N. Srikanth Babu

Addl. Senior Civil Judge

Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex · Nizamabad · Telangana

N. Srikanth Babu, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, is posted at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana, India. 507 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, H cases.

507

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/5/2025 Acquitted

S. Shiva Reddy vs Voddem Narsaiah

27 Mar 2025

1 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri N. Srikanth Babu, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 27th day of March, 2025.

OS No. 5 of 2025

(Old OS No.6 of 2015 of PDM Court)

Between:-

1.S. Shiva Reddy S/o Late Laxma Reddy, Aged: 76 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal, Nizamabad District presently residing at H.No.MIG 1-0, New Housing Board colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad (Died per Lr’s)

2.S. Manohar Reddy S/o Late S. Shiva Reddy, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Software Engineer, R/o 4955 Shelbourne Drive Cumming, GA30041, USA, temporarily came down to H.No.MIG11-1-70, New Housing Board colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

3.Podduturi Suvarna W/o P. Prabaker Reddy (D/o Late S. Shiva Reddy), Aged: 63 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.6-7-36, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad.

4.Almawar Vanaja W/o A. Mohan Reddy (D/o S. Shiva Reddy) Aged: 56 years, Occ: House hold, R/o MIG-1 H.No.11-1-69, New Housing Board colony, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad.

Smt. A. Sudha Rani W/o Manoj Kumar Reddy, Aged: 48 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Flat No.108, Sai Tarangini Apartments, Road No.4, KCR colony, Bachupally, Hyderabad-90.

...Plaintiffs

AND

1. Voddem Narsaiah S/o Bhoomanna, Aged: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. Voddem Narsaiah S/o Linganna, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Voddem Nadipi Gangaram S/o Ramulu, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. Voddem Narsaiah S/o Poshetty, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal, Nizamabad District.

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Kishore Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiffs and Sri N. Subash Reddy, Counsel for Defendants No.1 to 3 and Defendant No.4 was set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

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

This suit is filed under Order VII rule 1 & 2 R/w Section 26 of CPC praying this

Court to declare the Plaintiff as absolute owner of suit schedule property and to direct the Defendants to deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule property to

Plaintiff.

The brief averments of plaint are:

2.The father of Plaintiff No.1/S. Laxma Reddy was absolute owner of vast ancestral properties situated at Mittapally village, Dichpally mandal and he died in the year 1950, leaving his three sons namely S. Ganga Reddy, S. Chinna Reddy and

S.Shiva Reddy (Plaintiff No.1) as his successors and legal heirs. After the death of

Laxma Reddy, the Plaintiff No.1 along with his two brothers Ganga Reddy and Chinna

Reddy partitioned all their ancestral properties including agricultural lands on 10.08.1993, including lands to an extent of Ac.2-15 ¼ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.4-31 gts., in Sy.No.274/EE, situated at Mittapally village. In the above said partition, Plaintiff No.1 and his two brothers got land to an extent of Ac.0-31 ¾ gts., each in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.1-23½ gts., each in Sy.No.274/EE, towards their respective shares along with other lands. The Plaintiff No.1 immediately after partition has purchased the share of his elder brother Chinna

Reddy including the land to an extent of Ac.0-31 ¾ gts., in Sy. No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE. After purchase, the Plaintiff No.1 became owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts, in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.3-07 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE along with other lands and his name was also mutated in Revenue records with regard to the above said properties.

3 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

3.The Plaintiff No.1, subsequently also purchased the share of lands allotted to his another brother Gangareddy including the land to an extent of Ac.0-31¾ gts., in

Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.1-23½ gts., in Sy.No.274/EE along with other allotted lands, situated at Mittapally village from the Sons of Gangareddy i.e., Srinivas

Reddy and S. Janardhan Reddy, under a un-Registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1999.

After purchase, the Plaintiff No.1 has got validated the said Sale Deed under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act,before MRO,

Dichpally, by paying deficit stamp duty and registration fee. After validation of the above said Sale Deed, the lands purchased under the above said Sale Deed were mutated on to the name of Plaintiff No.1 in Revenue records and accordingly

Revenue authorities have issued Pattedar Pass book and Title deed in favour fo

Plaintiff No.1. The Plaintiff No.1 after purchase of the lands from his brother became owner of lands to an extent of Ac.2-15 ¼ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of

Ac.4-31 gts., in Sy.No.274/EE situated at Mittapally village of Dichpally mandal. The

Plaintiff No.1 out of above said two survey numbers has sold land to an extent of

Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy.No.274/A to Musku Kavya, by way of Registered Sale Deed in the year 2009 and also sold land to an extent of Ac.3-07 ½ gts., situated at Mittapally village of Dichpally to one Musku Latha under a Registered Sale Deed in the year 2009. After alienations of the above said properties, the Plaintiff No.1 has retained the land to an extent of Ac.0-31¾ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.1- 23½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE (which is hereinafter called as suit schedule property).

4.The Plaintiff No.1 worked as Government Teacher and after his retirement he is residing at Nizamabad and got cultivated his lands through his farm servants. But 4 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) subsequently due to non availability of water and farm servants, the cultivation could not be done and the lands were kept fallow from the year 2012. The Defendants and other adjacent cultivators, by taking the advantage that the lands were kept fallow, tried to illegally occupy and encroach to the suit lands by removing boundary marks of schedule lands. On that, the Plaintiff No.1 has filed a Petition before Survey and

Land records, to survey and demarcate the suit lands and accordingly the survey officials have conducted survey and demarcated the suit lands by putting boundary stones around the suit lands by conducting panchanama. Thereafter, the Defendants by taking advantage of the absence of Plaintiff No.1, have illegally occupied the suit lands on 16.11.2022 by removing the boundary stones. The Plaintiff No.1 after getting knowledge as the illegal encroachment, questioned the Defendants about their illegal acts, requested them to hand over the possession of suit lands but the

Defendants replied that the suit lands are part of their lands and Plaintiff No.1 has no right over them. The Plaintiff No.1 has also made a complaint to Police against the

Defendants about their illegal encroachment and Police, Dichpally have registered

FIR against him, but they managed the Police from taking further action. When the

Police have failed to take action, the Plaintiff No.1 has filed application in Prajavani

before District Collector and the District Collector directed Tahsildar, Dichpally to

take action but they expressed their in ability and advised the Plaintiff No.1 to approach Civil Court. The Plaintiff No.1 as a last attempt on 24.12.2014 approached the Defendants and requested them to vacate the suit land and deliver him the possession. But they denied the title of Plaintiff No.1 and refused to deliver the possession. As such the Plaintiff No.1 having no other remedy filed the present suit.

