Sri N Santosh Kumar

SC No.114 of 2019

"IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SRI N.SANTOSHKUMAR,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

FAC- ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK.

Thursday; this the 26" day of May, 2022.

SC. No., 114 OF 2019.

P.R.C.No.; Cr.No.; and P.S. PRC.No.4/2019: Cr.No.103/2018 of PS.Yeldurthy.

Principal Judicial Magistrate of First

Case committed by Class, Medak. Particulars of accused persons. A1) Edike Prabhakar Slo Narsimlu, 40 Yrs., A2) Edike Shyamala W/o Prabhakar, 30 Yrs., Both are R/o Yeshwanthraopet village, Yeldurthy mandal, Medak Dist.

Offence of Charge Under Sections 323 & 307 of IPC Pleaded not guilty. Plea of accused |Finding of court Accused No.1 & 2 found not guilty. In the result, Accused No.1 is found Sentence or Order not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, and whereas the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds and the sureties of the |Accused No.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. |The case property under MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted by Sri G.Radha Kishan,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Sri Maya Venkatesham, Advocate. Accused defended by

This case came up before me on 19.05.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Radha Kishan, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Maya Venkatesham, Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:

2

SC No.114 of 2019

JUD G MENT

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeldurthy Police Station has filed the charge sheet in Crime No.103 of 2018, for the offence punishable under

Sections 307 against the Accused No.1 and the offence punishable under

Sections 323 against the Accused No.2.

2. In brevity, the case of the prosecution is that, on 03.11.2018 at about 6.30 PM the complainant LW.1/Pakka Naveen S/o Gangulu came to Yeldurthy Police Station, and lodged a complaint, wherein he stated that on 02.11.2018 at about 3.30 PM while the Accused No.1 Prabhakar was quarreling with his elder father Pakka Pochaiah, he intervened to stoop the quarrel, meanwhile the Accused No.2 beat him with hands, and

at that time when his mother Pakka Nagamani came to the place of

incident, then the Accused No.1 beat her with a stick on her head and caused bleeding injuries and immediately they went to hospital for treatment.

3. Basing on the above said complaint, LW.9/V.Gangaraju, SI of

Police, registered a case in Crime No.103/2018 for the offence under sections 324, 323 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, LW.9 examined and recorded

the statement of the complainant LW./Pakka Naveen, LW.2/Pakka

Nagamani, visited scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators LW.6/Paka Shekulu and LW.7/Rayarathnam Bhoomaiah, conducted scene of offence panchanama-cum-seizure panchanama and examined and recorded the statements of LW.3/Pakka Pochaiah, LW.4/ 3

SC No. 114 of 2019

Markanti Srinu and LW.5/Myakala Narsimulu and arrested the Accused

No.l on 05.11.2018 whereas served a notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C..

on the Accused No.2. During the course of investigation altered the section of law from 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC to under Section 307, 323 r/w 34

IPC and after collecting medical certificate and other relevant documents and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against

Accused No.l and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

5. The case was taken on file as PRC No.4 of 2019 by the learned

Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Medak for the offence under

Sections 323, 307 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 & 2. Copies of relevant documents were furnished to the said accused as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having found prima-facie case against Accused for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and as the said offence is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge's Court, Medak at Sangareddy under Section 209 Cr.P.C.

6 The Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at

Sangareddy, has taken the case on file as SC No. 114 of 2019 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to Law.

7. On appearance of the Accused No.1 & 2 before this Court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and the earned defence counsel

were heard under Section 226 of Cr.P.C., and considering the material on

record and as per Section 228 Cr.P.C., charges under Sections 323, 307

SC No.114 of 2019

r/w 34 IPC were framed and the same have been read over and explained to the Accused No.1 & 2 in their vernacular language, for which, they pleaded not guilty for the said charges and claimed to be tried.

8. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 8 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to P11 and material object as M0.1.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 & 2 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating evidence available against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence on their behalf.

10. Heard the arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor, and also the learned defence counsel for Accused.

11. The point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution had made out the guilt of the Accused No.l for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and the guilt of the Accused No.2 for the offfence

punishable under Section 323 IPC, beyond reasonable

doubt?

