Ms. N. Amaravathi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

KHAMMAM

Present: Smt. K.Asha Rani,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

KHAMMAM.

EP/16/2019

NARAGONIE SIVA PRASAD Age: 45 Occupation : Address: OCC BUSINESS, R/O

BEHIND NEW VISION SCHOOL, KHAMMAM

VERSUS

CHAVA VENKATA LAXMINARASIMHA RAO @ PRATHAP BABU Age: 67 Occupation : Address: OCC BUSINESS, RAGHUNADHAPALEM, KHAMMAM ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : GOPOJI MOSES CHRISTOPHER Advocate for : PBS appearing for CHAVA VENKATA LAXMINARASIMHA RAO @ PRATHAP BABU: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

(Delivered on 17-11-2022)

Both sides present. D.Hr. present. F.S memo filed and recorded. Hence, E.P is terminated.

SD/XXX

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

SC.No. 226 /2021

Deposition of Witness PW-9 For Prosecution

Name: Vemula SrinuS/o. V. Muthaiah

Age:40 yearOcc: Agriculture

R/o.MangalagudemDate: 06.06.2024

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. M. Kalpana,

Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of

Oaths Act 44 of 1969. CHIEF EXAMINATION BY LEARNED ADDL. P.P.:-

I know Lw11/D. Bheemaiah.

On 22.01.2021 the police Khammam Rural instructed me to come to

Mangalagudem (Azmeera Basu the agricultural land belongs to A1). At about 10.40 AM as the Galata was occurred between A1 and Venkata Ramulu/Pw1 regarding the land dispute. As such the police conducted the panchanama. As per the instructions of police myself and Lw11/D. Bheemaiah reached the scene of offence at 10.45 AM.

I have observed the scene of offence, we found three sticks length of 2 feet and two stones (mo-1 and 2 already marked). The witness identify the property as well as his signature on the same. The police drafted rough sketch 3 map in our presence. I can say the boundaries of scene of offence east: the agricultural land and well belongs to a1.

West: the agricultural land and well belongs to Pw1. North: The agricultural land and well belongs to Thaneeru Laxmaiah. South: The agricultural land and well belongs to Pw1’s land. The witness identified his signature on CDF and rough sketch dated 22.01.2021 the same is marked as

Ex.P2.

4

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, KHAMMAM.

SC.No. 226 /2021

Deposition of Witness PW-10 For Prosecution

Name: Yata Uma MaheshS/o. Y. Veeraswamy

Age:30 yearOcc: Student

R/o.GullagudemDate: 06.06.2024

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. M. Kalpana,

Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of

Oaths Act 44 of 1969. CHIEF EXAMINATION BY LEARNED ADDL. P.P.:-

I know Lw12/Yata Laxman.

On 27.01.2021 the police Khammam Rural called me at about 10.00 AM instructed me to come to the house of A1( Azmeera Basu), then myself and

Lw12/Yata Laxman proceeded to the spot, when I have reached the spot A1 to

A5, some of the elders were present the galata was occurred in between Pw1 to Pw4 and A1 to A5. The A1 to A5 confessed in our presence as they beat

Pw1 to Pw4 regarding the dispute of agricultural well, they beat with sticks and stones. A1 to A7 beat the Pw1 to Pw4 with sticks and stones for which they have sustained bleeding injuries. Further they confessed that they are belong to SC/ST community and the law is in their favour. They further confessed that they threatened the PW1 to 4 the with dire consequences, they 5 threatened not to interfere in to the agricultural well. I have questioned the each accused personally, they have confessed about the commission of offence., after completion of confession the same was reduced into writing after explaining the contents I have put my signature on the same. The witness identified his signature as well as Lw12/Y. Laxman the confession panchanama of A1 to A5. Ex.P3 is confession panchanama of A1 to A5.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

SC.No.226/2021

Deposition of Witness PW-8 For Prosecution

Name: U. KataiahS/o. U. Guravaiah

Age:50 yearsOcc: Driver

R/o.MangalagudemDate: 10.04.2024

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. K.Asha Rani, Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of Oaths Act 44 of 1969.

CHIEF EXAMINATION BY LEARNED ADDL. P.P.:-

I know Pw1 to Pw7, Lw7/K. Chinna Venkataiah including accused as they are all our neighboring villagers.

On 21.01.2021 at about 11.00 AM, I along with Pw5, Pw6, Pw7 and

Lw7 went to the fields of Pw1 and A1 on their request to see the boundary line. While we were engaged in seeing the boundary with the assistance of

Pw1 and A1, meanwhile A4 came upon us to beat. Pw1 was present along with his family members and as we were discussing above boundary and looking near well, meanwhile A5 had kicked Pw1 from behind and when Pw1 fell down, A2 came and beat Pw1 with stick. Pw2 to 4 came to rescue Pw1 by 7 lifting him from ground but accused also beat son-in-laws/PW2 to Pw4 of Pw1.

Pw1 to 4 sustained bleeding injuries. We elders walked little bit far and stood under a tree. Accused questioned us for coming to scene of offence to see the boundary. The accused did not spare us also. We left from scene of offence as accused were coming upon us. The injured were taken to hospital. Police examined me.

Cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.5 Sri. M.

Hanumantha Rao:

I went to scene of offence on two wheeler. I stated at 10.30 AM. By the time we went to scene of offence, accused were present in their fields and when we were seeing well and boundary they came to scene of offence. It is not true to suggest that A5 did not kick Pw1 but I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that A5 was not present during dispute. I do not know whether civil disputes are pending between Pw1 and A5. I know that father of A5 filed criminal case against Pw1 to 4. It is not true to suggest that in view of above criminal case, the present false case is filed on false complaint and I am deposing false on behalf of Pw1. It is not true to suggest that I did not witness any alleged dispute on 21.01.2021 but I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that I did not state before police that accused came upon us 8 when we interfered but for the first time I am deposing the same before the court. It is not true to suggest that police did not examine me but I am deposing false.

Cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4, A6 and A7

Sri. O. Sheshagiri Rao:

It is not true to suggest that A2 did not beat Pw1 with stick but I am deposing false. It is not true to suggest that as Pw1 to 4 are our villagers as such I am deposing false in their favour. It is not true to suggest that A4 did not come upon us to beat us. It is not true to suggest that I did not state

before police that A4 came upon us but for the first time I am deposing the

same before the court. The ZPTC of Khammam Rural Mandal is one Endlapalli

Varaprasad and he is our villager. He belongs to TRS party. I belong to

Congress Party. Pw1 belong to TRS party. It is not true to suggest that at the instance of E. Varaprasad the present case is foisted and I am deposing false in their favour. It is not true to suggest that the accused are no way concerned with present case.