5 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 has filed Written Statement and the same was adopted by Defendants No.2 and 3. The brief averments of written statement are :

5.The Defendants denied the allegations made by the Plaintiff No.1. The

Defendants are not having knowledge about the sale of land to Musku Kavya and so also to Musuku Latha. The Plaintiff No.1 at present is not having any land in Sy.

Nos.274/A and 274/EE. The alleged panchanama is not authentic document and it is created one by the Plaintiff No.1 for the purpose of the present suit. All the

Defendants were adjacent land owners to Plaintiff No.1 and they are cultivating their lands from time immemorial in various sub survey numbers of Sy.No.94 and all the

Defendants have acquired the lands by way of inheritance. The Plaintiff No.1 is not the owner of suit land and he was never in possession of suit land and he is no way concerned with it. The title deed of Plaintiff No.1 does not show ownership of

Plaintiff and it is not showing mole and sign of MRO, Dichpally. The pahanies filed by the Plaintiff No.1 are created one. The Plaintiff No.1 himself is illegally trying to occupy the land of Defendants and as a part of that filed the present suit. The

Defendants have also filed additional written statement avering that the Plaintiffs have not impleaded all the necessary parties in the suit, after death of original

Plaintiff and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.

Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the pleadings of the both parties, this Court has framed the following issues for trial.

(i).Whether the Plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property ?

6 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

(ii).Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit land from the Defendants as prayed for ?

(iii).To what result?

7.During the course of trial, Plaintiff No.1 himself got examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9 (Exs.10 to 13 were marked through Pws.2 and 3). The Plaintiffs in support of their case got examined one Neeradi Sanjeev Kumar (VRO) and Smt.

Podduturi Suvarna as PW2 and PW3 respectively and through them Exs.A10 to A13 are marked. The Defendants in support of their case examined Defendant No.3 as

DW1 and got marked Exs.B1 and B2. The Defendants in support of their case examined one Komiri Santhosh as DW2.

During pendency of suit, original Plaintiff died and his legal heirs i.e., Plaintiff

Nos.2 to 5 are brought on record.

Heard both sides. The counsel for Defendants filed written arguments.

Issue No. (i & ii):

(i)Whether the Plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property ?

(ii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit land from the Defendants as prayed for ?

As original Plaintiff died during pendency of suit, wherever Plaintiff is referred it is to be read as Plaintiff No.1.

8.It is the case of the Plaintiff that after death of his father, he along with his two brothers i.e., S. Ganga Reddy and Chinna Reddy, got partitioned all properties including agricultural lands on 10.08.1993, which also includes land in Sy.No.274/A to an extent of Ac.2-15¼ gts., and land in Sy.No.274/EE to an extent of Ac.4-31 gts. In 7 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) the said partition each of them got land to an extent of Ac.0-31¾ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and Ac.1-23½ gts., in Sy.No.274/EE. After that the Plaintiff purchased the lands of his two brothers i.e., Chinna Reddy and that of Gangareddy from his sons i.e., Srinivas

Reddy and Janardhan Reddy and Plaintiff became the owner of land in Sy.No.274/A to an extent of Ac.2-15¼ gts., and land in Sy.No.274/EE to an extent of Ac.4-31 gts.

Later Plaintiff sold Ac.1-23 gts., in Sy.No.274/A to Musuku Kavya in the year 2009 and also sold Ac.3-07 ½ gts., in Sy.No.274/EE to Musuku Latha in the year 2009. The

Plaintiff is the owner of remaining land in Sy. Nos.274/A and 274/EE, which is suit schedule property. The Defendants, who are neibouring land owners, by taking advantage of absence of Plaintiff have encroached and occupied the land of Plaintiff on 16.11.2012.

9.The Plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW1. The PW1 in lieu of his chief examination filed chief examination affidavit, which is reiteration of contents of Plaint. The PW1 in support of his case got marked Ex.A1 to A9. Ex.A1 is the proceeding issued by MRO, Dichpally dated 14.03.2007, Ex.A2 is the original ROR title deed book, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of panchanama conducted by the surveyor, Ex.A4 is the office copy of complaint filed before police, Ex.A5 is the attested copy of FIR, Ex.A6 is the office copy of petition filed before the District

Collector, Nizamabad, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8 are the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1994-95, 2011-12 respectively and Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422 dated 21.11.2012. PW1 during his cross examination admitted that he sold the property to Musuku Latha and Kavya and also admitted that he has sold to an extent of Ac.3-07 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE to Musuku Latha. He denied the 8 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) suggestion that he has sold land to an extent Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE to

Musuku Kavya. PW1 admitted that in Ex.A3 there is no mention about extent of land existing in Sy.Nos.271 and 274. He also admitted that in Ex.A4/complaint sent to

Superintendent of Police, there is no mention about Sy.No.274/EE. He also admitted that there is a difference in mention of extent in report lodged by him before P.S

Dichpally vide Ex.A5. He denied the suggestion that he has sold total extent of his property in Sy.Nos.274/A and 274/EE and due to revenue authorities mistake, passbook was showing to an extent of Ac.0-31¼ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE.