12. POINT: The prosecution to prove its case, should prove that the

Accused No.1 assaulted PW.2 with a stick with an intention to kill her and whereas the Accused No.2 assaulted PW.1 with hands and thereby the Accused No.1 committed an offence punishable under Section 307

IPC and while the Accused No.2 committed an offence punishable under

Section 323 IPC.

13. The prosecution, to prove its case, has examined PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P1l and Mo.1.

5

SC No. 114 of 2019

T4.

Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention

here that the prime witnesses i.e., PW.1, who is the defaco-complainant cum-injured, PW.2, who is another injured, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6, who are the eye-witness, did not support their own case and have totally turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, PW.5 and PW.7, who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama, also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

Thereby, the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 is of no use to prove the case against the accused persons. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court, crosS-examined PW.1 to 7, but nothing substantiate was elicited in their cross-examination except marking their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. Only evidence available on record is that of

PW.8, who is investigation officer of the present case.

PW.8 is the Investigation Officer of the present case. He deposed 15.

about receiving of complaint, registering of the first information report, examining and recording the statements of the witnesses, conducting scene of offence, arresting the accused and filing of charge sheet. The evidence of PW.8 is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses.

The injured persons PW.1 & 2 themselves turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. As stated above, the crucial witnesses PW.1 to 7 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

16. Thus, the only evidence available on record is that of the

Investigation Officer i.e., PW.8, which is not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of Investigation Officer/PW.8 is 6 SC No.l14 of 2019 remained uncorroborated by the prosecution witnesses. There is no iota evidence against the Accused persons to connect them with the offence.

Hence, this Court is of the considered view that, it is not safe to convict the accused only basing on the uncorroborated testimony of PW.8.

For the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view 17.

that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC, and whereas the Accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, accordingly they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds and the sureties of the Accused No.l and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The case property under

MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-1, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26 day of May, 2022.

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, SIDDIPET.

FAC - ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

1. PW.1-P.Naveen.

2. PW.2 -Smt.P.Nagamani.

3. PW.3-P.Pochaiah.

4. PW.4- M.Narsimulu.

-NONE -

5. PW.5� R.Bhoomaiah.

6. PW.6� M.Srinu.

7. PW.7- P.Shekulu.

8. PW.8-V.Gangaraju, SIP/IO.

4

SC No.114 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

1. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 on the complaint.

2. Ex.P2 to P5 are 161 Cr.P.C., statements of -NIL PW.1 to 4 respectively.

3. Ex.P6 & P7 are the signatures of PW.5 on scene of offence-cum seizure panchanama.

4. Ex.P8 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6.

5. Ex.P9 is the First Information Report.

6. Ex.P10 is scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama.

7. Ex.P11 is the medical certificates.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

1. Mo.l is "stick" -NIL

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, s0DDIPET.

FAC -ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

OS.No.1O/2021

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:: AT MEDAK

PRESENT :: N.SANTOSH KUMAR,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDDIPET,

FAC -SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK.

THURSDAY, THE 28h DAY OF APRIL, 2022

0.S. No, 10 of 2021,

Between: Medikonda Venkata Murali Krishna, Slo. Ramachandra Rao, Aged about 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Plot No.94, Road No.72,Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

AND

1. Mohammed lbrahim, S/o. Mahaboob Sab, aged about 52 years,

2. Ashraf Unnisa, w/o. Mohammed lbrahim,aged about 49 years,

Both are residing at H.No.1-66, Gongloor village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy district.

...Defendants.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. A.Ravider, Counsel for plaintiff, Defendants No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte, upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing arguments of counsel for plaintiffs, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

JUD GMENT

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for granting decree of perpetual injunction restraining defendants, their henchmen, workmen, servants etc., or anybody on their behalf from interfering in to the lawful possession and peaceful enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, not to alienate the suit schedule property and costs.