Remaining cross-examination:- Adopted same as above

RE EXAMINATION : - Nil.

9

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

SC.No.226 /2021

Deposition of Witness PW-1 For Prosecution

Name:S. Venkata RamuluS/o. Veeraiah

Age:55 yearOcc: Agriculture

R/o.MangalgudemDate: 19.09.2023.

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. K.Asha Rani, Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of Oaths Act 44 of 1969.

CHIEF EXAMINATION BY LEARNED ADDL. P.P.:-

Lw2/B. Venkanna is my elder son-in-law, even Lw3 and 4 are my younger son-in-law. I know Lw5 to Lw9 as they are our villagers including accused.

Our agricultural land is adjacent to A1 agricultural land in Mangalagudem Village. I have agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1.19 gts. in Sy. No. 183/AA. A1 disputed with me concerning boundary of our fields. The matter was placed before village elders of both sides. About 2 yeas back, at about 11.0 AM we were called to present at fields before elders. Accordingly, I also took our village elders Koppula Chinnavenkataiah/Lw7, Vusikala Kataiah/Lw9, Kapati Venkanna/Lw5 and Lw8/Duragam Mallaiah. While I was looking at the boundary line in presence of elders, A5/Yesunadham kicked me from behind. I fell down then immediately A2 beat me with stick on my head. I was accompanied to fields by my son-in-laws who were present at our house when my daughters came to our house for delivery. When my son-in-laws intervened, accused also beat them. Even though elders tried to pacify the 10 issue, the accused did not stop beating us by taking our caste name and also beat us with stones. Lw2/B. Venkanna was beaten by A6 and A7. A2 to A4 beat Lw2. A1 and A4 beat Lw3/Chinthala Ramesh with sticks. Later we went to PS to give complaint and from there we were referred to hospital. Ex. P1 is complaint. Police examined me.

11

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

SC. No. 226/2021 Date: 02-11-2023.

P.W- 1

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. K.Asha Rani, Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of Oaths Act 44 of 1969.

PW.1(S. Venkataramulu), is present and sworn before this court for the purpose of further re-examination.

CONTINUATION OF RE-EXAMINATION:-

I can identify the sticks and stones used by accused in beating me. The witness was confronted with three sticks and two stones and he identified them as crime weapons used by accused in committing the offence.

Note:- " At this stage of marking the crime property, it has come to the notice of the court that 3 sticks of similar crime number 31/2021 of same

PS/Khammam Rural P.S are produced before court through PC 1777 of

Khammam Rural P.S. ( The proceedings as to objections raised by defence and submissions made by Ld. Addl. P.P are mentioned on docket.) 12

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KHAMMAM.

SC. No. 226/2021 Date: 02-11-2023.

P.W- 1

Oath is administered to the witness by the presiding officer, Smt. K.Asha Rani, Additional. Assistant Sessions Judge, Khammam, in accordance with the provisions of Oaths Act 44 of 1969.

PW.1(S. Venkataramulu), is present and sworn before this court for the purpose of further re-examination.

CONTINUATION OF RE-EXAMINATION:-

I can identify the sticks and stones used by accused in beating me. The witness was confronted with three sticks and tow stones and he identified them as crime weapons used by accused in committing the offence.

At this stage of marking the crime property, the defence counsel on behalf of A1 to A4, A6 and A7 took an objection from marking as the red ink writing on one of said crime property slips it was written as Chinthakani PS.

On verification, the bench clerk informed that during "Clean Green Day" observed on 2nd October, the property was written as PS Chinthakani due to oversight. The BC is warned not to repeat the same and directed not to put any handwriting on the crime property unless they are marked before court.

13

On verification of letter in Dis. No. 417 dated 21.08.2023 of II ADM

Khammam and on tallying with CP register, and with that of form-60 description of property with that of signature on CDF dated 22.01.2021 with that of signatures of mediators on identification slips affixed to crime property, it is satisfactorily explained by learned Addl. P.P that the said property is crime property of Khammam Rural PS in Cr.No. 31/2021. Hence, it is directed to proceed with marking of the property by giving liberty to defence to cross examine on any variances in this regard. Mo-1 are three sticks with identification slips containing signatures of two mediators and IO which are similar to the signatures on CDF in present case. Mo-2 are two stones.

Matter is deferred to post lunch.

1 O.S.No. 388 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated, this the 9th day of November, 2023

PRESENT:Ms.N.Amaravathi, Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 388 of 2016

BETWEEN:

Pendyala Ramesh Kumar, S/o. Koteshwara Rao, Age:30 years, Occ: Auto driver, R/o. Chinthakani Village and Mandal, Khamma District.

…Plaintiff AND Pendyala Madhavi, W/o.Ramesh Kumar, Age:25 years, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.1-1-80, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Manuguru Village and Mandal, Khammam District. … Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 04.04.2023 in the presence of Sri Polisetty Padmavathi, Advocate for the

Plaintiff; Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for defendants; upon perusing the entire material papers on record 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 is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff is second husband of the defendant. The marriage 2 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 between the plaintiff and Defendant was performed on 01.12.2010 at

Ashok Nagar, Manuguru Town and Mandal, Khammam District. The defendant gave birth to one female child, out of their wedlock. The defendant was adamant and also quarrelsome in nature, and picked up fights with the plaintiff on petty issues and harassed him through multiple delusional ways, mentally and physically. The Plaintiff bore all her vices and ill-treatment with a fond hope that she will change her attitude. The defendant has already married one Narendar when she was minor. The parents of the defendant misrepresented that they obtained divorce from her first husband and that the defendant is legally eligible for marriage with the plaintiff. Believing the same, the plaintiff married the defendant. But, in fact, the first marriage of the defendant is still in force and not dissolved through a decree of divorce by a competent court. At the time of marriage, the defendant has been living spouse from her first marriage and therefore, the second marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff is void abintio as it fails to satisfy the basic conditions for a valid Hindu marriage as per section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

ii.The defendant deserted the plaintiff and left his conjugal society and gave report to police against the plaintiff and filed Crl.Case vide 3 O.S.No. 388 of 2016

CC.No.130/2011 of Manuguru Police Station for the offences

punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 509 of IPC and the same was ended in acquittal. The defendant filed maintenance case vide

M.C.No.08/2012 before the J.F.C.M, Manuguru in which, the Hon’ble

court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the defendant and the same was reduced to Rs.750/- by the Hon’ble High Court.