10.The Plaintiff in support of his case examined one Neeradi Sanjeev Kumar as

Pw2. The evidence of PW2 shows that presently he is working as VRO at Nagepoor village of Balkonda mandal from 2019 to till today (date of evidence). Previously he worked as VRO of Mittapalli village from 2011 to 2015. He received memo from

Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Nizamabad on 28.06.2012 and in the said memo he was directed to be present on 04.07.2012 at Sy.Nos.271 and 274 for survey of land of one Shiva Reddy at Mittapalli village. The said memo contains his signature with regard to acknowledgment of receipt of memo, which is Ex.A10. On 04.07.2012 he went to the spot i.e., Sy. Nos.271 and 274 and shown all records pertains to Sy. Nos.271 and 274 and basing on that surveyor has surveyed the lands in his presence and shown the boundaries. Ex.A11 is his signature on Ex.A3/ panchanama. He during his cross examination admitted that panchas to the panchanama are illiterates. PW2 admitted that as per Ex.A3 boundaries are fixed to 9 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) total extent of survey numbers 271 and 274, but it is not showing that boundaries are fixed to sub division numbers of above said survey numbers.

11.One Podduturi Suvarna who is Plaintiff No.3 was examined as PW3. The evidence of PW3 shows his father/Plaintiff filed the above suit for Declaration of Title and Recovery of Possession of suit lands against the Defendants. Her father during his life time has sold land to Musuku Kavya under Registered Sale Deed in year 2009 and land to Musuku Latha in the year 2009 by way Registered Sale Deed and retained the suit schedule property. Ex.A12 is the certified copy of Registered Sale Deed vide doc. No.3838 of 2009 dated 12.10.2009. Ex.A13 is the certified copy of Registered

Sale Deed vide doc. No.3837 of 2009 dated 12.10.2009. She during her cross examination stated that her father was survived with one son/Manohar Reddy, three daughters i.e., she, Vasantha and Vanaja. PW3 admitted that Vasantha has a daughter

Sudha. She denied the suggestion that Shiva Reddy sold the suit property including other properties to third parties. She denied the suggestion that suit is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties.

12.Per contra, it is the case of the Defendants that they have denied that Plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and that they are not having knowledge about the sale of property to Musuku Kavya and Musuku Latha. The Defendants have also denied that panchanama was conducted. The Plaintiff is not having any land in suit survey numbers. The Defendants are the adjacent owners of Plaintiff and they are cultivating the lands since long time and the Plaintiff has filed the present suit to occupy the lands of Defendants.

10 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

13.The Defendants in support of their case, examined Defendant No.3 as DW1.

The DW1 in lieu of chief examination filed the chief examination affidavit, which is reiteration of contents of Written statement. He further mentioned that Plaintiff has filed false complaint before P.S Dichpally and Police have filed charge sheet and the same was numbered as CC No.561 of 2014 and the learned II-Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad after trial as acquitted the Defendants on 04.02.2019. The DW1 in support of their their case got marked Exs.B1 and B2. Ex.B1 is certified copy of phanies (5 in number).

Ex.B2 is the certified copy of Judgment in CC No.561 of 2014 on the file of II-Addl.

JFCM, Nizamabad. He during his cross examination stated that he has not seen the documents filed by the Plaintiff in the suit. As he is illiterate he cannot say his survey number and that of suit survey number. Further stated that the plaintiff is not having land near to his property. He denied the suggestion that towards southern side of his property, is the land of the Plaintiff. He denied the suggestion in the absence of

Plaintiff, they have occupied the suit property. He also denied the suggestion that

Mandal Surveyor conducted survey in their presence. He denied the suggestion that

Plaintiff has never occupied their property as mentioned in their chief affidavit.

Further stated that they have not given any complaint before Police against Plaintiff.

14.The Defendants in support of their case examined one Komiri Santhosh as

DW2. The evidence of DW2 shows that he is the adjacent land owner of Defendants lands situated at Mittapalli village of Dichpally mandal. Presently the Plaintiff has no land in Sy.No.274 of Mittapalli village and he has sold his land to third parties and now they are in possession of the property. The Plaintiff after sale of his land, is trying to grab the land of Defendants by suppressing the sale of his land. The Plaintiff is no 11 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) way concerned the land of Defendants, who are having land in Sy. No.94. The Plaintiff has never visited the land of Defendants and they have never threatened the Plaintiff with dire consequences. He during his cross examination stated that Plaintiff has filed the suit against Gangadhar. He do not know the suit survey number and survey number of Defendants. He do not know about the extent of land owned by Plaintiff in suit survey number. He cannot say towards which side of suit schedule property the

Defendants are having land. He was present when the Defendants have occupied the schedule property.

15.The present suit is filed to declare the Plaintiffs as owner of suit schedule property. The burden lies on the Plaintiff to show that he is the owner of suit schedule property. The Plaintiff is stating that he along with his brothers has partitioned the properties including the lands in suit survey numbers and other properties each of them got Ac.0-31¾ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and Ac.1-23½ gts., in Sy.

No.274/EE. The Plaintiff in support of his case got marked Ex.A7, which shows that along with Plaintiff his brother Ganga Reddy is also having land in Sy.No.274/A and 274/EE. The case of the Plaintiff is that after partition he has purchased the shares of his two brothers i.e., the share of Chinna Reddy and the share of Ganga Reddy from his sons Srinivas Reddy and Janardhan Reddy. The case of the Plaintiff is that at first he has purchased the property from Chinna Reddy and became the owner of land to extent of Ac.1-23 ½ in Sy.No.274/A and Ac.3-07 ½ gts., in Sy.No.274/EE. The perusal of Ex.A7, which is of the year 1994-95 reflects that the Plaintiff is having land to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.3-07½ gts., in Sy.