2 The necessary pleadings of plaint to the suit are narrated briefly as follows:

() The plaintiff is the possessor of Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.789 admeasuring to an extent of Ac.02.20Gts situated at Gongloor village, Pulkal

Mandal of Sangareddy District. Originally, the suit schedule property belongs

OS.No.1O/2021

defendant No.1 and out of his personal neCessities the defendant No.1 leased out the suit schedule property to plaintiff for a period of 33 years under a Lease

Agreement dated 26.10.2016 and defendant No.1 handed over the possession to plaintiff on the date of lease agreement Itself, and on the same day plaintiff has given an advance amount of Rs.22,00,000/- which Is refundable after completion of lease period. Both parties agreed for the same which were also mentioned in

Lease Agreement. It is further averred that as per the said Lease Agreement, rent was fixed as Rs.11000/- per year, in case of failure of payment of rent by the plaintiff for three years, the defendant No.1 has right to terminate the tenancy and to get back possession. The plaintiff obtained acknowledgement receipt and proof of payment to that extent.

(ü) It is further avered that, later, the plaintiff invested huge amount for levelling the land, removed bushes, fenced the land and cultivated the suit property, the plaintiff also dug a bore in suit property with the permission of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff developed drip irrigation system in the suit property by investing huge amount with the permission of Irrigation department by paying an amount of

Rs.69,5000 in the shape of Demand Draft bearing No.707246 dated 27.08.2018 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jubilee Hills

(ii) It is further averred that since execution of lease agreement, the plaintiff paying yearly rent to defendant No.1 promptly as per the terms and conditions of

Lease Agreement and defendant No.1 also issued receipts.

iv) It is further averred that, after execution of lease agreement, without knowledge of plaintiff, the defendant No.1 has transferred suit property in favour of defendant No.2, who is none other than his wife and later the defendants without having any right to interfere into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 10.02.2021 with a mala-fide intention illegally tried to interfere into the lawful and peaceful possession of plaintiff with the help of his henchmen and agents and tried to dispossess the plaintiff , but the plaintiff with could resist 3

OS.No.10/2021

the defendants with the help of neighbouring land owners but defendants while leaving threatened plaintiff to dispossess the plaintiff from suit property at any cost.

Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file the suit.

The defendants did not appear before this court to file their written 3 statement, no representation on their behalf, hence, defendants were set ex parte.

4 To substantiate his claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 towards docunmentary evidence.

Heard the counsel for plaintiff and perused the material available on record. 5.

6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of granting decree of perpetual injunction in his favour as prayed for?

7. POINT: It is the contention of plaintiff that, defendant leased out the suit schedule property to plaintiff for a period of 33 years under a lease deed dated 26.10.2016 and he advanced refundable consideration of Rs.22,00,000/- to defendant No.1 and paying fixed rent of Rs.11,000/- as per the terms of Lease

Deed. But, in violation to the terms of Lease deed, the defendants are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. In support of his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and filed his chief examination affidavit in lieu of his evidence wherein he reiterated the contents of plaint and got exhibited Ex.A1 Meeseva Copy of Pahani for the year, 2017 and

Ex.A2 Digitally Signed 1B Namuna (ROR) dated 29.12.2007.

8 A careful perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 there is no doubt that defendant No.1 is owner of the suit property. A perusal of the record, it appears that the plaintiff

fled a copy of lease agreement dated 26.10.2016 while at the time of obtaining

temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property. Hence, there is 4

OS.No.1O/2021

no dispute as per the pleadings of plaint, both parties to the suit have entered into lease agreement and possession was handed over to plaintiff. But, the plaintiff cannot seek a relief against defendants wh0 are owners of suit property restraining them from not to alienate the suit property. As the defendants remained ex parte, the oral evidence of plaintiff coupled with documentary evidence remains unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no other material and contradictory evidence on record to disbelieve the case and evidence of PW1 to the extent that the plaintiff is in possession of suit scheduie property. Hence, the plaintiff is only entitled to the partly relief of Perpetual Injunction in respect of possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, suit is decreed partly, with costs in favour of the plaintiff by granting decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their henchmen, agents, servants, or anybody cn their behalf from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the piaintiff over the suit schedule property.

The suit claim with regard to granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property is hereby dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-l corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28h day of April, 2022.

SENIOR CIVIL JÙDÈE SIDDIPET.

FAC - SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINITFE

DEFENDANTS

PW1-M.Venkata Murali Krishna - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

1. Ex.A1 Mee-seva Copy of Pahani for the year, 2017. - NIL

2. Ex.A2 Digitally Signed 1B Namuna (ROR) dated 29.12.2007.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SIDD0PET.

FAC � SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MEDAK