Sri M Siva Kiran

M.C.No.10/2022 1 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM - JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS :: KAIKALURU ::

Present: Sri M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judl. Magistrate of 1 st Class,

Kaikaluru.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

M.C.No.10 of 2022

Pamarthi Kondalamma @ Pamarthi Asha, W/o. Raj Kumar, D/o. Mohan Rao, Christian, Aged 26 years, Housewife, R/o. Apparaopeta Village, H/o. Peyyeru

Village, Mudinepalli Mandal, Krishna District. ... Petitioner.

And

Pamarthi Raj Kumar @ Namburi Raj Kumar, S/o. Madhusudhana Rao, Christian, Aged 30 years, Private Employee, R/o. Penamakuru Village, Thotlavallru Mandal,

Krishna District. ... Respondent.

This case came before me on 04.05.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T.Vijaya Kumar, Ld.Advocate for Petitioner and of Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, V.V.Raghaviah and K. Mani Kumar, Ld.Advocates for the respondent and the matter having been stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

1.This petition is filed by the petitioner under section 125 of Cr.P.C against the respondent for grant of maintenance of Rs.10,000/- to her per month and for costs and such other reliefs.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that, she is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was performed as per Christian rites and customs on 28.08.2020 in Holy Fire Church at Apparaopeta Village, H/o. Peyyeru and their marriage was consummated. At the time of marriage, the parents of petitioner gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards other lanchanams. Totally Rs.1,00,000/- paid as dowry. After their marriage, they both lived their marital life happily at Tadigadapa, Vijayawada in

M.C.No.10/2022 2 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

their shared household for some time. After marriage, mother of the 1st petitioner gave Rs.20,000/- to the respondent to start and maintain business by doing "buddy

Kottu".Later the respondent started harassing the petitioner by scolding and beating her and the respondent used to beat her mercilessly and harassed her mentally to bring additional dowry from her parent’s house. The father of the petitioner died long ago and her mother is living by doing coolie works and she has no capacity to pay additional dowry to the respondent. It is submitted that the respondent did not provide sufficeint food and clothing to petitioner and whenever, the petitioner fell ill, the respondent did not take care of her and did not take her to hospital and the respondent used to harass the petitioner mentally by sending filthy messages on her phone and the respondent’s mother used to scold the petitioner and harassed her to bring more dowry, otherwise she will perform another marriage to her son and the respondent get more dowry. The mother of the respondent never showed due care towards the petitioner and the grandmother of the respondent also used to scold and beat the petitioner and used to force her and harassed her to do any job or business to maintain the family instead of her grandson i.e., the respondent herein.

ii) It is further case of petitioner that on 28.04.2021, the respondent and his family members scolded her in filthy language, beat her mercilessly and necked her out of their shared house hold and having no othergo, the petitioner came to her parental house at Apparaopeta and stayed with her mother and at that time, the respondent and his family members forcibly picked away the original certificates of petitioner i.e., S.S.C, M.P.H.W (nursing) certificates and threatened to throw the certificates into fire. The gold ear rings gold worth of Rs.15,000/- of the petitioner are kept with the respondent. The petitioner lodged a complaint in the police station, Mudinepalli to return the above properties and the Station House Officer,

Mudinepalli reprimanded the respondent to return the certificates and ear rings of the petitioner, but the respondent did not return. The petitioner has no means of livelihood and totally depending upon her mother, who is aged 50 years and who is living by doing coolie works.

M.C.No.10/2022 3 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

iii).It is further submitted that the respondent has sufficient means of livelihood to provide maintenance to the petitioner as he is earning Rs.25,000/- by doing small business and also own building in Tadigadapa at Vijayawada, which is worth of

Rs.25,00,000/- and having ½ share in the building which is in the name of his mother, worth of Rs.30,00,000/- situated in Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada and as such, the respondent has got sufficient means to maintain petitioner and he willfully refused and neglected to maintain her. Hence, this petition.

3.After receipt of notice, the respondent made his appearance and filed counter denying the main and material allegations made in the petition. The respondent had admitted the marriage and relationship as averred in the petition. The respondent had denied about presentation of dowry, gold, silver and amount towards house hold articles. It is submitted by the respondent that their marital life was proceeded happily for some time at Tadigadapa, Vijayawada and after that he sold away the said house for his family necessities and shifted to rented house at Tadigadapa village. It is submitted that the petitioner tortured him both physically and mentally and not prepared food to him and not discharged her household duties and never respected him and his mother and she used to go to her parents house frequently by leaving the household duties recklessly and she also insulted his mother and not served food to him and his mother and abused him and his mother in filthy language before the neighbours and elders and never cared the respondent with love and affection at any point of time and never gave respect to him and his mother and never discharged her duties as dutiful wife.

(ii) It is submitted by the respondent that On 25.04.2021 the petitioner willfully deserted him and went away to her parents’ house by leaving the welfare of the respondent to his fate and she lodged a false report in Mudinepalli P.S On 07.04.2022 and then the police called both of them and compromised the matter amicably and advised to lead marital life peacefully in future without raising any problem, but the petitioner never changed her behavior and again lodged a case

U/s. 498-A of IPC against him. The petitioner abused him in vulgar language and he bore her activities intending that she would change her behavior and to look

M.C.No.10/2022 4 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

after him with love and affection and subsequently, the respondent held mediation with the elders and went to the petitioner's parents house requested her to come with him to lead marital life, for which, she bluntly refused his request and openly proclaimed that she is not interested to lead marital life with the respondent.

(iii) It is further submitted that he and his mother suffered mentally with the cruel attitude and behavior of the petitioner and the petitioner attempt to commit suicide by threatening him for many times to harass him mentally to look after the welfare of her mother only and she never allowed the respondent to take care of his mother and during their stay, the petitioner used to pick up quarrels with him when his mother came to his house. Due to the acts of petitioner, the respondent filed divorce OP before the Hon'ble Judge Family Court at Vijayawada and the same was pending. The petitioner has no respect towards him and his family members, she doesn't acted as a dutiful wife and foisted false criminal case against him and his parents with false averments along with this M.C before the Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that he never neglected and deserted the petitioner to her fate at any point of time and she filed 498-A case only to harass him in all possible ways for her wrongful gain and he and his parents suffered a lot due to torture and harassment of petitioner and her family members.

(iv) It is submitted by respondent that Presently he has no job and leading his life in a miserable condition and there is no property in his name and after desertion of petitioner, he vacated rented house and stayed in his mother house on her mercy.

It is submitted that the petitioner is qualified in education as she completed Nursing

Course with that she is having earning capacity and she can earn herself and maintain her life and there is no need to grant maintenance to her. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.During Course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and examined her mother as P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 on her behalf. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as R.W.1 and examined R.W.2. No documents were marked on behalf of the respondent.

M.C.No.10/2022 5 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

5. Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

6. Now the points that arise for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim maintenance from the respondent U/s. 125 Cr.P.C? If so, what is the quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the petitioners?”

POINT:

6.1)It is argued by the learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent had harassed P.W.1 both physically and mentally by demanding to bring additional dowry and also beat her mercilessly and did not provide any food to her and did not care for her and necked her out of the house and having no other go, she came to her mother’s house and staying there by depending on the mercy of her mother and she has no capacity to maintain herself and the respondent filed Divorce O.P

before Hon’ble Family Court at Vijayawada which shows the intention of the

respondent to left the petitioner to her fate and except the bare allegations against the petitioner, no evidence was placed to show that she deserted the respondent and that the respondent has got properties and running buddy shop and as such, he is having sufficient means and capacity to provide maintenance to petitioner and therefore, he prays to grant maintenance as prayed for.

6.2) Refuting the above arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent argued that petitioner never acted as dutiful wife and she used to quarrel with the respondent and his mother always and she used to torture the respondent and his mother with abusive words and left the house and the respondent placed the matter

before elders who pacified, but there is no change in the behaviour of the petitioner

and she herself left the company and deserted him and foisted false cases and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance. It is further argued that the petitioner completed her Nursing and working in Amma Old age home and getting

Rs.18,000/- per month and as such, the petitioner is having sufficient means for her maintenance, whereas the respondent has no capacity to provide maintenance to

M.C.No.10/2022 6 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

petitioner and he has to look after his old age mother and there are no properties in his name and therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition with costs.

6.3) In order to claim maintenance under section 125 of Cr.P.C, the 1st petitioner has to prove that (I) the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent;

(ii) The respondent has willfully neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner and that;

(iii) The petitioner has no sufficient means to maintain herself and the respondent is having sufficient means to provide maintenance to her.

6.4) As seen from the material, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship as averred in the petition. P.W.1 got marked Ex.P1 which is a marriage certificate and it shows that the marriage of P.W.1 and R.W.1 was performed on 28.08.2020.

Admittedly the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed on 28.08.2020 as per christian caste customs and rights and the marriage was consummated. Thus, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

6.5)To prove her case, the petitioner is examined as P.W.1. It is the testimony of

P.W.1 that at the time of marriage, her parents gave Rs.50,000/- as dowry and

Rs.50,000/- towards other lanchanams and they lived happily for some period.

P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1 and she deposed that at time of marriage, she present an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towardsy dowry, one gold ring and Sarisamans worth of

Rs.50,000/-. Thus, there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with regard to presentation of dowry and lanchanams. P.W.2 deposed that she has no documentary proof to show that he gave dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- or presentation of gold ring. There is no proof to show about presentation of dowry or gold ring. In the absence of the same, the oral testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about presentation of dowry or gold ring and Rs.50,000/- towards lanchanams will not gain any importance. The testimony of P.W.1 that after mariage, her mother gave

M.C.No.10/2022 7 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

Rs.20,000/- to respondent to start and maintain business by doing ‘buddy shop’, was not at all corroborated by P.W.2. P.W.2 did not state about presentation of

Rs.20,000/- to the respondent for his business and as such, the testimony of P.W.1 about presentation of Rs.20,000/- will not gain any importance. Since, the proceedings U/sec.125 of Cr.P.C are summary in nature, this court cannot go deep about the presentation of dowry and other articles and the same is not necessary to decide in this petition. Our Hon'ble APEX Court in the matter of Sunitha

Kuchwaha AND Ors VS. Anil Kuchwaha, reported in 2015 (1) ALD (Crl) 484 (SC) their Lordships held that, “theproceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C is summary in nature. In a proceeding under section 125 Cr.P.C., it is not necessary for the court to ascertain as to who was in wrong and the minute details of the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife need not be gone into. It was further held by their lordships that Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife. The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her. Where the wife states that she has great hardships in maintaining herself and daughters, while her husbands economic condition is quite good, the wife would be entitled to maintenance”.