No.274/EE, the pahani also reflects at column No.15 the ROR proceedings as 12 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

ROR/235/89. The case of the Plaintiff is that later he has purchased the property of

Ganga Reddy from his sons i.e., Srinivas Reddy and Janardhan Reddy on 21.03.1999 by way of unregistered Sale Deed. The Plaintiff is stating that after purchase in the year 2007, he has made application for validation said unregistered Sale Deed to MRO,

Dichpally and after collecting stamp duty the MRO, Dichpally has issued 13-B

Certificate. The Plaintiff in support of his case, got marked Ex.A1, which is 13-B certificate, which shows that the Plaintiff has made application under 5A of The

Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act and after enquiry it was revealed that

Plaintiff has purchased land to an extent of Ac.0-31 ¾ gts., in Sy.No.274/A and land to an extent of Ac.1-23½ gts., in Sy.No.274/EE including land in other survey numbers and he had paid the stamp duty. The Plaintiff also filed 13-C Namuna, wherein the document dated 23.09.1999 is mentioned and suit survey numbers were shown and that he has purchased the property from Srinivas Reddy and Janardhan Reddy. The

Plaintiff in support of his case got marked Ex.A2, which is ROR title deed. The perusal of Ex.A2 shows that there are entries pertaining to suit schedule property and also entries as to that Plaintiff land to extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/A and land to extent of Ac.3-07½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE. The Plaintiff in support of his case also got marked Ex.A8, which is certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12, which shows the entries as to suit schedule property in the name of Plaintiff. Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1422(this court has marked the said Ex.A9 as pahani for the year 2012-13 but the available document is the certified copy of pahani obtained from Mee-seva) with regard to suit survey Nos.274/A and 274/1, which shows the extent as Ac.0-31 ¾ gts., and Ac.1-23 ¾ gts., and shows the name of the

Plaintiff at column Nos.12 and 13. The Plaintiff in support of his case also got marked 13 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

Ex.A3, which is the panchanama conducted by surveyor and the said panchanama was conducted in the presence of panchas with regard to land in Sy. Nos.271 and 274 and to which boundary stones were fixed. Ex.A4 is the complaint lodged against

Defendants before Police, Ex.A5 is the attested copy of FIR, Ex.A6 is the copy of petition submitted to District Collector, against Defendants. The case of the Plaintiff is also that after purchase of the property from his brothers, he has sold the property to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/A to one Musuku Kavya by way of Ex.A12.

The perusal of Ex.A12 shows that Plaintiff herein has sold property to an extent of

Ac.1-03 gts., in Sy.No.271/AA and land to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/A, the said document also shows as to the title deed (khata) number of the Plaintiff i.e., 243 X 11313. The perusal of Ex.A2 shows that the same number i.e., 243 X 11313. The same khata number is also seen in Ex.A7 and Ex.A8. The perusal of Ex.A13 shows that the Plaintiff has sold land to an extent of Ac.3-07 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE to Musuku

Latha and the Sale Deed also reflects the title deed number same as that of mentioned in Ex.A12. The case of the Defendants is that they are having land in Sy.

No.94. The Defendants in their written statement mentioned that they were adjacent land owners of Plaintiff. On one hand, the Defendants have mentioned that they were adjacent land owners of Plaintiff and at the other they have denied that the

Plaintiff is the owner of suit schedule property and he is not having any land in suit survey number. The Defendants in support of their case filed Ex.B1, which are (5) pahanies and all the said pahanies pertaining to Sy.No.94 only, which shows that the

Defendants having lands in Sy.No.94. The Plaintiff is not claiming any land in Sy.

No.94. The Defendants also filed Ex.B2, which is the Judgment in CC No.561 of 2014 passed by learned II-Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad dated 04.02.2019, which shows that the 14 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

Defendant No.3, one Gangadhar and Amradi Gangaram were acquitted. As stated earlier, the Plaintiff filed the suit to declare him as owner of suit Sy. Nos.274/A and 274/EE. PW1 has denied the suggestion that he has sold land to an extent of Ac.1-23 ½ gts., in Sy. No.274/EE to Musuku Kavya. He also denied the suggestion that the entries made in Ex.A2 are wrong. PW1 admitted that in Ex.A3 there is no mention of extent of land in Sy. Nos.271 and 274 and that there is no mentioned of Sy.No.274/EE in Ex.A4. The perusal of Ex.A4 shows that there is mention of Sy.No.274/EE and the perusal of Ex.A3, which is the panchanama also shows that there is no extent of land mentioned in survey numbers 271 and 274. The perusal of Ex.B2 shows that there is an observation by the Court “thus neither the oral evidence of PW1 nor the documentary evidence by way of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 show that PW1 is in possession of land to an extent of Ac.2-30 gts., in Sy. No.274/A/AA”. The Judgment in a criminal case is not binding on Civil Court and more so the suit survey numbers in the present suit, as also admitted by Plaintiff, are different with regard to the survey numbers mentioned in Ex.A4 and that which are mentioned in Ex.A5/complaint.

16.The Plaintiff in support got examined PW2, who is the VRO, who stated that a survey was conducted pertaining to Sy. Nos.271 and 274 and he signed after survey on Ex.A3 and his signature is marked as Ex.A10. The panchanama shows that the surveyor conducted panchanama and fixed boundary stones. The panchanama is annexed with tounch map, which shows that Sy. No.94 is the neighboring survey number of Sy.No.274. DW2 during his cross examination stated that he cannot say towards which side the suit survey number of the Defendants is to suit schedule property. DW1 denied the suggestion that towards southern side of their survey 15 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) number is the land of Plaintiff. The tounch map clearly shows that the Sy. No.274 is on

Southern side to Sy. No.94. The PW3 has only deposed as to that her father has sold the property to Musuku Kavya and Musuku Latha, which is clearly reflected by

Exs.A12 and A13. The DW2 who was examined on behalf of Defendants, who is said to be the neighboring land owner of Defendants, but no where in his chief examination it is found that in which survey number he is having land. He during his cross examination stated that he do not know suit survey number and survey number of Defendants and also anything about the extent of property owned by Plaintiff in suit survey number, which shows that the DW2 has not having knowledge as to suit survey number. The case of the Defendants is that it is the Plaintiff who is trying to grab their land and in furtherance of that he has filed the present suit and he has no land in Sy. No.274. DW1 during his cross examination stated that they have not made any complaint before police against the Plaintiff. It is also not the case of the

Defendants that they have filed suit against the Plaintiff on the allegation that he is interfering and trying to grab their land.

