Mohd. Abdul Javeed Pasha

1

SC 22/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 22 OF 2020

(On committal made by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla vide PRC No.11/2019)

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police,P.S.Kathalapur (Cr.No.52/2019 of P.S.Kathalapur)

Name of the accusedCheernam Srikanth S/o Bhoomaiah @ Bhoomanna, 22 years, R/o Peggarla village.

Chargesu/sec.498-A and 306 IPC

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Mos.1 to 5 which are deposited vide CPR No.2/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2

SC 22/2020

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30-03-2021 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri B.Bhasker, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable u/s.498-A and 306 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The marriage of the deceased/Cheernam Honey Sri @

Manjula was performed with the accused on 22.06.2018. After six months of the marriage, the accused went to Dubai for better livelihood and returned to his village on 15.06.2019 to celebrate their marriage day. On 22.06.2019, the accused celebrated their marriage day grandly. Thereafter, on 30.06.2019 at 0700 hours, the accused picked up quarrels with deceased by suspecting her fidelity alleging that the deceased used to talk with other persons through mobile phone, abused and beat her and informed the same to her parents at

Ootpalli village and requested them to take her to Ootpalli. Due to physical and mental harassment of the accused, the deceased vexed over her life and on the same day in between 0800 hours to 0900 hours she committed suicide by hanging to a fan with polyester saree in her bedroom.

3

SC 22/2020

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri

T.Ashok, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kathalapur Police Station registered this case in Cr.No.52/2019 u/s.498-A and 306 IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, filed a requisition before the Tahsildar, Kathalapur to held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, visited the scene of offence and got photographed the body of the deceased, conducted the scene of offence panchanama by incorporating the details of crime in Crime

Details Form before the mediators. After completion of inquest panchanama, the then Tahsildar, Kathalapur send the dead body for postmortem examination. On 03.07.2019 at 0900 hours, the accused was arrested at his house, on interrogation he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then effected his arrest and remanded him to Judicial Custody. After completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A and 306 IPC.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A and 306 IPC by the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Korutla vide P.R.C.No.11/2019 and on

appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished 4

SC 22/2020

to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec. 306 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Session, Karimnagar u/s.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal accordingly to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, this court framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable u/sec.498-A and 306 of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15 and Mos.1 to 5 on its behalf.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable u/s 498-A and 306 IPC

beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

SC 22/2020

POINT:

9. PW1 who is the mother of the deceased/Manjula deposed that about three years ago, she performed the marriage of her daughter with the accused, after the marriage her daughter and the accused both lived together happily for a period of one year. Thereafter, her daughter used to complain as she was suffering from stomach pain and unable to bear the same, she committed suicide. PW1 further deposed that after the death of her daughter, police came to the house of the accused and obtained her signature on some paper but she does not know the contents of the said paper and she has not presented any report to the police. PWs.2 to 4 and Pws.6 and 7 are cited as the circumstantial witnesses to the case of the prosecution;

PW5 is the photographer who photographed the body of the deceased; PW8 is the panch witness for Inquest Panchanama and

Crime Details Form; PW9 is the then Tahsildar, Kathalapur who conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased; PW10 is the

Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 30-06-2019 accused being the husband of Manjula (deceased) by suspecting her fidelity harassed her physically and mentally, due to which she vexed over her life and committed suicide by hanging to a fan with polyester saree in her bed room. In this case, PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and mother 6

SC 22/2020

of the deceased deposed before this court that her daughter/Manjula died by committing suicide because of unable to bear her stomach pain, after that police came to the house of the accused and obtained her signature on some paper, but she does not know the contents of the same. PW1 further deposed that she was not presented any report to the police. PW1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any report to the Police.

As PW.1 not supported the case of prosecution, she was declared as hostile witness. PW2 who is the sister of the deceased deposed that the deceased committed suicide because of unable to bear her stomach pain and she never informed her about any harassment by the accused. PWs.3 and 4 who are the relatives of the deceased and

Pws.6 and 7 who are the neighbours of the accused who are cited as circumstantial witnesses to the case of the prosecution, in a consistent manner deposed that the deceased committed suicide because of unable to bear her stomach pain. PW5 deposed about taking of photographs of a female dead body on the instructions of

Police, Kathalapur.