The plaintiff has been paying monthly maintenance amount regularly.

Iii.The Plaintiff filed for divorce OP before this court vide

H.M.OP.No.93/2013, where the defendant admitted her first marriage

with one Narender in the cross-examination and failed to file the document to show that her first marriage was dissolved and the said

H.M.O.P.No.93/2013 was dismissed. The defendant is still claiming

that the marriage between the plaintiff and herself is valid as the divorce OP was dismissed and harassing the plaintiff and his family.

As such, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to file the suit.

Hence, the suit.

3. The averments of the written statement filed by the defendant in brief are as follows:-

The defendant denied all the allegations made in the plaint 4 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 except specifically admitted. The Plaintiff is illegally filed this suit without having jurisdiction to entertain the same, as both the parties are residing at Manuguru. The Plaintiff failed to file the proof that they are living within the Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. The very intention of the plaintiff is to avoid maintenance to the defendant and her minor child and falsely filed this suit. Hence, prayed the Hon’ble

Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

6. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed for determination:

1.Whether the defendant was having spouse by the date of her marriage with the defendant?

2. Whether the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant is hit by section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and is void?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant that was taken on 01.12.2010 is ab-inition void?

4.To what relief?

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

8.Perused the evidence of the plaintiff i.e. PW1/Pendyala Ramesh

Kumar and documents marked i.e., Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed examination in chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint. The Defendant herself examined 5 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 as DW1/Pendyala Madhavi by reiterating the contents of the counter.

The defendant examined one elder namely Singirla Raju as DW2 as supporting witness and no documents were marked, on her behalf.

10. . Issue No.1 to 3: According to PW1/Pendyala Ramesh Kumar, he is is second husband of the defendant. The marriage between him and the Defendant was performed on 01.12.2010, at Ashok Nagar,

Manuguru Town and Mandal, Khammam District. The defendant gave birth to one female child, out of their wedlock. The defendant was adamant and also quarrelsome in nature, and picked up fights with him on petty issues and harassed him through multiple delusional ways, mentally and physically. He bore all her vices and ill-treatment with a fond hope that she will change her attitude. The defendant has already married one Narendar when she was minor. The parents of the defendant misrepresented that they obtained divorce from her first husband and that the defendant is legally eligible for marriage with him. Believing the same, he married the defendant. But, in fact, the first marriage of the defendant is still in force and not dissolved through a decree of divorce by a competent court. At the time of marriage, the defendant has been living spouse of her first marriage and therefore, the second marriage of defendant with him is ab-initio 6 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 void as it hit by section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955.

11. According to PW1/P.Ramesh Kurmar, the defendant deserted him and left his conjugal society and gave report to police against him and filed Crl.Case vide CC.No.130/2011 of Manuguru Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 506 and 509 of IPC and the same was ended in acquittal. The defendant filed maintenance case vide M.C.No.08/2012 before the J.F.C.M, Manuguru in which, the

Hon’ble court granted monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the

defendant and the same was reduced to Rs.750/- by the Hon’ble

High Court. The plaintiff has been paying monthly maintenance amount regularly.

12. According to PW1/Ramesh Kumar, he filed divorce OP before this court vide H.M.OP.No.93/2013, wherein the defendant admitted her first marriage with one Narender in the cross-examination and failed to file the document to show that her first marriage was dissolved and the said H.M.O.P.No.93/2013 was dismissed. The defendant is still claiming that the marriage between him and the defendant is valid as the divorce OP was dismissed and harassing him and his family 7 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 members.

13. According to DW1/P.Madhavi that the hon’ble court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit because both the parties are residing at Manuguru. PW1/P.Ramesh Kumar failed to file proof that they are living within jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Cout and lead marital life within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court. Simply, he mentioned his address as Chinthakani village and Mandal and not file single proof of document to prove his residence, which shows that he intentionally filed the said petition before this Hon’ble court. The very intention of

PW1/Pendyala Ramesh Kumar is to avoid maintenance to the defendant and her minor child. It is strange that the defendant failed to disprove the contention of the petitioner to adduce evidence in this case as well as in H.M.OP 93/2013 on the file of this court, in order to prove that the plaintiff is not residing in Chinthakani village within the jurisdiction of this court.

14. According to DW1/Madhavi the plaintiff harassed the defendant physically and mentally. Several times, the panchayath took place

before the elders i.e., DW2/Singirala Raju and others. The elders

advised the plaintiff to lead happy marital life with the defendant, but the plaintiff refused and filed the divorce O.P in the year,2013 and 8 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 thereafter, this case, in order to harass her which is supported by the elder DW2/Singirala Raju. The plaintiff denied the allegation of the defendant and he never harassed the defendant at any point of time and the defendant herself filed criminal case against him and the same was ended in acquittal. The defendant also filed maintenance case and harassed the plaintiff and his family members, though, the plaintiff bore all the ill-treatment of the defendant with an hope that she may change her attitude.

15.PW1/P.Ramesh Kumar categorically admitted that she married one Narender who is the son of her elder paternal aunt resident of

Anushettypalli village at her age of 12 years, she completed her studies till 9th standard at Annshettypally village and completed her 10th standard, at Kothagudem. PW1/P.Ramesh Kumar also categorically admitted that in H.M.O.P.No.93/2013 on the file of this court in her cross-examination that her marriage was performed with one Narender prior to her marriage with the petitioner.

16.According to PW1/P.Ramesh Kumar, he filed Divorce OP vide

H.M.O.P.NO.93/2013 on the file of this court and the same was

dismissed on 08.06.2016. In H.M.O.P.No.93/2013 on the file of this court, the Hon’ble court gave finding that as per the Judgment and 9 O.S.No. 388 of 2016

Decree under Ex.A1 and A2 that the defendant was given in marriage to one Narender prior to her marriage with the petitioner. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent itself is a void marriage, then there is no question of dissolving the marriage. The court cannot grant decree of divorce for invalid and void marriage.