17.The Plaintiff is stating that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and as stated earlier, Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A7 to Ex.A9 shows that he is the owner of suit schedule property. The Defendants are not claiming any right in Sy. No.274 and their case is that of they are having land in Sy. No.94, which is the adjacent land. The

Defendants have simply denied that the Plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. But have not filed any documents in support of their contention. As discussed earlier, Exs.A12 and A13 also shows about Ex.A2. The Defendants have filed documents pertaining Sy. No.94 and they themselves have admitted that they are the 16 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015) neighboring land owners of Plaintiff. The Plaintiffs by way of his evidence with that of

PW2 and PW3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A13, have shown that Plaintiff No.1 is the owner of suit schedule property.

18.The plaintiff has filed the suit for Declaration of Title and also for Recovery of

Possession. Admittedly the suit lands are agricultural lands and as per the case of the

Plaintiff he has kept the lands fallow ie., without cultivation and it is a vacant land.

There are disputes between Plaintiff and Defendants and which confirms the same by way of Ex.A3, which is the panchanama conducted by the surveyor on the application made by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is stating that by taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiff in the village and due to old age, the Defendants have illegally encroached and occupied the suit land by removing the boundary stones fixed by the surveyor around the suit land. The PW1 in his chief evidence affidavit has also mentioned that the Defendants have encroached into the land of Plaintiff and occupied the same by removing the boundary stones. The Defendants in their

Written Statement have only stated that there is no land for the Plaintiff there is no question of encroachment by the Defendants. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 coupled with Exs.A1, A2, A7 to A9 proves that Plaintiffs are the owners of suit schedule property. In the circumstances and forgoing reasons these issues are answered in favour of Plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.5: To what relief ?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs as follows:

(i)declaring that the Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the owners of suit schedule property.

17 of 17 OS.No.5 of 2025 (Old OS 6 of 2015)

(ii) the Defendants are directed to handover the vacant physical possession of suit schedule property to the Plaintiffs within three months from the date of Decree.

Dictated to stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, on this the day of 27 th March, 2025.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiffs : For Defendants: PW1: S. Shiva ReddyDW1: Oddem Nadipi Gangadhar @ Gangaram PW2: Neeradi Sanjeev KumarDW2: Komiri Santosh PW3: Smt. Podduturi Suvarna.

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiffs :

Ex.A1: Proceeding issued by MRO Dichpally dated 14.03.2007 Ex.A2: Original ROR title deed book Ex.A3: Certified copy of panchanama conducted by the surveyor Ex.A4: Office copy of complaint filed before police Ex.A5: Attested copy of FIR Ex.A6: Office copy of petition filed before the District Collector, Nizamabad Ex.A7: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1994-1995 Ex.A8: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2011-2012 Ex.A9: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2012-2013 Ex.A10: Signature of PW2 on Memo Ex.A11: Signature of PW2 on panchanama (Ex.P3) Ex.A12: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.3838 of 2009 dated 12.10.2009 Ex.A13: Certified copy of sale deed bearing No.3837 of 2009 dated 12.10.2009.

For Defendants :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of pahanies (5 in number) Ex.B2: Certified copy of Judgment in CC No.561 of 2014 on the file of II-Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad.

Prl. Senior Civil Judge

Nizamabad.

CC/7/2023 Acquitted

The State through PS.Varni vs Ramavath Ramchandar

28 Mar 2025

1 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri N. Srikanth Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sessions Case No.7 of 2024

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Town-III, Nizamabad.

Name of AccusedMuppidi Vishal S/o Bhaskar, Aged: 31 years, Occ: Civil contractor, R/o Sudha Heights Apartment, Subhashnagar, Nizamabad.

Charge Under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of (06) months. Prosecution conducted bySri P. Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended bySri G.V. Krupakar Reddy, Advocate for Accused.

This case was committed by I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.43 of 2023 (Crime No.57 of 2023 of P.S Town-III, Nizamabad).

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for state and SriG.V. Krukapar Reddy, Advocate for the

Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Town-III, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet in Crime No.57 of 2023 against the Accused for the offence under

Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC.

2 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

The case of the prosecution is that :

2.On 02.03.2023 at 15.30 hours, the complainant/Kuna Ramesh went to

Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that he is having three daughters and his younger daughter Smt. Muppidi Purnima @ Kuna Laxmi working as software employee. On 18.12.2022 her marriage was solemnized with one

Vishal, who is the son of his childhood friend Bhaskar. After marriage they lead happy marital life without a single remark. On 02.03.2023 at 11.00 AM, the neighbours of his son-in-law Vishal made a phone call to him with the phone of

Vishal and informed that his daughter Purnima fell down from the building. On that he along with his family members rushed to the spot and found that his daughter Purnima fell from 5th floor and sustained severe injuries on her head and other parts of her body and died. He further added that his daughter is residing in 5th floor and while she is preparing food, she went to balcony to take vessels and she accidentally fell down from 5th floor and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the complaint, LW16/G. Shravan Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police has registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2023 for the offence under Section 174 of

Cr.P.C and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of complainant. Later he filed requisition

before Tahsildar, Nizamabad North with a request to visit Government hospital

Mortuary room and to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased Smt.

Muppidi Purnima, as she died within seven years from the date of her marriage.

