MSJ-cum-I Addl.Family Court

3 orders

Smt.M.Bhavani

V Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

0 orders

Dundhigalla Sadhana

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga...

19 orders

Smt.T.JayaLakshmi

X Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRed...

891 orders

Smt.M.K.Padmavathi

XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaRe...

0 orders

Smt T Anitha

XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, RangaR...

0 orders

Smt.M.Vani

Special Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the Cases...

1,621 orders

Ms. K. C. Reddy Devarapalli

II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Judic...

0 orders

Smt.Shraddha Sehgal

Judicial Magistrate of First Class-Special(Mobile)...

87 orders

Ms.Penumala Gopika Naga Sravya

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise...

69 orders

Ms. S.Swarna Mallika

III Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl.Jud...

21 orders

Sri B.Kiran Teja

VI Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-VI Addl.Judic...

45 orders

Ms. Shereena Mohd

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

0 orders

Mrs. Sravana Swathi Chintada

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Metropolitan Magi...

2 orders

Sri J.Hanumantha Rao

Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Ma...

12 orders

Arpitha Maram Reddy

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-II Addl.Chief Judi...

24 orders

Sri. Gannarapu Sudarshan

Family Court Judge

0 orders

Smt. P. Srivani

Additional Family Court, L.B.Nagar

0 orders

G. Srinivas

Special Sessions Judge for trial and Disposal of P...

55 orders

Sri G.Sampurna Anand

Commercial Disputes Courts RangaReddy

0 orders

← View all judges at Rangareddy, PDJ Court Complex

Sri.M.R.Satyanarayana

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

established the guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 498­A &

size, another abrasion on lower lip about ½ X ½ cm. in size, another

abrasion on back of chest about 11 cm. X ½ cm.fff on right side, one more

abrasion on back and right side of the abdomen about 1 cm. X ½ cm.,

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

(FAST TRACK COURT): RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

S.C.No. 170 of 2008

J U D G M E N T

the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged against the accused as stated

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

O R D E R

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

COST MEMO

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

O R D E R

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

// TRUE COPY //

D E C R E E

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

That the CMA of the Appellant /Defendant be and the same is hereby

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

COST MEMO

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY

V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

FAC VADDL.DIST.&SESSIONS JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

V ADDL.DISTRICT& SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

EXHIBITS MARKED

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

established the guilt of the accused for offences under Sections 498A &