PW8 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form and Inquest

Panchanama stated to have not acted as such. As PWs.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 not supported the version of prosecution, they were also declared as hostile witnesses. PW9, the then Tahsildar, who conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased deposed that 7

SC 22/2020

the reason for the death of the deceased/Manjula is committing suicide by hanging to a fan and he came to know that the reason for her death is as her husband/accused beat her but PW9 not stated upon whose information he came to know that because of the beatings of the accused, Manjula (deceased) died by committing suicide.

11.PW10 who is the Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of this crime.

In this case, there is no dispute about the death of Manjula by committing suicide. The case of the prosecution is that the accused is cause for the death of Manjula. To attribute the offence u/s. 306

IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. On perusal of the entire material on record, PWs.1 to 9 did not speak any word that was stated by the accused to the deceased to commit suicide and no such incidents are appearing due to the acts of the accused, the deceased committed suicide. Though the prosecution able to establish the death of

Manjula by committing suicide but such evidence is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution against the accused.

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no material on record to connect the accused with 8

SC 22/2020

the alleged crime. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.498-A and 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Mos.1 to 5 which are deposited vide

CPR No.2/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 31 st day of March, 2021.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 A.G.B.Gangaraju;---NIL--- PW2 A.G.B.Madhuri; PW3 A.G.B.Mahender; PW4 P.Devaiah; PW5 T.Satish; PW6 K.Gangadhar; PW7 D.Chinna Raja Gangaram; PW8 B.Chinna Raju; PW9 Mohd.Yousuf; PW10 T.Ashok; 9

SC 22/2020

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report;

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1;

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2;

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3;

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4;

Ex.P6Photographs (6) alongwith CD;

Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6;

Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7;

Ex.P9Signature of PW8 on Inquest Panchanama;

Ex.P10Signature of PW8 on Crime Details Form;

Ex.P11Inquest Panchanama;

Ex.P12First Information Report;

Ex.P13Report presented by PW1;

Ex.P14Postmortem examination report;

Ex.P15Crime Details Form;

FOR THE DEFENCE: ---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo1: Pieces of Bangles; Mo2: Saree; Mo3: Crowbar; Mo4: Iron Hammer; Mo5: Door lock;

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

1

SC 365/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 365 OF 2019

(On committal made by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Jagtial vide PRC No.54/2019)

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mallial (Cr.No.91/2019 of P.S.Mallial)

Name of the accusedA1. Chunchula Venkatesh S/o Reddy, 20 years, R/o Potharam village.

A2.Chunchula Chinna Reddy S/o Gangaiah, 48 years, R/o Potharam village

A3.Chunchula Srinivas S/o Reddy, 23 years, R/o Potharam village.

Chargesu/sec.366, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC against A1 and u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty 2

SC 365/2019

Sentence or OrderThe accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 366, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 30-03-2021 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri A.Ramchandram, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The accused No.1 to 3 have arraigned before this Court for the offences punishable u/s. 366, 342 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The victim girl/Meenugu Rachana and the accused No.1 are belong to Potharam village and their parents were discussed to perform their marriage but the parents of the victim girl stopped to perform her marriage due to under age of the girl. But, the accused

No.1 wanted to marry her at any cost even by using force against her and watching her movements closely. On 22.05.2019, at 1900 hours while Meenugu Rachana going outside for purchase goods at Kirana store in her village, the accused No.1 accosted her, told deceitful words, kidnapped her and kept her at his home alongwith his grand 3

SC 365/2019

mother for two days. Later, on 25.05.2019 the parents of the victim girl i.e., the defacto complainant/Meenugu Laxmi and Meenugu

Chinna Narsaiah @ Reddy went to the house of the accused and asked about their daughter, upon which the accused No.1 to 3 threatened in dire consequences to kill them if they again asked about the girl, on that the defacto complainant lodged a case at

Mallial Police Station.