3 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

Immediately he rushed to Government hospital Mortuary Room, Nizamabad, where the LW8/Thokala Prasad took the photographs of the deceased. Later

LW13/Sudershan, Tahsildar, visited the Government hospital Mortuary Room, where he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW11/Smt. Juthuri

Chandrakala and LW12/Samala Srinivas and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased /Muppidi Purnima @ Kuna Purnima and subjected the dead body for post mortem examination. Thereafter LW14/Dr. B.V.Nagamohan

Rao conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined that the cause of death is due to Head injury associated with fracture upper and lower limb bones as a result of fall from height and handed over the dead body to the complainant for conducting final rites. Later LW16/G. Shravan Kumar visited scene of offence i.e.,

Sudha Heights Apartments situated at Subhashnagar, Nizamabad, which is containing 5 floors from which the deceased fell from 5th floor and died. LW16/G.

Shravan kumar secured the presence of LW9/Amandu Srinivas and LW10/B. Vittal and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn the rough sketch in crime details form. Later he also examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Narwade Anand and LW3/Smt. K. Leelavathi, who witnessed the deceased, while she fell on the ground from 5th floor and died.

4.During the course of investigation, on 03.03.2023 in the evening, the complainant along with his relatives i.e., wife, daughter, brother and cousin brother came to Police Station and and deposed their evidence before LW16/G. Shravan

Kumar by changing entire facts of the FIR. On that LW16/G. Shravan Kumar re- examined and recorded the statement of complainant, in which he stated since her 4 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 daughter’s marriage, her husband started harassing the deceased mentally with the allegations that 1) he is having love affair with another girl and forcing her to tell about her love affair if any, 2) that as deceased is a stout person and forcing her to do exercises, 3) he got married her forcibly on the pressure of his mother and that deceased concealed her thyroid disease and that she is also having eye-sight etc.

Further the Accused forced the deceased stating that her parents have to bear all expenditures to get treatment of the deceased for her diseases. As her husband’s harassment increasing day to day, she vexed with her life and on 02.03.2023 at 11.00 AM, while she is preparing food in the kitchen room, she jumped from 5th floor of the Apartment with the intention to commit suicide and fell on the ground and sustained severe injuries on her head and other parts of her body and died on the spot. Basing on the statement of complaint, he altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C to Sec.498-A, 306 IPC. Later he has examined and recorded the statements of Lws.4 to 7 i.e., Kuna Sujatha, Thati Madhavi, Kuna Srinivas and Kuna

Venkatesh respectively. Later on 04.03.2023 at 7.00 AM, LW16/G. Shravan Kumar, SI of Police, visited the house of Accused/Vishal at Subhashnagar, Nizamabad and apprehended him and on interrogation Accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later he brought the Accused to Police Station and effected his arrest and produced him before the Court and remanded him to

Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, LW16/G. Shravan Kumar has filed Charge sheet along with case property.

5. The learned I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the cognizance for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC against the 5 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

Accused. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, the learned I-Addl.

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.On appearance of Accused before this Court, Charge for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC was framed against him, the same is read over and explained to Accused in Telugu Language for which Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In order to prove the guilt of Accused, the prosecution in all examined

PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, Accused was examined under 313 of Cr.P.C and explained him about the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence and for which Accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

Heard both sides.

Now the point for consideration, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

8.It is the case of the prosecution that marriage of complainant’s daughter was performed with Accused. Since marriage, Accused started harassing the 6 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 deceased physically and mentally by pointing out her stout physic, her ill health etc. For which she disgusted with her life and jumped from the 5th floor of the

Apartment and committed suicide. In order to prove the guilt of Accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20.

9.The evidence of PW1 shows that on 18.12.2022 his daughter/Kuna Laxmi’s marriage was performed with Accused and after marriage they lived at Sudha

Heights, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. On 02.03.2023 at about 10.30 AM, in the morning hours, he received phone call from his deceased daughter mobile phone and some unknown persons has informed over phone that his deceased daughter fell down from 5th floor of the Apartment. Immediately he along with PW4 went to

Sudha Heights, Subashnagar, Nizamabad and there he found his deceased daughter has sustained injury over head and died. Later he went to Police Station and lodged complaint. His daughter has expired as she accidentally fell down 5th floor balcony.

Later he and PW4 attended before the Court and their statements were recorded and he has stated before the Court also that as his daughter has expired as she accidentally fell down from 5th floor balcony. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything. During the cross examination by the counsel for Accused he admitted that he has mentioned in Ex.P1 that his deceased daughter fell down from 5th floor when she went to bring washed utensils from the balcony.

10. The evidence of PW2 shows that at about more than one year ago, on one day, when he was on duty, at about 9-30 am., morning he heard sound, on which he rushed to the place and observed one woman with head injury. Later he came to 7 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 know that the said woman fell down from 5th floor and they shifted her to hospital.

Except this, she do not know anything about the facts of the case. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

11. The evidence of PW3 shows that at about more than one year ago, on one day when he was in his flat, at about 10.00 AM, he heard a sound and he rushed to the place and observed deceased with head injury. Later he came to know that the deceased fell down from 5th floor. Later she was shifted to hospital. Later he has made a phone call to the parents of deceased and informed about the incident.

12. The evidence of PW4, who is mother of deceasedshows that on 18.12.2022, marriage of her deceased daughter was performed with Accused. On 02.03.2023

PW1 received a phone call that her daughter fell down from 5th floor of the

Apartment where they are residing. On that she along with her husband/PW1 rushed to Sudha Heights, Nizamabad and found her daughter died with head injury.