Thus, in view of the above discussion, this Court cannot go deep into the minute details of the matrimonial life happened in between the parties. It is suffice for P.W.1 to establish that she has no means and the respondent being her husband has neglected and refused to maintain her and she has been residing separately on a just cause.

6.6) It is the testimony of P.W.1 that the respondent used to beat her mercilessly and harassed her mentally to bring additionald owry from her parents house and also did not provide food and clothing and did not take care of her when she fell ill and used to send filthly messages on phone. P.W.1 further deposed that the

Respondent’s mother also harassed her to bring more dowry or otherwise, she would perform another marriage to respondent and grandmother of respondent also

M.C.No.10/2022 8 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

harassed her to do any job or business to maintain their family and on 28.4.2021, the respondent and his familymembers scolded her in filthly language, beat her mercilessly and necked her out of the house and as there is no othergo, she came to her parents house and residing there and the respondent kept her ear rings worth of Rs.15,000/- with him and she lodged report to Mudinepalli P.S who reprimanded the respondent and he failed to return them and also threatened to throw certificates into fire. During cross-examination of P.W.1, she admitted that she lodged a report before Mudinepalli police station against her husband her inlaws and she got prepared the said report and after her marriage, she joined with respondent at Tadigadapa to lead marital life and lived for a period for six months and her husband filed divorce OP against her in Vijayawada court and she file counter in the said case and she know the counter averments and she got mentioned the said counter that her parents gave an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards dowry. P.W.1 denied that she is working as a care taker in Amma Old Age

Home, Gunadala and earning income of Rs.18,000/- per month and her marriage expenses were borne by respondent and further denied that her parents gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards dowry and Rs.50,000/- towards other lanchanams is false and her parents are not having capacity to give Rs.1,00,000/- and that she demanded the respondent to put up separate residence by leaving his mother and she refused to join the respondent though the respondent requested through elders. Nothing was elicited during cross-examination of P.W.1 to show that she herself deserted the company of the respondent. Most of the cross-examination of

P.W.1 went on putting suggestions and denying the same by P.W.1.

6.7)The mother of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 and R.W.1 lived happily for some time at Tadigadapa and Vijayawada and the respondent used to suspect the petitioner and cheated the petitioner and necked her out after three months of their house and as there is no other go, she came to her house and staying with them and she is unable to look after the well being of petitioner and the respondent is having sufficient means, but did not provide any maintenance to petitioner. During cross-examination of P.W.2, she deposed that

M.C.No.10/2022 9 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

her daughter gave a complaint under Section 498-A of IPC against her husband and her mother-in-law. P.W.2 deposed that the respondent’s mother is old aged person and she was staying with the respondent. P.W.2 deposed that her daughter did nursing course and denied the suggestions that his daughter is working in

Amma Care Center, Vijayawada and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and further denied that respondent never harassed the petitioner and he did not necked out the petitioner out of the house and he did not neglect or refused the petitioner at any point of time.

6.8) The respondent was examined as R.W.1 and he deposed that he and P.W.1 lived happily for five months and P.w.1 did not act as dutiful wife and did not attend household works and did not behave properly with his mother and she used to abuse him and his mother all times and when he questioned her, she demanded for separate residence and he refused her proposal as she has to lookafter her mother and asked her wife to do any job. R.W.1 further deposed that his wife left his house on 25.4.2021 and went to her parental house and foisted false case against him and his mother in Mudinepalli Police Station on 07.04.22. During cross-examination of R.W.1, he deposed that he and the petitioner lived together happily for some period and further deposed that he has no proof or any document filed before this court that the petitioner is working in old age home and earning money and he is running buddy shop and earning an amount of Rs.6.000/- per month. R.W.1 denied the suggestion that he demanded the petitioner to bring an amount of Rs.20,000/- for running a buddy shop and the petitioner brought the said amount from her parents and gave it to me and further denied the suggestion that at the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to him and he harassed the petitioner to bring additional dowry from her parents house and as she refused the same, he bore grudge and beat her and harassed her and his mother also instigated him to ask for additional dowry and used to utter that she will perform another marriage to him and he is having building in his name at

Tadigadapa which is worth of Rs.30,00,000/- and he neglected the petitioner and

M.C.No.10/2022 10 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

he is liable to pay maintenance to her as she is having sufficient capacity to maintain her.

6.9). The respondent examined R.W.2. R.W.2 is friend of R.W.1 and he deposed that the petitioner asked the respondent to put up separate residence, for which, the respondent refused the same and as such, the petitioner left the company of respondent and went out of the matrimonial home. Further, he deposed that the petitioner is working as old age home and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and the respondent is running a buddy shop and earning Rs.3,000/- to

Rs.4,000/-. During cross-examination of R.W.2, he deposed that he is resident of

Vijayawada and running a tent house and the petitioner is working as a nurse in old age home and he did not file any document to show that the petitioner is working as a nurse in old age home and denied the rest of the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for petitioner.

6.10) It is an undisputed fact that P.W.1 and R.W.1 are residing separately. It is also evident from the material that the petitioner went to her parental house in the month of April, 2021 and since then, she has been residing at her parents house.

The testimony of P.W.1 shows that the respondent and his mother had harassed her physically and mentally and also demanded to bring additional dowry. It is also testimony of P.W.1 that grandmother of R.W.1 also harassed her. There is no material placed by R.W.1 to show that P.W.1 had left his company. The testimony of R.W.1 with regard to allegations made against the petitioner that she used to harass him and his mother and not acted as dutiful wife was not proved by adducing any cogent evidence. There is no positive evidence placed by the respondent to prove that he had made any efforts to take back the petitioner into the marital fold. It is evident from the material that the respondent had necked the petitioner and as such, the petitioner went to her parents house and staying there.

The testimony of R.W.2 that P.W.1 demanded to put up separate residence and the respondent refused the same will not gain any advantage as he is friend of respondent and there is every likelihood of deposing false in support of the

M.C.No.10/2022 11 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

contention of the respondent. The testimony of P.W.1 shows that she was ill-treated and harassed by the respondent and his family members which shows that there is justifiable cause on the part of the petitioner to reside separately from the respondent. No married woman will leave the marital home and the company of her husband without any sort of ill-treatment or harassment. It is also an undisputed fact that the respondent had filed Divorce O.P before Hon’ble Family Court,

Vijayawada. If really the respondent had intention to take back the petitioners, he would have filed petition for Restitution of Conjugal rights and would not have filed

Divorce O.P.Thus, it shows that the respondent had left the petitioner to her fate. It is an admitted fact that the respondent has not provided any sort of maintenance from the month of April, 2021 i.e., from the date of residing separately. The respondent has not provided any basic needs to the petitioner even after filing of the petition and the conduct of the respondent clearly shows that he left the petitioner to her fate, which shows that the respondent had neglected the petitioner.

There is no enough material elicited from the cross examination of P.W.1 to show that she has voluntarily deserted the company of the respondent. By considering the circumstances, it can be safely held that the respondent has neglected and refused to maintain the petitioner.

6.11) With regard to quantum of maintenance to be awarded to the petitioners, it is the testimony of P.W.1 that she has no means to maintain herself and depending upon the mercy of her mother and whereas the respondent is having sufficient means and capacity as he is earning Rs.25,000/- by doing small business and also got own building in Tadigadapa, Vijayawada worth of Rs.25,00,000/- and he also got ½ share in the building which is in the name of his mother worth of

Rs.30,00,000/-situated at Ramalingeswara Nagar, Vijayawada. Both parties filed their affidavit of assets and liabilites as per the Judgment of Hon’ble APEX Court in

Rajnesh Vs. Neha, but no documents were exhibited by them in support of their averments. The testimony of P.W.1 that R.W.1 got own building in Tadigadapa,

Vijayawada worth of Rs.25,00,000/- was not proved by producing sufficient documentary evidence. R.W.1 admitted that his mother is having house in her

M.C.No.10/2022 12 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

name, but denied that it is worth of Rs.30,00,000/-. Thus, the said house is in the name of his mother and not in the name of respondent. No documents were filed by

P.W.1 to prove that R.W.1 own any building in his name. In the absence of any documentary proof, the testimony of P.W.1 that the respondent has got properties will not gain any importance.

6.12) It is the contention of respondent that petitioner is working in Amma Old Age home and earning Rs.18,000/- per month, which was denied by the petitioner.

P.W.1 admitted that she did nursing course. The respondent has not pleaded in his counter that the petitioner is working in Amma Old age home and getting income of

Rs.18,000/- per month. The respondent had failed to examine any of the person related to Amma Old age home to prove that P.W.1 is working there. R.W.1 in his cross-examination deposed that he has no proof or any document filed before this court to show that she is working in old age home and earning amount. In the absence of any document, the testimony of R.W.1 that P.W.1 is working in Amma

Old age Home will not gain any importance. The testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly shows that P.W.1 is residing with P.W.2 and depending on her mercy.

R.W.1 admitted that father of petitioner is no more and she is depending on her mother. Thus, it is evident that P.W.1 is depending on her mother and she has no source of income.