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri

M.Upendra Chary, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Mallial Police

Station registered this case in Cr.No.91/2019 u/s. 366, 342, 506 r/w 34

IPC against A1 and u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC against A2 and A3 and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statement of the witnesses, later got recorded the statement of the victim girl through Woman

Constable, visited the scene of offence, drafted the rough sketch of the scene by incorporating the details of crime in Crime Details Form

before the mediators. On 07.06.2019, on reliable information

apprehended the accused No.1 at his house, on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence alongwith the accused No.2 and 3 then effected his arrest and remanded him to

Judicial custody. On 07.06.2019, the Sub Inspector summoned the 4

SC 365/2019

remaining accused No.2 and 3 to P.S., on interrogation they admitted to have committed this offence u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC. After completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused No.1 for the offence punishable u/s. 366, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2 and 3 by the learned II Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide P.R.C.No.54/2019 and on

appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec. 366 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Session, Karimnagar u/s.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal accordingly to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, this court framed the charges against the accused No.1 for the offences punishable u/s.366, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2 and 3, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 on its behalf.

5

SC 365/2019

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused No.1 for the offences punishable u/s 366, 342, 506

r/w 34 IPC and u/s.506 r/w 34 IPC against accused No.2

and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. PW1 who is the mother of the victim/Meenugu Rachana testified that about 1 year ago when her daughter not returned from her college she complained the matter to the police then police obtained her signature on a white paper. PW1 further deposed that she has not stated to the police as accused No.1 to 3 kidnapped her daughter and not given any report as the accused is responsible for kidnap of her daughter. PW2 is the husband of PW1; PW3 is the victim girl; PW4 is the photographer; PWs.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for Crime

Details Form; PW7 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that the accused No.1 kidnapped the 6

SC 365/2019

PW3 by stating deceitful words to marry her, confined her and when

PWs.2 and 3 asked for PW3, all the accused threatened to kill them.

To prove its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. PW.1 who is the defacto complainant and mother of PW3 deposed before this court that about one year ago, as her daughter not returned from the college hence she complained the matter to the police but she did not state to the police as the accused No.1 to 3 kidnapped her daughter and they were responsible for the kidnap of her daughter. PW2 who is the husband of PW1 deposed that in the year 2019 his wife/PW1 complained to the police that his daughter/PW3 was missing but later they came to know that she went to her aunt's house at Lalapalli village and returned to house after two days. PW2 specifically stated that they have not presented any report to the police against the accused as they kidnapped her daughter. PW3 who is the victim girl and crucial witness to the case of the prosecution deposed that in the last year when she went to her grand parents' house at Lalapet without informing to her mother but after two days she herself returned to home and came to know that her mother complained to the police as she was missing and further stated that accused not kidnapped her. As PWs.1 to 3 not supported the case of prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses. PWs.5 and 6, who are said to be the panch witness for the Crime Details Form stated to have not acted as such. PW7, the Investigating Officer deposed about the 7

SC 365/2019

manner of conducting of investigation after registering of this crime.

The evidence of PW7 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution in the absence of any incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6.

11.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no iota of material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

12.In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 366, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and the accused

No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 506 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 31 st day of March, 2021.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

8

SC 365/2019

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 Meenugu Laxmi;---NIL--- PW2 Meenugu Chinna Narsaiah; PW3 Meenugu Rachana; PW4 Md.Chand Pasha; PW5 B.Shankar; PW6 M.Srinivas; PW7 M.Upendra Chary;

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report;

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1;

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2;

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3;

Ex.P5Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form;

Ex.P6Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form;

Ex.P7First Information Report;

Ex.P8 Report/Complaint;

Ex.P9Crime Details Form;

FOR THE DEFENCE:

---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

---Nil---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

1

SC 37/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

TUESDAY, THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 37 OF 2019

(On committal made by the learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Jagtial vide PRC No.13/2018)

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police,P.S.JagtialTown (Cr.No.114/2018 of P.S.Jagtial Town)

Name of the accusedShaik Ameer Sohel S/o Shaik Basheer, 23 years, R/o H.No.1-3-228, Krishna Nagar, Jagtial.