She came to know that her daughter accidentally fell down from the 5th floor of the

Apartment while washing utensils. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witnesses hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

13. The evidence of PW5 shows that on 18.12.2022, the marriage of her deceased sister was performed with Accused. On 02.03.2023, she received phone call from her cousin that her sister fell down from 5th floor of the Apartment where they are residing and on that she rushed to grave yard at Nizamabad. She further stated that she do not know how her sister expired. The learned APP requested the 8 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

14. The evidence of PW6 shows that on 18.12.2022, the marriage of deceased/

Poornima was performed with Accused. On 02.03.2023, he received phone call that the deceased fell down from 5th floor of the Apartment where they are residing and on that he rushed to Sudha Heights, Nizamabad and found that deceased is expired. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

15. The evidence of PW7 shows that Deceased/Poornima is cousin and Accused is her husband and their marriage was performed on 18.12.2022. In the month of

March, 2023, he received phone call that deceased fell down from 5th floor of the

Apartment where they are residing. On that he rushed to Sudha Heights,

Nizamabad and later deceased was shifted to hospital, except this he do not know anything about the facts of the case. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

16. The evidence of PW8 shows that about two years ago, on one day he went to Police Station on personal work and there Police have obtained his signatures on some written papers with regard of suicide of one woman. Further stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

9 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

17. The evidence of PW9 shows that about two years ago, on one day when he was at Balaji Tea Point, Subashnagar, at that time Police came there and obtained his signatures on some written papers with regard of suicide of one woman.

Further stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence. The learned

APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

18. The evidence of PW10 shows that on 02.03.2023, she came to know that deceased committed suicide on woman by name Poornima and she went to

Government hospital, Nizamabad. When she was in hospital, police came there and obtained her signatures on some written papers. No inquest panchanama was conducted in her presence. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

19. The evidence of PW11 shows that at about two years ago, he went to

Government hospital at the instructions of his employer Bhasker. There police have conducted inquest panchanama and obtained his signatures on blank papers. He do not know the contents of said panchanama. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

20.The evidence of PW12 shows that on 02.03.2023 at 1530 hours, PW1 came to

Police Station and submitted complaint. Basing on it,he has registered a case in

Crime No.57 of 2023 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded 10 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 the statement of PW1 at Police Station. Later, he filed requisition before

LW13/Sudershan, Tahsildar, Nizamabad North with a request to visit Government hospital, Mortuary room and to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased/Smt. Muppidi Purnima @ Kuna Purnima. Later he rushed to Government hospital Mortuary room, Nizamabad, where he took the photographs of the deceased with the help of LW8/Thokala Prasad. Later on his requisition

LW13/Sudershan, Tahsildar Nizamabad North secured the presence of PW10 and

PW11, visited the Government Mortuary Room and in their presence conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased and subjected the dead body for Post mortem examination. LW14/Dr. B.V.Nagamohan Rao conducted autopsy over the deady body and opined that the cause of death is due to head injury associated with fracture upper and lower limb bonds as a result of fall from height. Thereafter he has handed over the dead body to PW1 for conducting final rites. Later he has visited scene of offence situated i.e., Sudha Heights Apartment, Subashnagar,

Nizamabad there he secured the presence of PW8 and PW9, and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch under crime details form. Later he has also examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and

PW3. On 03.03.2023 he has re-examined PW1 and recorded his statement. As per the version of PW1, he altered the section of law from 174 of Cr.P.C to 498-A, 306 of IPC. Later he has also examined and recorded the statements of PW4 to PW7 and LW8/Thokala Prasad. On 04.03.2023 at 7.00 AM, he has apprehended the

Accused at Subashnagar, Nizamabad and on interrogation the Accused confessed to have committed the offence. Later he brought the Accused to Police Station and effected his arrest and after due procedure, produced the Accused before the 11 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

Court for judicial custody. Later on the requisition filed by him before LW15/Smt. T.

Girija, II Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad, on that she has examined and recorded the statements Pws.1 and 4 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused for the offence under section 498-A, 306 of IPC. He during his cross examination admitted that in Ex.P14 it is mentioned that the deceased fell down accidentally from 5th floor of the Sudha Heights Apartment, Subashnagar,

Nizamabad. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of relatives of deceased he has pressurized Pws.1 and 4 to give a false statements before LW15/Smt. T.

Girija, II-Addl. JMFC, Nizamabad and basing on that he has changed section of law by falsely involving the Accused. He further denied the suggestion that he has never conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW8 and PW9 and LW13/Sudershan has never conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and he has created Ex.P16 by obtaining the signatures of PW10 and

PW11. Further denied that Accused is no way concerned with the death of the deceased and she fell down accidentally from 5th floor and only at the instance of relatives of deceased he has registered a false case against Accused and without proper investigation he has laid false charge sheet and in furtherance he has deposing false.

21. The perusal of entire evidence on record shows that PW1, who is defacto complainant and father of deceased/Kuna Laxmi has not supported the version of prosecution and deposed that his daughter fell down accidentally from 5th floor balcony. PW4 who is mother of deceased has also not supported the version of prosecution and stated that she came to know that her daughter 12 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 accidentally fell down from the 5th floor of the Apartment while washing utensils. The PW2, who is the watchmen of the Apartment has also not supported the version of prosecution and stated that he heard some noise and rushed to that place and observed that one women with head injury and except this he do not anything about this case. The evidence of PW3 is on same lines as that of PW2. PW5 who is the sister of the deceased, PW6 and PW7, who are relatives of the deceased have also not supported the version of prosecution.

PW8 and PW9, who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama have also not supported the version of prosecution and stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence. PW10 and PW11 who are panch witnesses for inquest panchanama have also not supported the version of prosecution and stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

The only evidence on record is that of PW12, who deposed as to investigation done on receipt of complaint and filing of charge sheet after completion of investigation, but other witnesses i.e PWs.1 to 11 have not supported the version of prosecution. This Court is opinion that solely basing on the evidence of PW12, it cannot be concluded that the Accused committed the offence. In the circumstances, this Court is opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 235(1) 13 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Kuna RameshComplainant & father of deceased PW2:N.AnandWitness PW3:K. Leelavathi Witness PW4:Kuna SujathaWife of PW1/Mother of deceased PW5:Kuna MadhaviElder sister of the deceased PW6:Kuna SrinivasYounger brother of PW1 PW7:Kuna VenkateshCousin brother of PW1 PW8:A. SrinivasPanch witness for Scene of offence PW9:B.VittalPanch witness for Scene of offence PW10:J. ChandrakalaPanch witness for inquest panchanama PW11:Samala SrinivasPanch witness for inquest panchanama PW12:G.Shravan KumarInvestigating Officer.