6.13) It is evident from the material that R.W.1 is running buddy shop and he deposed that he is earning Rs.6000/- per month. R.W.2 deposed that R.W.1 is running buddy shop and earning Rs.3000/- to Rs.4000/- per month. The testimony of R.W.1 that he is getting Rs.6000/- per month only by running buddy shop is not at all acceptable. The respondent is aged around 33 years and hale and healthy person and he is not suffering with any infirmities. Now a days a person going to any kind of his work can easily earn an amount above Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also evident from the material that the R.W.1 is having old aged mother and he has to lookafter her. Being the respondent husband of the petitioner is under an obligation to provide basic needs to the petitioner. There is a duty cast upon the

M.C.No.10/2022 13 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

respondent to provide minimum basic needs to the petitioner, which he has not done even after filing of the petition. The maintenance claimed by the petitioner is very high and excessive. It is also evident from the material that P.W.1 did nursing course and as such, she can do some work and earn some income for her sustenance and cannot completely depend on her mother. By considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to meet the ends of justice, this court is inclined to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner.

6.14) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent has not provided any basic needs or any amount to the petitioner for her maintenance even after filing of this petition and therefore, this court is inclined to grant maintenance to the petitioner from the date of filing of this petition. If the respondent has paid any amount towards interim maintenance during pendency of this petition as ordered by this court, the said amount shall be deducted in calculating the arrears of maintenance amount.

8. In the result, this petition is partly allowed by granting monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner from the date of filing of this petition and also costs of

Rs.1,000/- towards the petition and the respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount granted on or before 5th of every month. The arrears of maintenance amount from the date of filing of this petition to the date of this order shall be paid by the respondent within a period of three months from the date of this order. The petitioner is directed to serve copy of her bank account to the respondent, enabling the respondent to deposit the monthly maintenance in her account.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) -cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru

M.C.No.10/2022 14 JMFC Court, Kaikaluru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

P.W.1:Pamarthi Kondalamma @ RW.1P.Rajkumar Pamarthi Asha

P.W.2:P.Rani.RW.2K.Nageswara Rao.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P.1:Marriage certificate of petitioner and respondent issued by Aatmika Aradhana Diocese, Apparaopeta, H/o.Peyyuru Vilalge at Mudinepalli Mandal.

FOR RESPONDENT: ...NIL..

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) -cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kaikaluru

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT TIRUVUR

Present: Sri S.Damodara Rao, M.A.LL.M.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, the 22nd day of August, 2014.

Original Suit No. 336 of 2008

Between:

1.Modugumudi Bhagyamma, W/o. Pullaiah, aged 56 years, Hindu, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Kotapadu, Chatrai Mandal, Tiruvuru, JCJC.

2.Parsa Nagamma, D/o. Late Venkatappaiah, aged 54 years, Hindu, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrai Mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC.

3.Vemula Lakshmi, W/o. Lakshminarayana, aged 36 years, Hindu, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrai Mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC. …Plaintiffs

And

1.Parsa Sitaramulu, S/o. Late Venkatappaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrai Mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC.

2.Parsa Yedukondalu, S/o. Late Venkatappaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, Occ: Agricultural, R/o. Chinnampeta, Chatrai Mandal, Tiruvuru JCJC.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 4.8.2014 for final hearing before this Court in the presence of Sri Ch. Venkatareddi, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and Sri A. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1)This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, henchmen or whomsoever claiming through them from ever interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property; costs of the suit and among other reliefs.

2)The brief facts of the Plaint are that, Plaintiffs and Defendants are sisters and brothers and their parents are late Mr. Parsa Venkatappaiah & late Mrs. Venkamma. Their father, died intestate about 25 years back.

His wife, Mrs. Venkamma, Plaintiffs & Defendants herein and their two brothers Krishnaiah & Kesavulu as his nearest Class-I legal heirs; all assets and liabilities were devolved among them. By the date of demise of their father, except the marriage of Defendant No.1, no other marriage was performed. The mother of the Plaintiffs & Defendants brought up all children and that she performed their marriages. Plaintiff No.2 remains as spinster, as she is an unsound woman. By way of oral partition among Class-I legal heirs, the mother late Smt. Venkamma got Ac.0.90

Cts. of wet land in R.S. No. 22/5 of Chinnampeta Village. Out of her share of Ac.0.90 Cts. she conveyed Ac.0.25 Cts. each to Plaintiff Nos. 1 & 3 and Ac.0.40 Cts. to Plaintiff No. 2 by way of registered Gift Deeds dt.

16.8.2004. Since, then Plaintiffs are put in possession and enjoying their respective properties and also regularly paying statutory taxes.

3)The Plaintiffs cultivated the land and raised paddy crop by spending Rs.10,000/- and is ready for harvest in a week's time.

However, having, no right on the Plaintiffs properties, the Defendants proclaimed in the village that they will not allow the Plaintiffs to enjoy the crop. On 9.11.2008 the Defendants threatened and challenged the

Plaintiff No.3 that they will not allow to cut the paddy crop on the suit schedule property. The Plaintiffs being women, could not resist the high handiness of Defendants. Hence, they filed suit praying for permanent injunction and restrain order against the Defendants, among other reliefs.

4)Summons were caused on Defendants. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement, which was adopted by Defendant No.2 by filing a memo. Defendants denied all the material averments in the plaint and averred that after the demise of their father, he being the elder in the family, dutifully took the responsibility of upbringing the entire family and performed the marriages of his brothers and sisters by giving cash and gold ornaments and denied his mother late Smt. Venkamma performed any marriages.

5)It is averred that, he is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property since more than 30 years, and that, he was granted ryoth pass book. He has been paying revenue taxes for the suit schedule property. It was contended that, it was agreed by one and all, that, maintenance and well being of mother & Plaintiff No.2's would be the duty of the Defendants & two brothers, likewise, the mother & Plaintiff

No.2 resided with Defendants. He denied that the schedule property fell to her share of her mother, by virtue of oral partition, and that, she conveyed the same by executing registered Gift Deeds dt.16.8.2004.

6)It is asserted that, on instigation of Plaintiffs and other two brothers, the mother filed M.C. No.29/2007 against this Defendants,

before the J.F.C.M. Court, Tiruvuru, wherein, obeying the orders of the

Court, this Defendants paid Rs.1,000/- towards her maintenance.

Further asserted that, recitals of Gift Deeds says that, after the demise of the father of Plaintiffs and Defendants, the suit schedule property fell to the share of their mother and that the Plaintiffs are looking after the welfare of their mother in her old age, however, questioned the silence of not having a mention of the alleged oral partition in the said Gift Deeds.

Never, the mother had acquired any legal right; or she was conferred with title or interest over the suit schedule property; and in absence of such title or right, she is incompetent to execute any deed much less the alleged Gift Deeds executed by her in favour of Plaintiffs and the same are null and void.

7)It is said that, taking advantage of his mother being a sick and illiterate woman, the Plaintiffs without disclosing true facts to her, in connivance with other two brothers, got executed Gift Deeds in their favor, which deeds are invalid and fabricated and vehemently denied the rest of the allegations of the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

8)In view of the above rival contentions, the following issues were framed by my predecessors in Office for determination:-

i) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

9)Heard both Counsel.

10)The learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs have argued that the

Defendants are brothers of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.

3 are married and marriage was not performed to the Plaintiff No. 2. She is innocent of worldly knowledge and unwound mind. It was further submitted that at about 25 years back, the father of the Plaintiffs and

Defendants died intestate leaving his wife and children as his nearest

Class-I heirs and all the assets of their father Venkatappaiah devolved on his wife and unmarried children. The wife of Venkatappaiah by name

Venkamma brought up all her children and performed their marriage except Plaintiff No.2. Said Venkamma orally partitioned the properties along with her 4 sons and she got Ac.0.90 Cts. of wet land in R.S. No.

22/5 of Chinnampeta Village. The Plaintiff No.2 is an unsound woman.

She remained unmarried. The mother of Plaintiffs conveyed Ac.0.25

Cents to each Plaintiff No. & Plaintiff No.3 and Ac. 0.40 Cts. to Plaintiff

No.2 by way of three Gift deeds dt. 16.8.2004. The same is accepted by the Plaintiffs and are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties and paying revenue taxes and also raised paddy and is ready for harvest in the plaint schedule property. The Defendants who are none other than the brothers of the Plaintiffs, interfered on 9.11.2008, threatened and challenged that they will cut the paddy crop in the plaint schedule property and carry away. The Plaintiffs being woman unable to resist the acts of the Defendants and on the advice filed this suit. The Plaintiffs relied on the Gift Deeds executed by their mother in favour of Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and also placed the revenue receipts and other documents like pattadar passbooks and title deeds etc. and they are having possession and enjoyment of the same and right was established and prayed to pass decree of permanent injunction in their favour.

11)The learned Counsel for Defendants has argued that the

Defendants are in possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule Property and said properties are not divided into three parts as contended by the

Plaintiffs and said property is a single plot and it was in possession of the Defendants. The Defendants further submits that they are having

Rythuvari pass book in their name and Defendant No.1 being elder son of their parents, he performed the marriages of the rest of the Defendants and the property stands in the name of the Defendant No.1, in the revenue records and further contended that the mother of the

Defendants and Plaintiffs by name Venkamma filed a maintenance case.

They paid the maintenance amount to their mother. The property of Acs.

0.90 Cts. conveyed during their oral partition as pleaded by the Plaintiffs are untenable and also it was further contended that the registered Gift

Deeds dt. 16.8.2004 stating the schedule property was fallen under the share of the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendants after the death of their father Venkatappaiah. The Plaintiff Nos.1 & 3 looked after the welfare of their mother in her old age are not correct and there is no oral partition among the Defendants and their mother and further contended that the mother of the Plaintiffs Smt. Venkamma is not competent to execute the registered Gift Deeds in favour of the Plaintiffs in respect of suit schedule property, as she has no right over the said property and the Defendants are having exclusive right and possession over the said property. The mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendants by name Smt.