Chargesu/sec.366 IPC

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 366 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

2

SC 37/2019

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26-03-2021 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri V.Venugopal and Sri K.Narsaiah, Advocates for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s. 366 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The victim girl/Saba Tahniyat is the resident of

Chilukawada, Jagtial and was studying 9th class whereas the accused is resident of Krishna Nagar, Jagtial. Since three years, the victim girl and the accused are loving with each other and in the mid-time the accused married to another lady but the accused is an cat over the victim girl and used to meet her by saying deceitful words that he is loving her and wants to marry her. On 23.04.2018 at about 0500 hours, when the victim girl went to attend the nature calls, meantime the accused went near to the house of the defacto complainant/Sabira Begum, took the victim girl to Karimnagar and stayed there for two days but they did not participate in intercourse.

When the victim girl came to know that her family members are searching for her, she returned to Jagtial on 26.04.2018 then immediately the defacto complainant brought her to Police station,

Jagtial town.

3

SC 37/2019

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri

P.Althaf Khan, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Jagtial Town Police

Station registered this case in Cr.No.114/2018 u/s.366 IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, on the next day visited the scene of offence, drafted the rough sketch of the scene by incorporating the details of crime in Crime Details Form

before the mediators. On 26.04.2018 at 1700 hours, the victim came

to Police Station then the Sub Inspector got recorded her statement.

On 27.04.2018 at 1130 hours, on reliable information the Sub

Inspector apprehended the accused at Dharoor camp, on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then effected his arrest and remanded him to Judicial custody.

After completion of investigation filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 366 IPC by the learned I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide P.R.C.No.13/2018 and on

appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec. 366 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Session, Karimnagar u/s.209 Cr.P.C and 4

SC 37/2019

subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal accordingly to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, this court framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.366 of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11 on its behalf.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable u/s 366 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. Unfolding the case of the prosecution, PW1 testified that the victim girl/Saba Tahniyat is her daughter, about (3) years ago her daughter went to her brother's house at Mancherial without any information then upon suspicion she filed this case as accused took 5

SC 37/2019

her daughter alongwith him. After presentation of the report to the police, her daughter returned to home and informed her that she herself went to her brother's house but accused not took her to any place. PW1 further deposed that when she went to police station to complain as her daughter was missing police obtained her signature on a white paper; PW2 is the son of PW1; PW3 is the victim girl; PW4 is the projected eye witness to the case of the prosecution; PW5 is the relative of the victim and circumstantial witness to the case of the prosecution; PW6 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form; PW7 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that accused kidnapped the PW3 by stating deceitful words that he is loving her and wants to marry with her. The version of PW1 is that about two years ago, her daughter went to her brother's house at Mancherial without informing to her then upon suspicion she filed this case as accused took her daughter alongwith him but later her daughter returned to home and informed that she herself went to her brother's house but accused not took her to any place. When she went to the police station as her daughter was missing police obtained her signature on a while paper. PW2 who is the son of PW1 deposed that he does not know the facts of this case and does not know for what purpose PW1 filed this case against the accused but about three years ago her sister went 6

SC 37/2019

to his uncle's house at Mancherial without any information to his mother.

PW3, who is the victim girl and who is the crucial witness to the case of the prosecution deposed that about three years ago she went to Mancherial to her uncle's house without giving any information to anybody as her mother scolded her but after three days she returned to home with her uncle and after that she came to know that her mother filed the case as she was missing. PW4, the projected eye witness and PW5 the circumstantial witness in a consistent manner deposed that they do not know the facts of this case and do not know for what purpose PW1 filed the case against the accused. PW6, the panch witness for Crime Details Form stated to have not acted as such. As PWs.1 to 6 not supported the case of the prosecution, they were declared as hostile witness. PW7, the Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of this crime.

11.On perusal of the entire material on record, Pws.1 to 6 did not raise any finger towards the accused as he has kidnapped the PW3.

Further, the PW3, the victim girl himself stated that she went to her uncle's house on her own and returned after three days. Since the

PWs.1 to 6 not supported the version of the prosecution, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor given up the rest of the witnesses and

reported the evidence of remaining witnesses is closed.