17.It is an admitted fact that the marriage of the defendant was performed with one Narender, prior to her marriage with the petitioner. Admittedly, the defendant failed to file the documentary proof to show that the marriage of the defendant with one Narender was dissolved by decree of divorce. Hence, the defendant failed to disprove the contention of the plaintiff that the marriage of the defendant was performed with one Narender prior to the marriage of the defendant with him. Hence, the sole testimony of PW1/P.Ramesh

Kumar coupled with the documents under Ex.A1 and A2 and the admission of the defendant is sufficient to prove that as on the date of marriage, the defendant has a living spouse and the marriage of the defendant with the plaintiff is the second marriage which is not valid marriage and it hit by Sec.5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is void abintio. As such, the plaintiff entitled for the relief of declaration that the marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant took place on 10 O.S.No. 388 of 2016 01.12.2010 is void abintio. Accordingly, Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered infavour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

18. Issue No.4: In the result, the suit is decreed by declaring the marriage took place between the petitioner and defendant on 01.12.2010 is void abintio. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, both parties shall bear their own costs.

(Partly written by me typed by the stenographer Gr-II and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 9th day of November, 2023).

Prl.Senior Civil Judge

Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

PW1 : Pendyala Ramesh Kumar

FOR DEFENDANTS:

DW1 :Pendyala Madhavi

DW2 :Singirala Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 Certified copy of order in H.M.O.P.No.93/2013, dt.08.06.2016 on the file of senior Civil Judge,Khammam. Ex.A2Certified Copy of Decree in H.M.O.P.No.93/2013 dt.08.06.2016 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.

11 O.S.No. 388 of 2016

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-Nil-

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

1 HMOP NO.122/2018

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 8th day of November,2023

PRESENT:Ms.N.Amaravathi,

Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Khammam.

H.M.O.P NO.122 of 2018

BETWEEN:

Mekala Ramakrishna, S/o. Nagaiah (late), Age:26 years, Occ: Agriculture Coolie, R/o. H.No.1-97, Tippareddygudem village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam City and District.

… Petitioner

And

Mekala Naveena, W/o. Ramakrishna, D/o.Katrala Rambabu, R/o. H.No.2-45/1, Maddulapalli village, Kamepalli Mandal, Khammam District.

… Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing on 01.11.2023 in the presence of Sri Kolli Satyanarayana, Advocate

for the petitioner and Sri P.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for the

respondent and upon perusing the entire material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :: O R D E R ::

1. This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia of the Hindu

Marriage Act, praying the Court to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent 2 HMOP NO.122/2018 held on 15.02.2017, at Tippareddygudem Village, Tirumalayapalem

Mandal, Khammam District.

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

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent took place on 15.02.2017, at Tippareddygudem Village, Tirumalayapalem

Mandal, Khammam District as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lead happy marital life for a period of two months and thereafter, the respondent conceived, for which, the petitioner and his family members felt very happy and they take care of her. The petitioner took the respondent to the hospital for checkup, at that time, she went to her parents house from the hospital itself.

Thereafter, number of times, the petitioner called upon the respondent to return back home, but the respondent did not returned back to his house. Whenever the petitioner tried to visit her at her house, she did not allow him. Even after, the respondent gave birth to female child, she did not inform him. Coming to know about the same, through relatives, the petitioner along with his family members visited the respondent to see her and his daughter.

ii.Thereafter, three months the petitioner and his family member 3 HMOP NO.122/2018 went to the respondent and requested her to join the petitioner, but her family members formed that they will sent the respondent to the petitioners house after six months and the Petitioner stayed for three days at the house of the Petitioner and again left to her parent’s house. On making repeated requests by the petitioner till the end of

April, 2018, she refused to come and join him, vexed with the attitude of the respondent, the petitioner sent his family members and caste elders to her house to pacify the issue, but in vain. The respondent failed to join the conjugal society of the petitioner, inspite of, several times and several efforts made by the petitioner through the caste elders. The petitioner lost his hope of marital life with the respondent and the petitioner have no other alternative except to file this petition. Hence, the petition.

3.On the other hand, the respondent filed counter and the averments of the counter filed by the respondent, in brief, are as follows:

There is no dispute regarding the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, so also, the paternity of their child. The Respondent submit that the petitioner started harassing the respondent with suspicious attitude from the fourth day of their marital life. During 4 HMOP NO.122/2018 the pregnancy also the respondent faced so many harassments, physically and mentally. Since the beginning, the petitioner used to harass the respondent and used to threaten her that he will give divorce to her. The Petitioner never spend single paisa for the welfare of the respondent and her child. Now she is living with her child in

Maddupally at her parents house and taking care of her child. The

Petitioner did not visit the house to see the Respondent and his daughter, which clearly shows the nature of the petitioner. The respondent is not interested to take divorce inview of the future and career of the child. Hence, prayed the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the petition.

4. Now the point for consideration is:

1. Whether the divorce can be granted by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent took place on 15.02.2017, as prayed for?

2. To what relief?

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

6.In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined himself as PW,1/Mekala Rama Krishna and filed examination-in-chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of the 5 HMOP NO.122/2018 petition and the documents marked Ex.P1 to P3 on his behalf. The respondent examined herself as RW1/Naveena and filed examination-in-chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of her counter and documents marked Ex.R1 on her behalf.

7 POINT No. 1:- According to PW1/M.Rama Krishna his marriage with the respondent took place on 15.02.2017, at Tippareddygudem

Village, Tirumalayapalem Mandal, Khammam District as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage, they lead happy marital life for a period of two months and thereafter the respondent conceived, for which, he and his family members felt very happy and they take care of her. He took the respondent to the hospital for checkup, at that time she went to her parents house from the hospital itself.

Thereafter, number of time, he called upon the respondent to return back home, but she did not come back. Whenever he tried to visit her at her parents house, she did not allow him. The respondent did not inform them even after, the respondent gave birth to female child.

They came to know about the same through relatives, then, he along with his family members visited the respondent to see her and his daughter.

6 HMOP NO.122/2018

8.PW1/M.Rama Krishna testified that after birth of his daughter, he along with his family member went to the respondent and requested her to join the petitioner, but her family members informed that they will sent the respondent to the petitioners house after six months. After the birth of his daughter, the repondent stayed for three days at his house and again left to her parent’s house.

Several times, he made requests till the end of April, 2018, but, she refused to come and join him. Vexed with the attitude of the respondent, he sent his family members and caste elders to her parents house, to pacify the issue, but in vain. The respondent failed to join his conjugal society in spite of, several efforts made by him and also through the caste elders.