Venkamma had no title and it is defective title against a co-owner as per law. Hence, she cannot convey the said property in favour of Plaintiffs by way of registered Gift Deeds dt. 16.8.2001. The Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction which is a equitable relief and also with the collusion of their other brothers Mr. Krishnaiah and Mr.

Kesavulu, the Plaintiffs obtained thumb impression of their mother Smt.

Venkamma on the Gift Deeds. The mother of both parties by name Smt.

Venkamma is illiterate and could not understand why they obtained her thumb marks on the documents. Hence, the execution of Gift Deeds in favour of Plaintiffs by their mother is invalid in the eye of law and prayed to dismiss this suit.

12)In order to establish the version of the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW-1 and Plaintiff No. 3 was examined as PW-2. Exs.

A1 to A21 marked.

13)In order to establish the version of the Defendants, the Defendant

No. 1 was examined as DW-1 and Defendant No. 2 was examined as DW-

2. Ex. B1 marked.

14)Issue No. 1: As seen from the contention of the Plaintiffs, said

Ac.0.90 Cts. of schedule property was devolved on Plaintiff No.1 & 3 each

Ac.0.25 Cts. and Ac.0.40 Cts. to Plaintiff No.2, since, she is unmarried due to her innocence and unsound mind. As from the record, the

Plaintiff No.1 who examined as PW-1 deposed in support of her plaint averments, the same is corroborated by PW-2. In her cross-examination, it was denied by PW-1 & PW-2 any of the suggestions posed by the learned Defendant's counsel. It was further revealed that the mother of

Plaintiffs and Defendants by name Smt. Venkamma kept the suit schedule property towards her share and the same is gifted to the

Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Ac.0.25 Cts., Ac.0.40 Cts. & Ac.0.25 Cts.

respectively. The Plaintiffs having four brothers, out of that, the suit was filed only against two brothers as they are objecting the possession and interfering in the suit schedule property. According to the evidence of

PW-1, it was revealed that the property mentioned in Ex. A1 is their ancestral property and their younger brother also attested the execution of Exs. A1 to A3. If the Plaintiffs got it executed Ex. A1 to A3, in their favor without the knowledge of their brothers, being their mother is innocent and affixed her thumb impression at request of Plaintiffs at registered office, if it is correct, why the other brothers who was present by that time of attestation of Ex. A1 to A3 have not made any objection to their acts. In such circumstances, without knowledge of their brothers, the Plaintiffs got obtained Ex. A1 to A3 documents by way of registered

Gift Deeds is untenable. According to the evidence of PW-1, it was further revealed that their mother was resided under the shadow of their younger brother, who might have been attester of Ex. A1 to A3. In such circumstances, the plea that their mother filed a maintenance case against the Defendants inspite of having means is untenable. So, the Ac.

0.90 Cents of schedule land covered under Ex. A1 to A3 was not allotted towards the share of their mother in the oral partition is unbelievable. It is also further revealed that, PW-1 denied as the Defendant No.1 performed the marriages of their two sisters and brothers by spending his own amounts. It was further revealed that, PW-1 denied the suit schedule property is not the property of her mother.

15)PW-2 supported the version of PW-1. In her cross-examination, she also denied any of the suggestions posed by the learned Defendants

Counsel and in her cross-examination also revealed the same thing as well as cross-examination of PW-1 and it is further confronted in the cross-examination of PW-2 that plaint schedule property is their ancestral property.

16)The another plea of the Defendants that the suit schedule property was not partitioned and it was not allotted to their mother and mother has no right and it cannot be conveyed the better titles to all the Plaintiff by way of Gift Deeds i.e. Ex. A1 to A3. During cross-examination of PW- 2, it was revealed that after their marriages, they partitioned their joint family properties and residing separately, so, that is why, may be the signatures of all brothers was unable to obtain at Registrar Office as attestors on Ex. A1 to A3. During cross-examination of DW-1, it was also revealed that their partition was oral, it was not reduced in writing.

So the evidence of DW-1 also confronting their oral partition and it was not reduced in writing.

17)The Defendant No.1 examined as DW-1. In his evidence, he deposed by supporting his pleadings. According to him, the equitable relief of permanent injunction cannot be granted, as their mother having defective title and the Plaintiffs obtained the revenue record by making influence to Revenue Authorities. During his cross-examination, it was revealed that, they have Acs.2.50 Cents land as on the date of death of their father and they partitioned said property among their brothers and their unmarried sister in the year 1982. After the death of their father, they purchased jointly an extent of Ac. 1.00 Cents and they partitioned orally. So, as per the admission made by the DW-1, it is obvious that and cannot be denied the share of their unmarried sister. But, the said share was not shown in any way of their evidence. The said share of the

Plaintiff No.2 was revealing through Ex. A2, which is directly or indirectly admitting the right of Plaintiff No.2 over the schedule property for the document covered under Ex. A2. In his cross-examination, DW-1 further revealed that, he did not made any application to the revenue authorities to obtain revenue records and it was further revealed that he sold away

Ac. 1.17 Cents. and another part of his land to an extent of Ac. 0.20

Cents to perform the marriage of his daughter. The Defendant No.1 placed Ex.B1 pass book. On close scanning of Ex.B1 document, it is obvious that it was issued a long back by village Karnam, but it was not clear on which date it was issued in the name of the Defendant No.1.

According to the version of the Defendant No.1 also, after death of their father, which is about 30 years back, being the elder son, the entire properties was mutated in the revenue records in the name of the

Defendant No.1 and he claiming the right over the said proeprty basing on Ex.B1 and he was not explained subsequent events and how much extent of land was fallen towards share of the Defendants and their remaining two brothers in their oral partition. But the version of the

Plaintiffs itself clear during the oral partition, their mother have got

Ac.0.90 Cents of land, during her lifetime she executed Ex. A1 to A3 registered Gift Deeds in favour of Plaintiffs 1 to 3 to an extent of land

Ac.0.25 Cts., Ac.0.40 Cts. & Ac.0.25 Cts. respectively, total Ac. 0.90 Cts.

of her land whichever fallen towards here share, given to their daughters, out of love and affection. The share of the Plaintiff No.2 is categorically admitted by the DW-1 in his cross-examination and there is no other property shown towards share of the Plaintiff No.2 by the Defendants.

Hence, the property devolved on Plaintiff No.2 by way of Gift Deed executed by her mother was confronting on par with the evidence on record. So, in such a case, the execution of remaining registered gift deeds in favor of Plaintiff No. 1 and 3 on the same day cannot be denied.

18)During cross-examination of DW-1, DW-1 averred that, he his eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. The cumulative effect of cross-examination of DW-1 also probablises that after performing the marriage of his daughters, his entire landed properties might have sold away for marriage purpose, that is why, may be he averred in his counter of M.C filed by his mother that he has no landed properties. However, the recitals of counter in the maintenance case filed by their mother cannot be given much credence in the civil suit. The said contention shall not be taken as it is in this suit without basing on any documentary proof.

19)The another contention of the Plaintiffs that due to interference of the Defendants an altercation held and they gave a report to the Police and police registered a case against the Defendants. In his cross- examination, DW-1 admitted that, he was convicted in a criminal case in connection with their land disputes. So, the interference of the

Defendants in the plaint schedule property and peaceful enjoyment of the Plaintiffs of plaint schedule property cannot be denied and at this juncture also it is required to prevent the recurrence of its violation.

20)According to the Defendants, they have right over plaint schedule property. Except Ex. B1, they have not placed any documentary proof. If said schedule property was gifted by their mother to the Plaintiffs, why,

Defendants not taken any steps till today to obtain the title deeds and pattadar passbooks from the concerned revenue authorities, the reasons are best known to them. In his cross-examination, the DW-1 admitted that he did not file any petition before RDO or a suit before the Civil

Court to cancel the pattadar passbooks issued in favour of the Plaintiffs by revenue authorities. So, keeping silent from long back to till filing of this suit itself shows the ill-intention of the Defendants. The Defendant

No.2, who examined as DW-2 in his chief-examination supported the version of DW-1. In his cross-examination, it was also confronted that by receiving Ac. 0.40 Cents of land each and their unmarried sister (PW-

2) also got Ac.0.40 Cts. of land along with them. They allotted Ac.0.40

Cents to their sister at Borabathula Kunta. If said land is allotted during their partition by their brothers to the Plaintiff No.2, the total extent of the land to the Plaintiff No.2 is Ac.0.80 Cts. But, wherein, the Ac.0.40

Cents allotted by their brothers along with their partition does not appear either in the pleadings or in the Defendants evidence by way of documentary proof. So, Defendants cannot deny Ac. 0.40 Cents devolved on Plaintiff No.2 under Ex. A2. The rest of the evidence of DW-2 in his cross-examination revealed the same as of DW-1.

21)Now coming to the documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiffs.

According to Ex. A1 to A3 Gift Deeds executed by their mother late Smt.

Venkamma in favour of Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 to an extent of land i.e.

Ac.0.25 Cts., Ac. 0.40 Cts., & Ac. 0.25 Cts. respectively and they placed

Ex. A4 to A6 Cist receipts for the Faslis 1410 to 1415. As seen from the exhibits, A10 to A15 are the certified copies of pattadar passbook and title deeds issued in favour of Plaintiffs, basing on Ex. A1 to A3 documents. Said documents are subsequent to Ex. B1 document. So, even after the death of their father, the entire properties stands in the name of Defendant No.1, being elder son and after their marriages, they partitioned said properties orally and out of the share allotted to their mother, the gift deeds were executed in favor of Plaintiffs under Ex. A1 to

A3. To that effect, pattadar passbooks and title deeds issued to the

Plaintiffs by the concerned revenue authorities. Ex. A1 to A3 are registered gift deeds and it was not disproved by the Defendants by way of their evidence. Ex. A18 to A20 are Cist receipts for Fasilis 1416 to 1418 stands in the name of Plaintiffs. So, as per Ex. A1 to A6, A10 to

A15 and A18 to A20, the schedule property stands in the name of

Plaintiffs and they are enjoying the same by way of paying Cist to the concerned Revenue Authorities and they are cultivating the said properties. The right of the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule property is established by way of cogent documentary proof. On the other hand, the

Defendants failed to establish their right as a counterpart of the Plaintiffs right. Ex. A21 is No. 3 Adangal issued by Tahsildar, Chatrai for Fasilis 1420 & 1421, which stands in the name of the Plaintiffs to their respective extent of land covered under Ex. A1 to A3. Ex. A16 & A17 are the certified copies of MC petition bearing No. 29/2007 and counter to say that the contentions taken by both parties in that proceedings. In view of the remaining documents palced by the Plaintiffs, there is not much credence given to Ex.A16 & 17 documents and If any of the recitals available in the pleadings of both parties in that MC.