7

SC 37/2019

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 366 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of Sec.437-

A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 30 th day of March, 2021.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 Sabira Begum;---NIL--- PW2 Syed Hameed; PW3 Saba Tahniyath; PW4 Shaik Mubeen; PW5 Rafi; PW6 B.Ramesh; PW7 Althaf Khan; 8

SC 37/2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report;

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1;

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2;

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3;

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4;

Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5;

Ex.P7Signature of PW6 on Crime Details Form;

Ex.P8 First Information Report;

Ex.P9Report;

Ex.P10Crime Details Form;

Ex.P11164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim girl;

FOR THE DEFENCE:

---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

---Nil---

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

1

SC 191/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

TUESDAY, THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH, 2021

SESSIONS CASE NO. 191 OF 2018

(On committal made by the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Jagtial vide PRC No.32/2017)

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police,P.S.Pegadapalli (Cr.No.83/2017 of P.S.Pegadapalli)

Name of the accusedPothuganti Sampurna Chary S/o late Chandraiah,20years,Occ: Carpenter, R/o Pegadapalli village.

Chargesu/sec.307 IPC

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e., Knifewhich is deposited vide C.P.R.No.01/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time 2

SC 191/2018

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 26-03-2021 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri Gonti Shankar, Advocate for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

The accused has arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are as follows:-

(a)The defacto complainant/Chatla Prashanth is the son of injured/Chatla Ravi, about two years ago, there were quarrels took place in between Chatla Ravi and father of the accused on the suspicion that Chatla Ravi has illegal contacts with his wife and after some days the father of the accused fell sick and died. Keeping the same in mind, the accused bore grudge against the accused and decided to kill Chatla Ravi. While so on 28.09.2017 at about 1930 hours, Chatla Ravi while going back to his house from “Saddula

Bathukamma Immersion” near the house of Guruvandula Vijay at

Pegadapalli village, the accused who was observing him brought a knife from his house, attacked and stabbed on the left side of chest of

Chatla Ravi, with an intention to kill him as a result of which he received severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, the injured/Chatla

Ravi rushed to the house of Chatla Ashok and Chatla Harish and informed them about the incident then Chatla Harish rushed to the 3

SC 191/2018

house of the defacto complainant and informed the same and they shifted Chatla Ravi to Govt.Hospital, Jagtial for treatment and later the injured was shifted to Karimnagar, Warangal hospitals and finally he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

(b)Basing on the report of the defacto complainant, Sri

B.Jeevan, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Pegadapalli Police Station registered this case in Cr.No.83/2017 u/s.307 IPC and took up the investigation.

(c) During the course of investigation, the Sub Inspector of

Police examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, visited the scene of offence at Pegadapalli village and prepared the scene of offence panchanama by incorporating the details of crime in

Crime Details Form before the mediators. Thereafter, on 01.10.2017, he visited to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and found that the injured/Chatla Ravi was in unconscious state and undergoing treatment. On 04.10.2017 at 0630 hours, on reliable information the

Sub Inspector apprehended the accused at his house at Pegadapalli village, on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence then the Police seized the knife from the possession of accused under the cover of confession and seizure panchanama

before the mediators then effected his arrest and remanded him to

Judicial custody. After completion of investigation filed the charge 4

SC 191/2018

sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance against the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC by the learned II Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial vide P.R.C.No.32/2017 and on

appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required u/s.207 Cr.P.C. As the offence u/sec. 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, this case was committed to the Honourable Court of Session, Karimnagar u/s.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for trial and disposal accordingly to law.

4.On appearance of the accused, this court framed the charges against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec.307 of IPC, read over and explained the contents of the same in Telugu language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 on its behalf.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments.

5

SC 191/2018

8.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9. PW1 who is the son of the injured/Chatla Ravi testified that about 2 years ago, his father fell down near “Cheruvu Katta” at his village in drunken condition, then he took his father to the hospital but he has not presented any report to the police. PW1 further deposed that after discharge of his father from the hospital police came to his house, obtained his signature on some paper and he does not know the contents of the same. PWs.2, 3 and 7 are cited as the circumstantial witnesses; PW4 is the injured; PWs.5 and 6 are the panch witnesses for the Confession and Seizure panchanama; PW8 is the Investigating Officer who investigated this crime.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of material on record, the case of the prosecution is that on 28-09-2017, keeping the previous grudges in mind the accused assaulted the PW4 with knife with an intention to kill him. PW1 who is the defacto complainant and son of the injured deposed before this court that about two years ago, his father fell down near Cheruvu Katta at his village in drunken condition, at that time police came to his house and obtained his signature on some paper but he has not presented any report to the 6