9.According to RW1/M.Naveena there is no dispute regarding the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, so also, the paternity of their child. The petitioner started harassing her with suspicious attitude from the fourth day of their marital life. During the pregnancy also, the respondent faced so many harassments, physically and mentally. Since the beginning, the petitioner used to harass her and used to threaten her that he will give divorce to her.

The Petitioner never spends single paisa for the welfare of her and her child. Now, she is living with her child in Maddupally, where with 7 HMOP NO.122/2018 her parents and taking care of her child.

10. According to RW1/Naveena, during her pregnancy, she faced many harassments and she used to carry heavy loads and used to do entire domestic work, due to that, she fell sick and the doctor advised her for bed rest, then, she went to her parents house. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner got issued legal notice dt.15.09.2017 for restitution of conjugal rights under Ex.R1. According to

PW1/M.Rama Krishna he got issued legal notice dt.19.09.2018 under

Ex.P2, inspite of that, the respondent failed to joined him.

11. PW1/Rama Krishna testified that on 04.05.2018, he sent his family members and caste elders namely Velpula Ilaiah, his mother and uncle Jakkula Srinu and Malleboina Sarvaiah to convince the respondent and get her back to his house. But the father of the respondent beat his father in presence of the said elders and pelted stones upon them. Then, they went to Kamepalli Police station and informed the same and counseling took place. At that time, the respondent demanded to set up separate family, in presence of the elders namely Acha Mallaiah, Mandadi Israil and polepongu Srinu.

Though, RW1/Naveena admitted that the respondent and the elders

Velpula Ilaiah, Jakkula Srinu and Malleboina Sarvaiah went to her to 8 HMOP NO.122/2018 take her back to matrimonial house, but denied, that, her father beat her father in law and they went to Kamepally police station. When the father of RW1/Naveena beat the father of the petitioner in presence of the elders, then, PW1/Rama Krishna would have examine the said elders in presence of whom the said alleged incident took place. It is strange that the petitioner/PW1 M.Rama Krishna failed to examine any of the elders to whom he sent to the parents house of the respondent to get back the respondent to his house and also the elders in presence of whom counseling took place. Hence, the version of PW1/M.Rama Krishna regarding the same is not believable.

12.PW1/M.Rama Krishna further testified that on 31.05.2018, counseling took place and as per the demand of the respondent, he set up separate family by take two rooms on rent in the house belongs to one Acha Buchaiah. Then, the respondent joined him on 15.06.2018 and stayed for two days and again left to her parents house. It is also strange that the petitioner failed to examine the said

Acha Buchaiah who alleged to be the owner of the said two rooms took by him on rent to set up separate family, as per the demand of the respondent in panchayath held on 31.05.2018

13.According to PW1/Rama Krishna, the respondent used to 9 HMOP NO.122/2018 suspect her character and abused her and beat her. The respondent/RW1/Naveena categorically admitted the under taking letter on 31.03.2018, that the petitioner beat his father in law and he will not suspect the respondent and will not beat her and abuse her and would look after her well. As can be seen from the record that during cross examination of PW1/Rama Krishna, he stated that he is ready to take back the respondent to his house. On the next adjournments, the petitioner/PW1 M.Rama Krishna absent and not produced himself to face continuation of cross examination and evidence of PW1/M.Rama Krishna is eschewed to that extent. The

Petitioner also failed to take steps to get setaside the eschewed order of his evidence and also failed to adduce further evidence in order to prove his contention. Though the respondent/RW1 Naveena failed to examine the witness in support of her evidence, but the version of RW1/Naveena is believable as per the admissions of the petitioner. Hence, the sole testimony of PW1/M.Rama Krishna is not sufficient to prove the allegations made against the respondent. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the Respondent took place on 15.02.2017. Accordingly, point no.1 is answered against the petitioner.

10 HMOP NO.122/2018

9.POINT NO. 2 : In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.

(Partly Written by me and typed by the stenographer Grade-II and partly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of

November, 2022).

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER

PW1 : Mekala Rama Krishna

FOR RESPONDENT

RW1 :Mekala Naveena

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS :

Ex.P1: Marriage wedding card dt.15.02.2017

Ex.P2: Legal notice dt.19.09.2018

Ex.P3: Postal receipt.

11 HMOP NO.122/2018

FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.R1: Signature of RW1/Naveena on photostat copy. Ex.R1: Served copy of Legal notice dt.15.09.2017. ( Contains no signature of the advocate who issued)

Note the above said two documents marked as Ex.R1 twice.

PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KHAMMAM

MAGISTRATEI CLASS,

COURTOFTHEJUDICIALOF

IN THE

‘SPECIALMOBILECOURT: KHAMMAM.

_Ms.N.Amaravathi,

Present:Judi.Magistrate

ofFirstClass, SpecialMobilecourt, Khammam,

Monday,the30”dayofSeptember,2014.

CC,NO.322of2011

(Cr.No.66/2011ofPSThirumalayapalem)

Between:

- Rep.throughof police, ‘The StatetheSub-Inspector P.S. Thirumalayapalem. Complainant se

And

age:38yrs,occu:agrl,

KothapalliMalsoor,S/o.Biksham, R/o.kakaravai(v),ThirumalayapalemMandal.

\ccused

30dayofSeptember,2014

comingthisthe Thiscaseon of_A.P.Pforthe

beforehearinganddisposalinthepresence

mefor counselaccusedSri.M.Vasudev, theofthefor stateandinpresence consideration,thecourtdeliveredthe andafterhavingstoodfor over following:

HLQUDGMENTi:

chargedforoffencepunishableU/sec. Theaccusedstandan 447,427,294(b),323IPC.

ThirumalayapalemPolicestation, Sub-Inspectorofpolice,

2.The accusedU/sec.173cr.p.cin filedfinalreportagainstthe Khammam

Cr.No.66/2011,in brieffollows:

withthefollowing allegationsareas 20.6.2009,withLw2toLw4 whileLwi/B.MadhavaRaoalong On agricultureland,atthattime,the thd|seedsattheir weresowing

trespassed

accusedand quarreled

landwithhim theiragriculture into

Aut

y

andtriedtostopthework,athisagricultureland andabusedhimin filthy languageandbeathands, himwithandthreatenedthemwithdire consequences.Thereafter,again25.6.09,aboutP.M, orat1-00the accusedtrespassedIntotheagricuturelandof Lw1/B.MadhavaRao, and damaged thegreenandredby ploughing gramcropgramcropand causedlossofRs.8,000/-andthe samewitnessedby was

Lw6/Y.NarsimhaReddywhoinformed thesametoLw1/B.MadhavaRao.