22)The Ex. A7 to A9, certified copies of No. 3 Adangal and Pahanies issued by VRO of Chinnampeta in favour of Plaintiffs, marked subject to objection raised by the learned Defendants counsel. As seen from the duties of the VRO, it is pertinent that VRO can issue certificates in their respective villages duly following the procedure i.e. 1) Nativity certificate and solvency certificate, 2) residency certificate, 3) pahani/adangal extracts....etc., In this suit, Ex. A7 to A9 are the No. 3 pahani/adangals along with the certificate of Village Revenue Officer. So, the pahani/adangal whichever enclosed along with certificate, whichever stands in the name of the Plaintiffs, but the remaining certificates along with No.3 pahani/adangals by ascertaining the same recitals, may not be considered, in view of the objection raised by the Defendants. Even if Ex.

A7 to A9 are not considered, the same may not defeat the case of the

Plaintiffs, by considering the other documents. Hence, it is not necessary to have more discussion on that aspect.

23)By considering all documentary and oral evidence let in by both parteis, it is obvious that by way of documentary proof placed by the

Plaintiffs, they established their right over the schedule property and as seen from the documents placed by the Plaintiffs, they are in absolute and enjoyment of the same as on the date of filing of the suit. It is further obvious that the Defendants interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that a criminal case registered against them and they are convicted. In such circumstances, the interference of the Defendants with the suit schdule property cannot be denied. It is also required to prevent of recurrence of its violation.

Further, the Plaintiffs established the threats of invade Plaintiffs right and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, they are entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issue No. 1 answered.

24)Issue No. 2. In view of the above discussion, the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as prayed for.

25)In the result, Permanent Injunction Decree is passed in favour of

Plaintiffs with costs and against the Defendants, their agents, henchmen or whomsoever claiming through them from ever interfering with the

Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule

Property.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 22nd day of

August, 2014.

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tiruvuru

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

PW-1: M. BhagyammaDW-1: P Sitaramulu PW-2: V. LakshmiDW-2: P Yedukondalu

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

Ex. A1Regd. Gift Deed. dt. 16.8.2004--Ex. B1 Ryothwari Pass Book.

Ex. A2Regd. Gift Deed. dt. 16.8.2004 in favour of PW-2 Ex. A3Regd. Gift Deed. dt. 16.8.2004 in favour of PW-3 Ex. A4Cist receipt dt. 8.9.2006 PW-1 Ex. A5Cist receipt dt. 8.9.2006 PW-2 Ex. A6Cist receipt dt. 8.9.2006 PW-3 Ex. A7Certificate issued by VRO, Chinnampeta in favor of PW-1 Ex. A8Certificate issued by VRO, Chinnampeta in favor of PW-2 Ex. A9Certificate issued by VRO, Chinnampeta in favor of PW-3 Ex. A10Pattadar Passbook of PW-1 Ex. A11Pattadar Passbook of PW-2 Ex. A12Pattadar Passbook of PW-3 Ex. A13Title Deed in favor of PW-1 Ex. A14Title Deed in favor of PW-2 Ex. A15Title Deed in favor of PW-3 Ex. A16CC of MC No. 29/2007 dt. 26.12.2005 Ex. A17Counter in M.C. No. 29/2007 Ex. A18Cist receipt for Fasalies 1416 – 1418 dt. 8.6.2009 in favor of PW-1 Ex. A19Cist receipt for Fasalies 1416 – 1418 dt. 8.6.2009 in favor of PW-2 Ex. A20Cist receipt for Fasalies 1416 – 1418 dt. 8.6.2009 in favor of PW-3 Ex. A21No. 3 Adangal issued by Tahsildar, Chatrai for Fasalis 1420 & 1421

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tiruvuru

Correction: NIL // T/c. //

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 1 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: KAIKALURU

Present: Sri. M. Siva Kiran

Civil Judge (Jr.Division) – Cum – J.F.C.M,

Kaikaluru.

Tuesday, this the 19 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 146 of 2021

Between:

State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalidindi Police Station. … Complainant

VS

Buchu Durga Rao, S/o. Satyam, Aged 35 years, R/o. Nawabpalem Village, Thadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. (Driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.AP

37TE 5689) … Accused

This case came before me on 13.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Ld. A.P.P for Complainant-State and of Sri Ch.Ramesh, Ld. Counsel for accused, and upon perusing the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case emerges out of the police report filed by the Incharge S.I of Police,

Kalidindi Police Station in Cr.No. 272/2019 for the alleged offence punishable

U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC against the accused person.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.10.2019 while deceased

Nos.1/Karra Thambi @ Thambi and deceased No.2/Chabathina Yahoshuva were proceeding on the bike bearing No.AP 47 DH 6543, which was driven by deceased

No.1 and deceased No.2 was the pillion rider and when they reached Kondangi

Village outskirts at about 11.15 a.m, with gas cylinder load and reached near

Immanani Harinadh land, the accused who was the driver of Tipper Lorry bearing

No.AP 37TE 5689 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 2 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU speed and hit the bike of the deceased persons in opposite direction, due to which, they both fell on road and sustained severe injuries. The deceased persons were shifted to Bhimavaram for treatment and the medical officer who examined them declared as dead. Thereafter, L.W.1/Chabhatthula ArjunaRao presented report

before LW.23/SI of police, Kaikaluru Rural Police and the same was registered as a

case in Crime No.272/2019 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and issued

FIR. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared scene observation report and drafted a rough sketch and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased persons and sent requisition for post-mortem examination and Motor

Vehicle Inspection and after receipt of report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector and

P.M.E Reports and after completion of investigation, L.W.24/Sub Inspector of

Police, Kalidindi Police Station filed charge sheet in this case.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC against the accused person by my learned predecessor in office.

4.On appearance of accused persons, Copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined U/sec.

251 Cr.P.C., and the substance of accusation for the offence U/sec. 304 (A) of IPC is read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

5.In order to prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution cited as many as 24 witnesses, out of which, they could able to examine six witnesses as P.W.1 to

P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 on their behalf.

(i) L.W.5/ Karra Pushpa Raju was examined as P.W.1; L.W.1/ Nimmakayala

Rambabu was examined as P.w.2; L.W.2/ Immaneni Harinadh was examined as

P.W.3, L.W.15/Gummadi Gangadhara Rao was examined as P.W.4,

L.W.18/Bommuluru Raju was examined as P.W.5 and L.W.23/T.Rama Krishna, SI of police was examined as P.W.6.

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 3 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU

The learned APP has given up the evidence of L.W.3/Rajanala Rangaraju,

L.W.4/Rajanala Manikanta, L.W.6/ Chabathula Nagaraju, L.W.7/Karra Mariyanna,

L.W.8/KatikaJyothi, L.W.9/Karra Rambabu, L.W.10/Chabathina Arjuna Rao,

L.W.11/Garikamukkula Ratnam Raju, L.W.12/Garikamukkula Srinu, L.W.13/

Garikamukkala Ammiraju, L.W.14/ Chabathina Venkanna, L.W.16/Vasupalli Mohana

Rao, L.W.17/Badime Pradeep, L.W.19/ Andraju Srinivasa Rao, L.W.20/ Kollati

Nageswara Rao, L.W.21/ Dr.B.Sinivasa Rao, L.W.22/ VSVSR Naidu, Motor Vehicle

Inspector, Gudivada and L.W.24/ADL Janardhana, SI of police, Kalidindi Police

Station.

(ii) Ex.P1 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2; Ex.P.2 is the Sec.161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3; Ex.P.3 is the scene observation report; Ex.P4 is the inquest report of deceased No.1/Katta Thambi @ Thambi; Ex.P.5 is the inquest report of deceased No.2/Chabattina Yehoshua; Ex.P.6 is the FIR; Ex.P.7 is the

Rough Sketch; Ex.P8 is the Postmortem Examination report of Karra Thambi;

Ex.P9 is the Postmortem report of Ch.Yehoshua and Ex.P.10 is the MVI Report.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec. 313

Cr.P.C., and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is put-forth to him, for which he stated as false and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP and the learned counsel for the accused person.

Perused the material available on record.

8. Now, the point that arises for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused person for the alleged offence punishable U/sec.304- A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.According to case of prosecution, the accused who is the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Tipper Lorry bearing No.AP 37TE 5689 drove the same in a rash and

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 4 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motor bike of the deceased persons, for which, the deceased Nos.1 and 2 fell on road and sustained grievous injuries and while undergoing treatment, the deceased persons succumbed to injuries and thereby the accused had committed the alleged offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC.

10.The learned Assistant Public prosecutor argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses reveals that deceased persons died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident and the evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.P10 MVI Report proves that the accused person is the driver of the crime vehicle at time of accident and that the accused has committed the offence by driving the vehilce rashly and negligently and therefore, she prays to convict the accused person as per law in the interests of justice.

(ii) The learned Counsel for accused argued that accused did not commit any offence and a false case was foisted against the accused person for getting insurance to the deceased family members and there is no evidence to prove the manner of the accident and that accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident and therefore, he prays to acquit the accused person in the interests of justice.