SC 191/2018

police. PW1 even not supported the version of the prosecution with respect to presentation of any report to the Police. As PW.1 not supported the case of prosecution, he was declared as hostile witness. PWs.2, 3 and 7 who are said to be the circumstantial witnesses to the case of the prosecution, in a consistent manner deposed that they do not know the facts of this case. PW4 who is the injured deposed that he does not know the accused and about four years ago, on the day of “Bathukamma” festival he drunk toddy and while returning to home he fell down and sustained the injuries near his chest but nobody beat him and accused never beat him and not responsible for his injuries. PWs.5 and 6, the Panch Witnesses for the

Confession and Seizure panchanama stated to have not acted as such. As Pws.2 to 7 also not supported the version of prosecution, they were also declared as hostile witnesses.

11.PW8, the Investigating Officer deposed about the manner of conducting of investigation after registering of this crime. The evidence of PW8 is noway helpful to the case of the prosecution in the absence of any incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of PWs.1 to 7. Since the PWs.1 to 7 not supported the version of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the rest of the witnesses and reported the evidence of remaining witnesses is closed.

7

SC 191/2018

12.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, material placed before this court and in view of my above discussion, it can be said that there is no iota of material to connect the accused with the alleged crime. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Point is accordingly answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s. 307 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/s.235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in compliance of

Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. M.O.1 i.e., Knife which is deposited vide

C.P.R.No.01/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 30 th day of March, 2021.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW1 Chatla Prashanth;---NIL--- PW2 Chatla Harish; PW3 Chatla Rajeshwari; PW4 Chatla Ravi; PW5 Chatla Vijaya Bhasker; PW6 Vadluri Praveen; PW7 Chatla Ashok; PW8 B.Jeevan; 8

SC 191/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on report;

Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1;

Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2;

Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3;

Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4;

Ex.P6Signature of PW5 on the confession and seizure panchanama;

Ex.P7Signature of PW6 on the confession and seizure panchanama;

Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7;

Ex.P9First Information Report;

Ex.P10Report;

Ex.P11Crime Details Form;

Ex.P12Seizure panchanama;

FOR THE DEFENCE:

---Nil---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Mo1: Knife;

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL

1

HMOP 47/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: SRI MOHD.ABDUL JAVEED PASHA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2021

H.M.O.P. No. 47 OF 2019

BETWEEN:-

Mamidipelli Nagaraju S/o Mohana Chari, Age: 29 years, Occ: Carpenter, R/o Gorrepelli village, Mallapur mandal, Jagtial district.

…Petitioner.

// AND //

Mamidipelli Anusha W/o Nagaraju, Age: 25 years, Occ: Beedi Maker, R/o Gorrepelli village, Mallapur mandal, presently residing at her parents' house at H.No.1-9-137/2, Ramnagar, Metpalli town, Jagtial district. …Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 23-03-2021in the presence of Sri R.Sri Ramulu, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Sri M.Jacob and Sri Abdul Hafeez, Advocate for the Respondent, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This is a petition filed by the petitioner u/s 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner and the respondent by way of divorce.

2.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

(a) The respondent is legally wedded wife of the petitioner and their marriage was performed on 01-05-2014 at the parents house of the petitioner at Metpalli. After the marriage, the petitioner and 2

HMOP 47/2019

respondent lived together for a period of one year. Thereafter, the petitioner for better livelihood left to gulf country and used to send the money to the account of mother of the respondent for maintenance of the respondent, but the respondent spent all the money for her luxurious purpose. Out of their wedlock a male child born to them but died due to improper care of the respondent. From the very beginning, the respondent dislike and hatredness towards the petitioner as he is suffering from “EPILEPSY” decease and did not co-operate with him.

During the stay with the petitioner, the respondent always ill-tempered and fouled mouthed, she used to pick up quarrels with the petitioner and his family members and she used to state that her marriage performed with a wrong person. The respondent refused to cook food and without intimation she used to left the house of the petitioner. The respondent and his family members number of times beat the petitioner. In this regard, several panchayats were held before the elders and the elders advised the respondent not to harass the petitioner and to join his society but in turn the respondent family members beat the petitioner before the elders.