Then,immediately,Lw1/B.Madhavaalong

RaowithLw5/K.Edappaand

Lw6/Y.NarasimhaReddy wenttohisagriculturefieldandfoundthe sameandtriedtoresisttheaccusec,buttheaccused didnothearand threatenedhimwith—dire_ consequences.Thereafter,

L.w.1/B.MadhavaRao gavereporttopoliceandpolice registereditno.66/2011, asacaseincrineU/s.447,427, 294(b),323ofIPCinvestigated andinto.Afterthecompletion oftheinvestigation,final reportis filed.Hence,the case.

3.Afterfilingthefinal reportby thepolice,cognizancetaken was foroffencespunishable anU/sec.447,427,294(b),323IPC, against theaccused.

4.Onofthe appearanceaccused,casecopiesfurnishedthe to

U/s.207 ofCr.P.C.

accusedrequired as

5.Theaccused wasexaminedU/s.239Cr.P.Cfor the.offences

Uysec.447,427,294(b),323

IPC,chargeframed,

readover

and'explainedtotheaccused isvernicular,forwhichthe

accused pleadeg\not

gultyandclaimed to betried,

ya

4

be

Giuss...

accused,prosecution

guiltof thethe bringhomethe Inorderto

Pwi,theeye Lw1/8.MadhavaRaoas thecomplainant examined

Lw3/B.Kishanand Lw2/B.Dhanya, Lw2toLw4ie witnesses witness,Lw6/Y.Naresimha Pw2toPw4,theeye Lw4/B.Bhadruas

PwSandPw6, circumstantialLw9/G.Yellaiah witnessas Reddyandthe offencepanchanama fortheof thepanchwitnessesscene

Pw7andPw8,the RaoandLwi1/D.Veerannaas Lw10/U.Nageswar

Pw9,theother Lw12/N.VenkateswaraRaoas investigationofficer anddocumentsmarked Lw13/L.RamuluPw10, Investigationofficeras

P9itsbehalf. i.eExP1toon

Deathcertificateof prosecutionfiledthe 159.2014,the

7.On

Hence,the surpanchalongwithmemo. Issuedbythe

Lw5/K.Edappa

policefailed

Is closed.On15.9.2014,serve of Lw5/K.Edappa evidence

Hencethe RaoandLw8/S.Laxman.

Lw7/P.Narasimha

summonsto is closed. of Lw7/P.NarasimhaRaoandLw8/S.Laxman evidence theaccused prosecutionsideevidence, completionof the

8.Afterthe forexplainingthe U/sec.313Cr.P.C, calledforexamination was theevidenceofPW.1 againsthim,in materialevidence

incriminating

accuseddenledthe thethe havingunderstoodsame, toP.W.9, reporteddefence againstthemandno materialevidence incriminating evidenceIs closed. thedefence evidence.Hence,

Awe

2)Whetherthe prosecutionhasprovedthe guiltofthe accused foroffence anpunishableU/sec.427IPC, beyond all reasonabledoubt?

3)Whetherthe prosecutionhasprovedthe guiltof theaccused foroffence anpunishableU/s2c.294(b) IPC,beyond all reasonabledoubt?

4)Whetherthe prosecutionhasproved theguiltof the accused foroffence anpunishableU/s2c.323 IPC,beyond all reasonabledoubt?

11, Pointno.1to4

Perusedtheevidence :ofthe prosecution witnesses|.e.Pw1 toPw9anddocuments markedi.e.Ex.P1 toP9that

PW1/B.Madhava

Raotestifiedthat 20.6.9atabout on9-00AM,he

SendPw2toPw4 tohisagricultureland,in order totheseeds sowin his agriculture landandin the meantime,the accusedwentthere

and

obstructedthe cooliesandtriedto stopthework,then,Pw3/B.Kishan

telephoned

himandinformed himaboutthe same,thenhe

Immediately,

wenttotheof offence sceneand questionedtheaccused thenthe accusedsaidthatthe saidlandbelongshim toandhealso threatenedhim withdire consequencesandbeathim withhandsand alsotriedtobeathim withaxe,thenthe cooliesinterfered andrescued himandthereafter,5 days,

Pw5/¥.Narasimha

Reddy informed

him

the accused

that

damaged

hisgreen gramcropandred gramcropby

ploughing,

a

n-hewentthere andfoundthe sameandhetried to

“resist

theabut theaccuseddid nothearandthreatened i,him

withdirea

encesandduetothat,

hesustainedof

loss

#.9.00.

ai

eeyewitnessesPw2 toPw5,didnot supportthe

BrP

Pw6/G.Yellaiahwho of Thirumayapalemis examinedas 12,TheMRO

Raoandtheaccused 2009,Pwi/B.Madhava testifiedthatintheyear landextentof claimingtheagriculturetoan bothpetition,by gave

Kakaravaivillagebelongsto insy.no.501,situatedat

‘Ac.7-O0gts,

Lw7/P.NarasimhaRaoandLw8/S.Laxman thenhealongwith them, raisedandatthat foundplanelandandnocropwas wentthereand accusedthere,then pwi/B.MadhavaRaoandthecame time,both betweenthemwith ifdisputesthere theyInformedthemanyare toMRO agricultureland,thenaskthemtocome respectthesaid to andgetclarifythe officesame.

Raotestifiedthaton officerPw9/N.Venkateswar TheInvestigation 13.

workingStation 10-30AM, while,hewasas 12/5/2011,atabout

he registered

thecase ThirumalaypalemPolicestation, HouseOfficer, andtheday, ReportunderExP8onsame issuedInformation andFirst theofoffence andconductedscene visitedtheofoffence hescene thepanchwitnesses inof panchanamaunderExP9presence boththepanch Pw8/D.Veeranna.But Pw7/U.NageswarRaoand

Pw7/U.NageswarRao of offencepanchanama witnessesforthescene of theprosecution. ‘and Pw8/D.Veerannadidnotsupportthecase

PW10/L.Ramulutestifiedthat,on Investigationofficer 14,The accusedand apprehendedtheon 9-00AM,he 8.9.2011,atabout of offence.Asthe thecommissionper accusedconfessed enquiry,the tookplace theretwoinstances of Pwi/B.MadhavaRaoare

evidenceie enedisen

25/6/2009.Thedispute 20.6.09andanotherison

between.Pwithrespectthe

accusedisto adhava-Raoandthe in sy.no.501/A,situatedat of Ac.7-00gts, ‘anextent wellthe PW1/B.MadhavaRaoasas But,both