11.To prove the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined. P.W.1 is the relative of deceased No.1/ Katta Thambi @ Thambi. P.W.1 deposed that the deceased Nos.1 and 2 are his brothers and they both died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. P.W.1 deposed that at about 6 years back, this case incident was happened at Madhavani gudem and Kondtgangi road as his brothers are proceeding on motorcycle, and one lorry dashed them and they fell down and sustained severe injuries, for which, deceased No.1/Katta Thambi died on spot and deceased No.2/ Chebattina Yehosua died while undergoing treatment and his grandfather gave report to police. During cross-examination of P.W.1, he deposed that he do not know about the manner of the accident and he received phone

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 5 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU information about the accident and went to hospital and his grandfather is an illeterate and he cannot read and write. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 shows that he is not an eye witness to the accident and after receipt of phone information he went to hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 shows death of deceased persons due to injuries sustained in road accident and do not prove that accused is the person who is responsible for the alleged accident.

12.P.Ws.2 and 3 are cited as eye witnesses to the incident. However, P.W.2 and

P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case and P.W.3 stated that he went to scene of offence and found that two persons lying on the road with injuries and he do not know the

P.W.1 and accused in this case. In view of hostility of Pws.2 and 3, the learned

APP obtained permission and cross examined them, but nothing was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution, except marking their Sec.161 statements as

Ex.P.1 and P.2. Thus, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are noway helpful to the case of the prosecution.

13.P.W.4 and P.W.5 are the mediators to the scene observation report. P.W.4 and P.W.5 deposed that police observed scene of offence in their presence on 29.10.2019 at 7.00 P.M and prepared scene observation report and they both signed on it and through P.W.4, the scene observation report is marked as Ex.P4.

P.W.4 is the inquest panchayatdar to prove the inquest report of deceased no.1/Karri Thambi and P.W.5 is the inquest panchaytadar to prove the inquest report of deceased no.2/Ch.Yehoshua. The evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 shows that police conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased persons and prepared inquest report and they signed on it and they both opined that the deceased persons died due to the injuries sustained in a road accident and the inquest report of deceased no.1/K.Tambi is marked as Ex.P4 through P.W.4 and inquest report of decesased no.2/Ch.Yehoshua is marked as Ex.P5 throught P.W.5.

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 6 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU

Nothing was elicited during cross-examination of P.W.4 and P.W.5 to disprove their opinion that deceased persons died due to injuries sustained in a road accident.

14.P.W.6 is the investigating officer who deposed about the legal formalities done by him in this case. P.W.6 deposed that while he was present in the police station, on 28.10.2019 at 4.30 PM, he received written report from LW10/Ch. Arjuna

Rao and basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.272/2019 U/Sec.304(A) of

IPC and issued FIR. Later, he proceeded to the scene of offence and examined in the presence of the mediators and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and examined PW2, PW3, LW3/Ranga Raju, LW4/R. Manikanta and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.,statements. He visited the Community Health Center,

Bhimavaram and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased persosn i.e., Karra Thambi @ Thambi Swamy and Ch. Yehoshua in the presence of the inquest panchayathidars and sent the body to postmortem examination and he shifted the crime vehicle bearing No. AP37TE5689 to the police station and sent requisition to the MVI for inspection of the crime vehicle. He served U/Sec.41(A)

Cr.P.C., notice on the accused person and received PM examination reports of two dead persons from Medical Officer. Thereafter the Sl of Police, Kalidindi PS took further investigation and he filed charge sheet in this case. During cross- examination of P.W.6, he admitted that P.W.1 to P.W.3 did not state to him that they can identify the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.6 denied the suggestions that P.W.1 to 3 did not state before him as mentioned in their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and the accused did not commit any offence and he was falsely implicated in this case to get insurance to the deceased family members and he did not examine the witnesses and the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle and he did not commit any offence and without proper identification of accused person, he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on him.

15.As seen from the material on record, there is no dispute from the side of the learned defence counsel with regard to the death of the deceased persons due to the injuries sustained in a road accident. The conjoint testimonies of PW.1, P.Ws.4

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 7 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU to 6 coupled with Ex.P.3, P.4, P.8 to P.10 clearly shows that the deceased persons have died due to the injuries sustained in the road accident. Therefore, this court is of considered view that the death of deceased persons is occurred due to the injuries sustained in road accident.

16.With regard to whether the accused is driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Tipper

Lorry bearing No.AP 37TE 5689 at the time of accident, the prosecution relied upon only the evidence of P.W.6 who deposed that he served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on the accused person. P.W.1 do not know about the manner of the accident. However, he cannot say the manner of accident and also he cannot say the driver of the crime vehicle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not support the case of prosecution and completely turned hostile. P.W.1 catergorically deposed that he do not know the manner of accident and on receipt of phone information, he went to hospital. The prosecution has not produced any document before this court to prove that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. Except the testimony of P.W.6 that he served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on accused person, there is no cogent evidence placed by prosecution to prove that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident. There is no material placed by the prosecution to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime of vehicle at the time of the accidentand that he drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

18.In the absence of any positive evidence adduced by the prosecution, it cannot be held that accused is the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of the accident. The prosecution failed to prove by cogent and convincing evidence that accused is driver of crime vehicle at the time of accident, and that he drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner and as such, this court is of the view that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the accused is entitled for acquittal.

19. In the result, this court finds that the accused person is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 8 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU

U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer (Grade-III), corrected by me on my laptop and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) -Cum-

J.F.C.Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Accused:NIL PW1 : K.Pushparaju.

PW2:N.Rambabu.

P.W.3: I.Harinadh.

P.W.4: G.Gangadhara Rao.

P.W.5: B.Raju.

P.W.6: T.Rama Krishna, SI of police.

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: For Accused :-Nil- Ex.P1 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P2 :Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3:Scene observation report.

Ex.P4:Inquest report of deceased No.1/Karra Thambi @ Thambi.

Ex.P5:Inquest report of deceased No.2/Chabattina Yehoshua.

Ex.P6:FIR.

Ex.P7:Rough Sketch.

Ex.P8:Postmortem examination report of deceased No.1/Karra Thambi.

Ex.P9:Postmortem examination report of deceased No.2/Ch.Yehoshua.

Ex.P10: MVI report.

Material Objects marked

...Nil ...

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) -Cum-

J.F.C.Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

C.C. No. 146 of 2021, dt 19.05.2026 9 CJ (JD) COURT, KAIKALURU

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

ABSTRACT : JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL FIRST

CLASS MAGISTRATE :: KAIKALURU :: DISTRICT: KRISHNA

C.C.No. 146/2021

Date of Offence:: 28.10.2019

Date of complaint/report:: 28.10.2019

Date of release on bail:: Sec. 41- A Cr.P.C.

Date of taken on file:: 02.03.2021

Date of commencement of trial:: 11.07.2024

Date of closure of trial:: 06.04.2026

Date of sentence or order:: 19.05.2026

Name of the Complainant:: State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kalidindi Police Station, Particulars of the accused:

AccusedBuchu Durga Rao, S/o. Satyam, Aged 35 years, R/o. Nawabpalem Village, Thadepalligudem Mandal, West Godavari District. (Driver of Tipper Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 37TE 5689) Nature of offenceU/sec. 304 (A) of IPC,

Found not guilty Finding of the court

Sentence of Order : In the result, this court finds that the accused person is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.304 (A) of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted U/sec. 255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused person shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no marked or unmarked property in this case.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division) – Cum -

Judl. 1 st class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 1 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: KAIKALURU ::

PRESENT: Sri M. SIVA KIRAN

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judl. 1 st Class Magistrate

Kaikaluru

Friday, this the 15 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 366 of 2022

Between State rep. by Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau, Kaikaluru … Complainant

And

Ghantasala Rangamma, W/o Mukarjee, Age 51 years, R/o. Pandiripalligudem Village of Kaikaluru mandal. … Accused

This case has come up on 06.05.2026 for final hearing before me in open court in the presence of learned APP for the complainant and of Sri M.S.S. Raju, Learned Counsel for accused and having perused the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This case is filed by the Sub-Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Kaikaluru, against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act (amended) 2020 in Cr.No.48/2021 of his Station.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that, on 11.05.2021 at about 02- 30P.M, L.W.1/M. Asha Latha, Sub Inspector of S.E.B. Kaikaluru, received information and she along with her staff i.e., L.W.2/P. Hema Sundar while patrolling for detection of prohibition and excise offences at Pandiripalligudem village and found the accused person having 02 liters plastic bottle in her right hand and on seeing them, she perturbed and tried to escape and she stopped her with the help of her staff and ascertained the identity particulars of the accused person and asked the accused with regard to the content, or which, the accused stated that there is I.D.liquor in the plastic bottles and she deputed L.W.2/P. Hemasundra to

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 2 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU secure mediators and he returned back and stated that nobody came forward to act as mediators and she opened the can and found 02 liters plastic bottle, total of 02 liters of I.D.liquor and on further questioning, the accused confessed that he purchased the I.D.Liquor from unknown person in Pandiripalligudem village of

Kaikaluru Mandal with a view to sell at higher rate and she informed to accused that Possession, transporting and selling of I.D.Liquor is an offence under the provisions of A.P.Prohibition Act and arrested the accused and seized the contraband and taken sample from it for chemical analysis purpose and sealed and affixed identity slip on the sample bottle and drafted Special Report and returned to station. Basing on Special Report, she registered the same as a case in Cr.No.48/2021 U/s.7(a) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995 (amended) 2020 and issued FIR and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand and sent the sample bottle for Chemical examiner along with a letter of advice to the chemical analyst and submitted letter for destruction of the seized property to the Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Vijayawada and after completion of investigation, L.W.3/S. Rambabu, Inspector, SEB, Kaikaluru filed charge sheet in this case.

3)This case was taken cognizance U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act, 1995 (amended) 2020 against the accused and summons were issued to the accused.