In the month of October, 2015 the respondent left the society of the petitioner and started living at her parents' house. The petitioner got issued the legal notice to the respondent by demanding to resume the conjugal society of the petitioner but the respondent did not resume the conjugal society of the petitioner. Finally, on 05.04.2019, the petitioner and his relatives went to the house of the respondent to take back her but she refused at the instigation of her parents and brother 3

HMOP 47/2019

and demanded the petitioner to give divorce by paying Rs.10,00,000/- to her. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition seeking for dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by way of decree of divorce.

3.The respondent resisted the petition and filed her counter. The brief averments of the counter are as follows:-

The respondent admitted about the relationship in between them and further stated that the respondent not joined the society because of the cruel and merciless attitude and behavior of the petitioner only and the respondent filed a maintenance and domestic violence cases and also a case u/s.498-A IPC vide Cr.No.80/2019 of P.S.Metpalli against the petitioner which are pending for trial. The respondent denied the allegation made by the petitioner that she dislike towards the petitioner and stated that as she dislikes him then how the child was born through him to her. The respondent denied all other allegations of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4 on his behalf. Though the respondent filed the counter but not adduced any evidence on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce as prayed for?” 4

HMOP 47/2019

POINT:-

7. The contention of the petitioner is that his marriage was performed with the respondent on 01.05.2014 and after the marriage they lived together for a period of one year, thereafter, the petitioner left to gulf for his livelihood and used to send the amount to the respondent for maintenance but the respondent spent all the money for her luxurious desires and out of their wedlock one child was born to them but later died due to improper care of the respondent. The respondent from the very beginning dislikes the petitioner, used to pick up quarrels with him, abused him and his family members, she bluntly refused to prepare the food and she used to left the house of the petitioner without any intimation. The further contention of the petitioner is that in this regard several panchayats were held before the elders and the elders advised her to join his society but in vain and she left the society of the petitioner and started living at her parents' house.

Finally, on 05.04.2019, the petitioner and his relatives went to the house of the respondent to take back her but she bluntly refused for the same and demanded to give divorce to her by paying Rs.10,00,000/-.

Hence the present petition seeking for dissolution of the marriage by way of decree of divorce.

8. The contention of the respondent is that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner, she has not joined the society of the petitioner because of the cruel and merciless attitude and behavior of the petitioner only and she also filed Civil and Criminal cases against the 5

HMOP 47/2019

petitioner which are pending for trial. The further contention of the respondent is that if she dislikes the petitioner then how the child was born through him to her and denied all other allegations of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.

9.In support of his contention, as stated supra, the petitioner herself examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. On perusal of the evidence of PW1 coupled with Exs.P1 and P2, it is proved that the petitioner and the respondent are the husband and wife and further proved by the evidence of PW1 that the respondent subjected her to harassment and also she herself deserted the society of the petitioner.

Though the respondent filed her counter making allegations against the petitioner as because of the behavior of the petitioner their son died but she did not contest the matter by put-forth her evidence either oral or documentary. Though PW1 was cross examined no useful material could be elicited to the case of the respondent. It is well settled

principal of law that where a party to the proceedings does not appear

into the witness box and states her own case on oath and does not offer herself to be cross examined by other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by her is not correct. In this case also, as stated supra, the respondent not entered into the witness box and not adduced any evidence to substantiate her contention. In the absence of any such evidence, the contention of the respondent cannot be taken into consideration, a presumption would arise that the case set up by the respondent is not correct. Hence, it can be said that the petitioner 6

HMOP 47/2019

proved his case as he was subjected to cruelty, in such circumstances the petitioner cannot be expected to live with the respondent. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for.

10.In the result, this petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent that was solemnized on 01.05.2014 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. No costs.

Typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me, in the open court on this the 31 st day of March, 2021.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PETITIONER:- FOR THE RESPONDENT:-

PW1. Mamidipelli Nagaraju;---Nil---

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PETITIONER:- FOR THE RESPONDENT:-

Ex.P1: Original wedding card;---Nil---

Ex.P2: Joint photograph of the petitioner and the respondent.

Ex.P3: Legal Notice;

Ex.P4: Reply Notice;

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

JAGTIAL.