Qo —

accuseddidnotfilethedocumentspertainingtheir toownership.But, theInvestigationofficerPw10/L.Ramulu admittedthattheMandal

RevenueofficerThirumalyapalemdid notfurnishthedocumentsof ‘ownershipofthesaidland,but,furnishedthe copiesofthe xerox pahanies.TheInvestigationofficerPwi0/L.Ramulu failedtoobtain

Certifiedof thesalddocuments copyandtheprosecutionalsofailedto filethesamebeforethiscourt.Itisadmitted anfactthatthealleged firstincidenttookplace20/6/095 days onandthereafter,25/6/09 ie againthesecondincidenttookplacePw1/B.Madhava andRaofiledthe complaintunderExP1before thecourt,16/5/2011.Thatmeans, on is delayof nearly there5 monthsandthere ismentionoffor noreason thesaiddelayinExP1andtheevidenceof Pwi/L.Ramulu isalsosilent withregardtothewhich samecreatedoubtwithrespecttothe incident.

15.Moreover,theversionof pw1/3.Madhavais that, Raoatthetime of incidenttookplace20/6/09,the onaccusedobstructedthecoolles, nottoworkinthesaidland,thenthecooliesinterfered andrescued him.ButtheInvestigationofficer Pw9/N.VenkateswarRaoand

Pw10/L.Ramulufailedto examinethesaidcoolies.Ontheotherhand, thedateoffirstincidenti.e20.6.09, ononPw3/B.Kishantelephoned himandinformedabout theincidentandthereafter5 daysi.e 25/6/2009,hethere wentandfoundtheaccuseddamaging his ‘gfeen.gramdalcropandreddal gramcrop,thenhequestionedthe

=accusebonthe

eyewitnessPw3/B.Kishandid notsupporttheof case

the prosecutlon|WN

= such,theeviderceof Pwi/B.Madhava

ahtheasRao

required

corroboratior

evidenceof theotherwitnesseswho

the inedeti/oewitnessed

js theofoffence.Therefore, scenetheprosecution 1 topw9notsufficienttobringhome aretheguiltthe

Aor

fortheoffencepunishableU/sec.447,427294(b),323IPC, accused beyondallreasonabledoubt.

16.Inviewof theabovediscussion,theprosecutionmiserablyfailedto theguiltoftheaccusedfortheoffencespunishableU/sec.447, prove 427,294(b),323IPC, beyondallreasonabledoubt.

17.Intheresult,theaccusedisfoundnotguiltyfortheoffences punishableU/sec.447,427294(b),323IPCandtheaccusedIs acquittedU/sec.255(1)of Cr.P.C.Thebailbondsoftheaccusedshall bein forceforsixmonths.

Typeddictationby Typist,correctedandpronouncedbyin tomyme

30"dayofSeptember,

thecourtthisthe2014. openon

Qu.

JUDICIALMAGISTRATEOF I CLASS,

SPL.MOBILECOURT,KHAMMAM.

Appendixof evidence Witnessesexamined

Forprosecution:For

Defence:

PW1/Lw1:BonagiriMadhavaRaoNile =

Pw2/LW2:BanothDhanya

PW3/Lw3:BanothKishan

Pw4/Lw4:BanothBhadru

PWS5/Lw6:YerrasaniNarasimhaReddy

Pw6/Lw9:GugulothYellaiah

>

PW7/LW10:Uppanuthala

NageswarRao

Pw8/Lw11:Darayath

Veeranna

N.Vankateswar

Pw9/Lw12:Rao

PerrotGru

oy,

Exhibitsmarked

Forthe

Prosecution:

Qa

ExP1:complaintdt:16/5/2011.

r

ExP2:EntireStatementU/s.161Cr.P.Cof PW1.

ExP3:EntireStatementU/s.161Cr.P.Cof PW3.

ExP4:EntireStatementU/s.161Cr.P.Cof PW4.

ExPS:EntireStatementU/s.161Ci.P.C ofPWS.

ExP6:SignatureofPW7the oncrimedetailsform. ExP7:SignatureofPw8the oncriinedetailsform. ExP8:FirstInformationReport,

ExP9:Crimedetailsform,

JUDICIALMAGISTRATEI CLASS,

OF

SPL.MOBILECOURT, KHAMMAM,

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 28th day of April, 2017

Present: Ms.N.Amaravathi,

Principal Magistrate

juvenile Justice Board Khammam.

J.C.C.No.10/2017

(Cr.No. 78/2016 of P.S. II Town, Kothagudem)

Between:

The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. II Town, Kothagudem

.... Complainant.

And

Shaik Mujahid, S/o Sk.Pasha, aged about: 15 yrs, Occ: student, R/o.Vanamdassgadda, Ramavaram, Kothagudem.

.....Juvenile in conflict with law.

This case coming on this the 28th day of April, 2017 before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of A.P.P for the state and in the presence of counsels for the Juvenile in conflict with law Sri.T.Venkateswalu and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

:: FINAL ORDER ::

The final report filed against the Juvenile in conflict with law alleged to have committed the offence U/sec. 380 or 411 IPC.

2.The Sub-Inspector of police, II Town, Kothagudem Police station, filed final report against the Juvenile in conflict with law, U/sec. 173

Cr.P.C in Cr.No. 78/2016 with the following allegations in brief are as follows:

3.On 30.4.2016, around 5.15 pm, LW2/T.Navatha telephoned to

LW1/Thadepalli Suresh Kumar, and informed about the found missing of Micro Soft 535, which is kept at Sofa of their house, then he searched for the same in the surrounding, but she could not trace out.

Thereafter, LW1/Thadepalli Suresh Kumar gave report to police and police registered it as a case in Cr.No.78/2016, U/sec 380 or 411 of

IPC and investigated into. After the completion of the investigation, final report is filed. Hence, the case.

4. After filing the final report by the police, cognizance was taken for the offence U/sec. 380 or 411 IPC against the Juvenile in conflict with law.

5.On appearance of the Juvenile in conflict with law, case copies furnished to the juvenile in conflict with law as required U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

6. The Juvenile in conflict with law was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 380 or 411 IPC against the Juvenile in conflict with law, for which, the Juvenile in conflict with law stated that he did not commit the offence and claimed to be tried.