4)On appearance of accused, copies of documents were supplied to her as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C and

Charge U/sec.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, was framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which, the accused denied the contents of the charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, matter posted for trial.

5)To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution cited three witnesses, out of which they examined L.W.1/M. Asha Latha, Sub Inspector, SEB,Kaikaluru as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1. The evidence of L.W.2 and L.W.3 viz., P.

Hema Sundar, S. Rambabu were given up by the Learned APP.

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 3 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

6)After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s.

313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the evidence of

Prosecution witnesses is putforth to her, for which she stated that the prosecution evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

7)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

8)Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the alleged offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

9)The contention of the learned APP is that the evidence of P.W.1 and documents exhibited i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 are cogent, consistent, corroborative and could prove the guilt of accused and therefore prays this court to convict the accused as per law in the interests of justice.

10)The learned counsel for accused argued that accused is innocent and she did not commit any offence and nothing was seized as alleged by the prosecution and M.O.1 is planted for the purpose of this case and the excise officials failed to secure any independent mediators at the scene of offence and except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove about alleged seizure of the property and P.W.1 is the complainant and investigating officer and this case is foisted for statistical purpose and therefore, prays to acquit the accused in the interests of justice.

11)The case of prosecution in brief is that the accused person is found

in possession of 02 liters of ID Liquor unauthorizedly and thereby committed

the offence punishable under A.P. Prohibiton Act.

12)POINT: In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined one witness i.e., P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1. Ex.P1 is the Mediators report, Ex.P.2 is the FIR, Ex.P.3 is the copy of letter of advice, Ex.P4 is the chemical analysis report, Ex.P5 is the destruction orders of the proposals sent to Assistant Enforcement Superintendent, SEB, Machilipatnam. M.O.1 is the sample bottle of unexpended portion of I.D. Arrack.

13)P.W.1 deposed that on 11-05-2021 at about 02-30 A.M, she along with her staff L.W.2/P. Hemasundar proceeded to Pandiripalligudem Village and found the

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 4 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU accused person having 02 liters of plastic can in her right hand and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape and she caught hold the accused with the help of her staff and questioned the accused, for which, the accused confessed that she has

I.D.Liquor and she ascertained the identity particulars of the accused and questioned her, for which the accused confessed that she purchased the I.D.liquor from some unknow persons at Pandiripalligudem village with a view to sell at higher rate and she got opened the can and found 02 liters of I.D.Liquor and seized the same under the cover of Mediators Report, which is marked as Ex.P-1 and drawn samples and arrested the accused and returned to station and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.48/2021 U/s.7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act, and issued FIR, which is marked as Ex.P2 and produced the accused before this court for judicial remand and she send the samples to chemical examiner as per the letter of

Advice, which is marked as Ex.P3 and received chemical analysis report, which is marked as Ex.P4 and sent proposals for destruction of case property to Deputy

Commissioner of SEB, Vijayawada for destruction of the case property and Ex.P5 is the copy of destruction orders of the proposal sent to Assistant Enforcement

Superintendent, SEB, Machilipatnam. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. M.O.1 is the sample bottle. During cross-examination of P.W.1, she admitted that the scene of offence is situated in a busy locality and residential area.

She admitted she did not issue any written summons to the mediators and she denied that she did not secure the medaitors and the accused was not found with possession of ID liquor and the accused did not confess anything to her and Ex.P1 is drafted in the excise station and M.O.1 is planated for the purpose of this case.

P.W.1 denied the suggestions that she did not seize the I.D.Liquor from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P-1 and filed false case against the accused for statistical purpose.

14)Perusal of the material shows that P.W.1 is excise official. P.W.1 admitted that the scene of offence situated in a busy locality and a residential area. P.W.1 did not secure any of independent persons at the time of seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. No written notices were given by P.W.1 to any person requesting them to act as mediators. When the evidence of P.W.1 shows

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 5 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU that the scene of offence is busy locality, about availability of persons at the scene of offence cannot be completely ruled out and she ought to have secured independent mediators at the time of alleged seizure of the property. P.W.1 did not make any best or sincere efforts to secure mediators at the time of seizure of property. When there are no independent mediators to prove the alleged seizure of property, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused person has to be looked with suspicion and failure to seize the contraband in the presence of independent mediators is certainly fatal to the case of prosecution. In this regard our Hon'ble High Court of A.P in a decision rendered in

Yeduru Srinivasa Reddy Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347, held that, “when no mediators were examined, though search conducted in a

busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be

sustained”. In the absence of independent mediator, the seizure of I.D.liquor from the possession of the accused becomes doubtful and it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the liquor was seized from the accused.

15)P.W.1 is Excise official and her evidence that accused confessed that she purchased the I.D.Liquor from unknown person at Pandiripalligudem village will not gain any advantage and the said confession is not at all admissible in evidence as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act and further, it is admitted by P.W.1 that she did not conduct investigation from whom the accused purchased the alleged

I.D.liquor. Our Hon’ble High Court of A.P., in the case of Mudevath Mothia Vs.

State of A.P., reported in 2002 (1) ALT (Cri) 437 held that “Offence u/sec 34 of AP Excise Act is made cognizable offence and once Excise Officials are entrusted with the investigation of cognizance offence, they become police officials, as such, the confession recorded by them in the proceedings is inadmissible. The seizure procedure drafted also cannot be considered in view of the bar under Sec. 25 & 26 of Indian Evidence Act and Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Moreover, this is not the case where property was seized in pursuance of confession so as to consider such part of confession u/sec 27 of Indian Evidence Act as admissible.

The offence alleged against the accused is U/s. 7 (A) r/w 8 (e) of

A.P.Prohibition Act,, is also a cognizable offence. Hence, I am of considered view

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 6 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU that confession made by accused to P.W.1 who is an excise official is inadmissible and is of no worth to the case of prosecution.

16) P.W.1 is the complainant/informant and she conducted entire investigation which is also fatal to the case of prosecution. Except the testimony of P.W.1, who is excise official, there is no other independent evidence to corroborate the case of prosecution. Our Hon'ble High Court of A.P in the case of G. Venkata Satya

Subramanya Raju Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2020 (1) ALD (CrL) 168 (A.P), by following the Judgment of Hon'ble APEX Court in Mohan Lal's case held that “a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of a fair

trial, necessary postulates that the informant and the

investigator must not be the same person and justice must not

only be done, but must appear to be done also and any

possibility of bias or a predetermined conclusion has to be

excluded and thereby settled the law and set at naught the

controversy stating that when the informant is the police officer

that he cannot be the investigating officer and if any

investigation is conducted by him it will be vitiated”. In the present case also, P.W.1 is the complainant/informant and she condcuted major part of investigation and thereby the investigation conducted by her is vitiated.

17) It is unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W.1 who is excise official and who is naturally interested in getting conviction to accused and thereby the testimony of

P.W.1 will not gain any advantage to prove that the accused was found in possession of the alleged contraband and that accused had committed the alleged offence. In the light of above discussion and in view of the above discrepancies pointed out, this court is of considered view that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable

U/s. 7(A) r/w.8(e) of A.P.Prohibition Act and therefore, accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and thereby entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

18) In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquittedU/s. 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 7 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/s. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

P.W1:M. Asha Latha, SI, SEB, Kaikaluru.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: Nil

Ex.P1: Special Report. Ex.P2: FIR. Ex.P3: Letter of Advice. Ex.P4: Chemical Analysis Report. Ex.P5: Copy of destruction orders of the proposal sent to Assistant Enforcement Superintendent.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Nil

M.O.1: Sample bottle containing Unexpended portion of I.D liquor.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division)-cum-

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru

C.C. No. 366 of 2022, dt 15.05.2026 8 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

ABSTRACT:: KRISHNA

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SRI M.SIVA KIRAN,

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Division) -cum- JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE::KAIKALURU

CC.No.366 /2022

1)Date of Offence : 11.05.2021

2)Date of Complaint : 11.05.2021

3)Date of Apprehension of: 11.05.2021 accused

4)Date of Release of11.05.2021 Accused

5)Date of Commencement of: 18.11.2024 Trial

6)Date of Closure of Trial: 24.03.2026

7)Date of Judgment: 15.05.2026

8)Complainant: The State rep. by Sub Inspector of S.E.B., Kaikaluru.

9)Name of the accused: Ghantasala Rangamma, W/o Mukarjee, Age 51 years, R/o. Pandiripalligudem Village of Kaikaluru mandal.

10)Offence: U/s.7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act (amended) 2020.

11)Plea of accused: NOT GUILTY

12)Finding: NOT GUILTY

13)Result: In the result, the Accused is foundnot guilty for the offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly, accused is acquittedU/s. 248(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/s. 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14)Explanation for delay: Due to non production of witnesses

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge ( Junior Division)

-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kaikaluru Copy submitted To The Hon’ble 1Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 1 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) – CUM – JUDICIAL

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: KAIKALURU

PRESENT : SRI M. SIVA KIRAN

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – cum – Judl. 1st Class Magistrate

Kaikaluru

Monday, this the 18th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 679 / 2024

Between: State rep. by Sub-Inspector, SEB, Kaikaluru … Complainant

And

Ghantasala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged 50 years, Vadarlapadu

village of Kaikaluru mandal. ... Accused

This case came before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the open court in the presence of learned APP for the complainant and of Sri. T. Srinivasarao & Ch. Nageswara Rao, Ld. Advocates for the accused and having perused the material on record and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1)This case is filed by the Sub Inspector, Special Enforcement Bureau,

Kaikaluru, against the accused, for the offence punishable U/s.34(A)(i) of A.P.

Excise Act (amendment) Act, 2023, in Cr.No.192/2024 of his Station.

2)The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that, on 14.05.2024 at about 06.30 PM, L.W.1/B. Rajendra Prasad, Sub Inspector, SEB, Kaikaluru received credible information and he along with his staff while patrolling for detection of prohibition and excise offences at Vadarlapadu village of Kaikaluru Mandal had found the accused person standing with a bag and on seeing them, the accused tried to skulk away and he apprehended him and ascertained the identity particulars of the accused and on further questioning, the accused confessed that his earnings are not sufficient and decided to do illegal business and decided to sale IMFL liquor and purchased 12 liquor bottles from the Government Retail outlet in Rachapatnam village with an intention to sell at higher rate in the village. L.W.1/B. Rajendra

Prasad, Sub Inspector, SEB, Kaikaluru verified the bag and found total 12 bottles of

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 2 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

Boom Superior strong beer bottles of 650ml and he asked for license, for which he replied in negative and informed that illegal possession of liquor bottles without bills or receipts is an offence and seized the bottles and arrested the accused under the cover of Special report and taken sample bottle and accused to police station.

3)Basing on the Special report, L.W.1/B. Rajendra Prasad, Sub Inspector,

SEB, Kaikaluru Station, registered the same as a case in Cr.No.192/2024,

U/s.34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 2023 and issued FIR and served 41-A

Cr.P.C notice on the accused person and sent the sample bottles to chemical examination and received analysis report and sent proposals to Deputy

Commissioner, SEB, Vijayawada for confiscation of seized property and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.

4)This case was taken cognizance U/sec.34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act, 1968 (amended) 2023 against the accused and summons were issued to the accused.

5)On appearance of accused, copies of documents were supplied to him as required U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. Accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.P.C and Charge

U/sec.34(a)(i) of A.P. Excise Act, was framed, read over and explained to him in

Telugu, for which, the accused denied the contents of the charges framed, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Hence, matter posted for trial.

6)To prove the guilt of accused, prosecution cited two witnesses, out of which, one witness i.e., L.W.1/B. Rajendra Prasad is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. The Ld.APP has given up the evidence of L.W.2/

K. Venkateswarao.

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

Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is putforth to him, for which, he stated that the prosecution evidence is false and reported no defence evidence.

8)Heard both sides. Perused the material on record.

9)Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused for the

alleged offence punishable under section 34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act

beyond all reasonable doubt?

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 3 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

10)The contention of the learned APP is that the evidence of P.W.1 and documents exhibited i.e., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 and M.O.1 is cogent, consistent, corroborative and could prove the guilt of accused and therefore prays this court to convict the accused as per law in the interests of justice.

11)The learned counsel for accused argued that accused person is innocent and he did not commit any offence and nothing was seized as alleged by the prosecution and M.O.1 is planted for the purpose of this case and the Excise

Official failed to secure any independent mediators and this case is foisted for statistical purpose and except the evidence of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to corroborate his testimony and his sole testimony cannot be relied upon as he acted as complainant/informant and investigating officer. Upon, the above grounds, he prays to acquit the accused in the interests of justice.

12)The case of prosecution in brief, is that, the accused is found in

possession of 12 liquor bottles unauthorizedly and thereby committed the

offence under A.P. Excise Act.

13)Point : In order to substantiate the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined one witness i.e., P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.5 and M.O.1. Ex.P-1 is Special Report, Ex.P.2 is FIR, Ex.P.3 is letter of advise and Ex.P.4 is chemical analysis report, Ex.P5 Proposals sent to Deputy Commissioner of SEB,

Vijayawada. M.O.1 is sample bottle of liquor in Boom Superior strong beer.

14)P.W.1 deposed that on 14-05-2024 at about 06.30PM, he along with his staff while patrolling for detection of Prohibition and excise offences at Vadarlapdu village of Kaikaluru mandal had found the accused standing with mica bag in his right hand and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape and he apprehended him with the assistance of staff and questioned his identity particulars and on further questioning the accused confessed that he used to sell liquor bottles at higher price and while he was present with liquor bottles, they caught the accused and he opened the bag and found 12 bottles of Boom superior strong beer bottles and seized the same as no persons came forward to act as mediators and prepared special report, which is marked as Ex.P.1 and arrested the accused person and returned to police station. P.W.1 deposed that basing on Ex.P-1, he

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 4 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU registered the same as case in Cr.No.192/2024 for the offence punishable under section 34 (a)(i) of A.P.Excise (Amendment) Act,2020 and issued FIR, which is marked as Ex.P-2 and served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on the accused person and send the sample bottle to chemical examiner for along with letter of advise, which is marked as Ex.P-3 and he received chemical analysis report, which is marked as

Ex.P-4 and he Sent proposals to Deputy Commissioner of Special Enforcement

Bureau, Vijayawada for destruction of the case property, which is marked Ex.P-5.

M.O.1 is sample bottle. During cross-examination of P.W.1, he admitted that scene of offence is busy locality and there is no mention of batch number and serial number of bottles in Ex.P1 report and he did not mention the names of the persons who refused to act as mediators in Ex.P1 report and there are VRO or VRA or other

Revenue officials in the village and he did not issue summosn to them and he is the informant and conducted entire investigation in this case. P.W.1 denied the suggestions that accused did not commit any offence and he did not seize any liquor bottles from the possession of the accused person under cover of Ex.P.1 and this case is foisted for statistical purpose and accused never confessed anything to him as deposed by him.

15) After careful scrutiny of the material on record, it reveals that there are no independent mediators to prove the seizure of Liquor bottles from the possession of accused. P.W.1 is a Excise Official. It is the testimony of P.W.1 that he seized the liquor bottles from the possession of the accused person. However, the liquor bottles are not seized in the presence of any independent mediator. It is admitted by P.W.1 that scene of offence is busy locality. However, P.W.1 failed to secure any independent mediators to prove the seizure of the case property. No explanation was offered by P.W.1 for not securing independent mediators. When scene of offence is a busy locality, availability of independent persons at the scene of offence cannot be completely ruled out. P.W.1 admitted that there are revenue officials and he did not secure the revenue officials them, which shows that he had not made any best or sincere efforts to secure independent mediators. When there are no independent mediators at the time of seizure of property, the prosecution theory of seizing the property from the possession of the accused person has to be looked

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 5 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU with suspicion and failure to seize the liquor bottles in the presence of independent mediators is certainly fatal to case of prosecution. In this regard our Hon'ble High

Court of A.P in a decision rendered in Yeduru Srinivasa Reddy Vs. State of A.P., reported in 2002 (1) ALD (Crl) 347, held that, “when no mediators were

examined, though search conducted in a busy locality, the search and

seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained”. In the absence of independent mediator, the seizure of liquor bottles from the possession of the accused becomes doubtful and it is not safe to come to a conclusion that the liquor bottles was seized from the accused.

16) P.W.1 deposed that accused person confessed that he purchased liquor bottles and taking to sell at higher price also cannot be considered as confession to

P.W.1, who is a Excise official is inadmissible in evidence as it is hit by section 25 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As such, the alleged confession cannot be considered.

P.W.1 is the complaint/informant and he conducted entire investigation. Except the testimony of P.W.1, there is no other evidence to corroborate the case of prosecution. It is unsafe to rely on the testimony of P.W.1 who is no other than the police officer and who acted as complainant/informant and conducted entire investigation and who is naturally interested in getting conviction to accused person and his evidence cannot be given much credit in the absence of examining any independent witness. Our Hon'ble High Court of A.P in the case of G.

Venkata Satya Subramanya Raju Vs. State of A.P, reported in 2020 (1) ALD

(CrL) 168 (A.P), by following the Judgment of Hon'ble APEX Court in Mohan Lal's case held that “a fair investigation, which is but the very foundation of a fair trial,

necessary postulates that the informant and the investigator must

not be the same person and justice must not only be done, but must

appear to be done also and any possibility of bias or a

predetermined conclusion has to be excluded and thereby settled

the law and set at naught the controversy stating that when the

informant is the police officer that he cannot be the investigating

officer and if any investigation is conducted by him it will be

vitiated”.

In the present case also, P.W.1 is the complainant/informant and he condcuted entire investigation and thereby the investigation conducted by him is vitiated.

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 6 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

17) In the light of above discussion and in view of infirmities pointed out, this court is of considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the alleged offence punishable under section 34 (a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

18)In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a)(i) of AP Excise Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 18th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judl. 1st class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: NIL

P.W. 1)B. Rajendra Prasad, Sub Inspector of SEB, Kaikaluru station

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex. P1)Special report Ex. P2)First Information Report Ex. P3)Letter of Advise Ex. P4) Chemical Analysis report Ex.P5)Proposals sent to Deputy Commissioner of SEB, Vijayawada for destruction of the case property

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

M.O.1Sample bottle containing unexpended portion of liquor

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judl. 1st class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

C.C. No. 679 / 2024, dt 18.05.2026 7 JFCM COURT, KAIKALURU

ABSTRACT:: KRISHNA

CALENDER AND JUDGEMENT

CALENDER CASES TRIED BY SRI M.SIVA KIRAN,

CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Division) -cum- JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE::

KAIKALURU

CC.No. 679 / 2024

1)Date of Offence : 12.05.2024

2)Date of Complaint : 12.05.2024

3)Date of Apprehension of: 12.05.2024 accused

4)Date of accused released:12.05.2024 on bail/41-A Cr.P.C.

5)Date of Commencement: 12.06.2025 of Trial

6)Date of Closure of Trial: 25.03.2026

7)Date of Judgment: 18.05.2026

8)Complainant: The State, rep. by Sub-Inspector, SEB, Kaikaluru.

9)Name of the accused: Ghantasala Srinivasa Rao, S/o Suryanarayana, Aged 50 years, Vadarlapadu village of Kaikaluru mandal.

10) Offence: U/s.34(a)(i) of AP Excise (Amendment) Act.

11) Plea of accused: NOT GUILTY

12) Finding: NOT GUILTY

13) Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34 (a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act and accordingly, accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Code of criminal procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time as contemplated U/sec. 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

14) Explanation for delay: No delay

Sd/- M. Siva Kiran,

Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Cum -

Judl. 1st class Magistrate, Kaikaluru.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.