7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution against the Juvenile in conflict with law, the prosecution examined the complainant

LW1/Thadepalli Suresh Kumar as PW2, the panch witness for the confession cum recovery panchanama LW6/Surimenu Mohan Rao as

PW1 and the investigation officer LW9/T. Satyanarayana as PW3 and the documents marked i.e., Exs.P1 to P5 and the material object marked I.e MO.1 on its behalf.

8. The learned APP has givenup the evidence of LW2 to Lw5 I.e.

LW2/Thadepalli Navatha, LW3/Nunna Lingaiah, LW4/Ravula Vishal,

LW5/Labudiya Ramesh. On 24.3.2017, police failed to serve summons to LW7/Kotagiri Saikiran . Hence, the evidence of

LW7/K.Saikiran is closed. On 31.3.2017, police failed to serve summons to LW8/Dharavath Nageshwar Rao. Hence, the evidence of

LW8/Dharavath Nageshwar Rao is closed.

9. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Juvenile in

Conflict with Law was called for examination under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. for explaining the incriminating material evidence against him in the evidence of Pw1 to PW3, having understood the same, the Juvenile in

Conflict With Law denied the incriminating material evidence against him and reported no defence evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

11. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

12. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved that the Juvenile in Conflict with Law has committed the U/sec. 380 or 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt ?

11.In order to prove that the Juvenile in conflict with law has committed the offence U/sec. 380 or 411 IPC, the prosecution shall establish that:

1. On 30.4.2016, around 5.15 pm, LW2/T.Navatha telephoned to LW1/Thadepalli Suresh Kumar, and informed about the found missing of Micro Soft 535, which is kept on sofa of their house and he searched for the same in the surrounding, but she could not trace out and thereafter, LW1/Thadepalli Suresh Kumar gave report to police.

2. The Juvenile in conflict with law is the persons who committed theft of one Micro Soft Nokia 535 cell phone from the front room of the house of LW1/Thadepalli Suresh KUmar on 30.4.2016.

12. Point No.1: Perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e., PW1 to PW3 and documents marked i.e., Ex.P1 to P5 and material objects marked i.e. MO.1 that Pw2/T.Suresh kumar testified that on 30.4.2016, around 5-15 pm, LW2/T.Navatha telephoned to him and informed about the found missing of Micro Soft 535, which is kept on sofa of their house and he searched for the same in the surrounding, but she could not trace out and thereafter, LW1/Thadepalli Suresh

Kumar gave report to police. which is corroborated with the version of the of Investigation Officer, PW3/T. Satyanayrana and the contents of the report under Ex.P.1.

13.The investigation office PW3/T.Satyanarayana testified that on 9.6.2016, around 4.00 pm, he gave report under Ex.P1 to him , then, he registered the case and issued first information report under Ex.P3 and on the same day, he visited the scene of offence at the house of the PW2/T.Suresh kumar C-2-15-C, Gouthampur colony, and conducted scene of offence panchanama under Ex.P4 in presence of the panch witnesses i.e., LW4/R.Vishal and LW5/L.Ramesh . Though the prosecution failed to examine both the panch witnesses

LW4/R.Vishal and LW5/L.Ramesh, but the evidence of Pw2/T.Suresh kumar is corroborated with the version of the investigation officer

PW3/T.Sathyanarayana. Therefore, the prosecution established that the theft of MO.1 took place, from the front room of the house of

PW2/T.Suresh kumar on 30.4.2016, beyond reasonable doubt.

14.Point No.2: So far as the identification of the Juvenile in conflict with law is concerned, the prosecution examined the investigation officer PW3/T.Satyanarayana who testified that on 27.6.2016, around 9.30 am, while, he wasconducting vehicle checking at Ramvaram center, at that time, he found the juvenile in conflict with law and another person in suspicious circumstances then, he apprehend, them and on enquiry, they confessed the commission of offence in presence of the panch witnesses PW1/Mohan rao and LW7/Sai Kiran and he recovered 9 cell phones, i.e., one Samsung Galaxy, One Samsung Cell phone, Idea, Dozer, One Samsung, HTC desire, One Galaxy cell phone,

One Nokia cell phone, One Moto cell phone, out of which, one micro soft cell phone i.e., MO.1 is pertaining to this case which was also recovered from the possession of the Juvenile in conflict with law and another person in presence of the said panch witnesses. But the panch witness for the confession cum recovery panchanama

PW1/Mohan rao did not support version of the investigation Officer

PW3/T.Satyanarayana. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of MO.1 from the possession of the Juvenile in conflict with law and another person. As such the presumption u/s 114 of Indian

Evidence Act, cannot be drawn.

15. Moreover, PW2/T.Suresh kumar who gave report under Ex.P.1 to police stating that some unknown offenders might have committed theft of M.O.1 from the house of PW2/T.Suresh kumar on 28.5.2016 and prosecution also failed to prove the circumstances that the

Juvenile in conflict with law is the person who along with another person committed theft of MO.1. from the house of PW2/T.Suresh kumar on 30.4.2016. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the Juvenile in conflict with law is the person who committed theft of

MO.1 from the house of PW2/T.Suresh kumar, on 30.4.2016 or the

Juvenile in conflict with law and another person are in possession of

MO.1 knowing the same to be 0.79"the stolen property, in order to attract ingredients of the offence u/s 380 or 411 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

15. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the juvenile in conflict with law has committed the offence punishable U/sec. 380 or 411 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

16. In the result, the Juvenile Justice Board satisfied and find that the Juvenile in conflict with law did not commit the offence U/sec. 380 or 411 of IPC and the juvenile in conflict with law is acquitted U/sec.

255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the Juvenile conflict with law shall stand cancelled. The case property i.e., MO1 i.e., samsung tablet cell phone, which is given to PW2/T.Suresh kumar for interim custody shall be retained by him.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Juvenile Justice Board on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Khammam.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For prosecution: For Defence:

None

Pw1/Lw6 : S. Mohan Rao

Pw2/Lw1: T. Suresh kumar

Pw3/Lw9: T. Satyanarayana

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1/S. Mohan Rao on the attested copy of the confession cum recovery panchanama.

Ex.P2: Report dated 9.6.2016

Ex.P3: Certified copy of First Information Report

Ex.P4: Attested copy of the Crime Details Form

Ex.P5: Marked portion of the confession cum recovery panchanama.

For defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

MO1: Micro Soft Nokia 535 cell phone.

MEMBERS: Principle Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board Khammam

1. Sri.V. Narender Swaroop

2. Smt.Z. Kiran Ranjani