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 &Complaint Ex.P14: Ex.P2:Signature of PW1 on 164 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 14 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

Ex.P5:Signature of PW4 on 164 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P6:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P7:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P8:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P9:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P10:Signature of PW8 crime details form Ex.P11:Signature of PW9 crime details form Ex.P12: Signature of PW10 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P13:Signature of PW11 on Inquest panchanama Ex.P15:First Information Report Ex.P16:Scene of offence Panchanama (CDF) Ex.P17:Inquest Panchanama Ex.P18:Post mortem examination report Ex.P19:164 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P20:164 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MOs MARKED - Nil -

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad 15 of 14 SC No.7 of 2024

: C A L E N D E R :

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 07 of 2024

(PRC No.43 of 2023 of II-Addl. Judl. Class Magistrate, Nizamabad)

Police station : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Town-III, Nizamabad.

1. Crime No. & P.S., : Crime No.57 of 2023 of P.S III-Town,

2. Full Description of Accused :

Muppidi Vishal S/o Bhaskar, Aged: 29 years, Occ: Civil contractor, R/o Sudha Heights Apartment, Subhashnagar, Nizamabad.

3. Date of offence:02.03.2023

4. Date of complaint:02.03.2023.

5. Date of apprehension:04.03.2023.

6. Date of release: 24.03.2023

7. Date of commitment:09.01.2024

8. Date of commencement of trial:09.01.2024

9. Date of closure of trial:12.03.2025

10. Date of Judgment:28.03.2025

11. Explanation of delay: --

Sd/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

SC/3/2024 Acquitted

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dichpally vs A1. Eyya Ashok

17 Apr 2025

1 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri N. Srikanth Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Sessions Case No.3 of 2024

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Dichpally, Nizamabad.

Name of Accused A1: Eyya Ashok S/o Late Anantha Rao, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Bardhipur village, Dichpally Mandal. (The case against A3 split up vide SC No.128 of 2024) ChargeUnder section 307 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The case properties shall be produced before the Court during the trial of case against Accused Nos.2 and 3.

Prosecution conducted bySri P.Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused No.4 defended bySri S. Manjith Singh, Advocate for Accused.

This case was committed by II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.14 of 2017(Crime No.4 of 2017 of P.S Dichpally, Nizamabad)

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri B. Manik Raj, Advocate for Accused, and

the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Dichpally Police Station, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet in Crime No.4 of 2017 against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

The case of the prosecution is that :

2.On03.01.2017 at 1430 hours, LW11/K. Narender Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police has received information from Government hospital, Nizamabad that two persons i.e.,

LW1/Neeradi Uday Kumar and LW2/Neeradi Pranay Kumar were admitted with bleeding injuries. Upon the information, he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of LW1/Neeradi Uday Kumar, who stated that on 02.01.2017 at about 1700 hours, while he was proceeding to his grand mother’s house on his bike, in the mean time Accused Nos.1 to 4 i.e., Eyya Ashok, Eyya Abhilash @ Nani and Mulugu Satish respectively argued with him about bike riding and quarreled with him and later the said issued was compromised before the elders. Thereafter on 03.01.2017 at about 1400 hours, when he was at the house of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, who is his cousin brother, in the mean time Accused Nos.1 to 4 came there on two bikes with Iron rods, sticks and knife and stopped there. When LW1/N. Uday Kumar came out from the house, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 suddenly attacked with iron rods, sticks and knife, on seeing the same LW2/N. Pranay Kumar tried to rescue from the clutches of Accused persons, but they also bet LW2/N. Pranay Kumar mercilessly and fled away from there on their bikes. Due to which he sustained injuries on his head, left leg, right hand and his cousin brother/LW2/N. Pranay Kumar sustained injuries on his left leg and back side. Thereafter shifted them to Government hospital, Nizamabad for treatment.

Further the complainant added that the Accused persons attacked with an intention and planning to murder him. Hence, requested to take action against Accused.

3.After recording the statement of injured by LW11/K. Narender Reddy, basing on that, he registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2017 for the offence under section 307 3 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he visited the Government hospital, Nizamabad, there he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 6 i.e., Neeradi Pranay kumar, Smt. Neeradi

Rajamani, Neeradi Nandubabu and Eyya Nathaniyal respectively. Later he visited the scene of offence situated at Bardhipur village, secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW7/Kotla Dasharatham and LW8/Neeradi Padmarao and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Thereafter on 04.01.2017 on receipt of reliable information he along with his staff rushed to

Dharmaram(B) village, Dichpally Mandal and apprehended the Accused Nos.1 to 4 at

Bardhipur X road at 0500 hours and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Upon which immediately he secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW9/Md. Usman and LW10/Shaik Shadulla and recorded the confession statement of Accused No.1. Accused No.2 to 4 also corroborated with the confession of Accused No.1. Later he along with panchas and Accused Nos.1 to 4 proceeded to Bardhipur sub station and seized the crime weapons i.e., two iron rods and one stick, two motorcycles i.e., Bajaj Pulsar black colour bearing No.TS 16 EK 5317 and Bajaj Pulsar red colour bearing No.AP 25 AF 9684 from the concealing place, under cover of panchanama. Thereafter he had obtained wound certificate of the injured persons from Dr. Sandeep Reddy. Later he seized the Passports of Accused

Nos.1 and 2 and deposited the same before the Court. After following due procedure produced the Accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Court for Judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet.

4. The learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the cognizance for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 4 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024 to 4. Later during the proceedings, due to non service of summons against Accused

No.2, the case against Accused No.2 was split up vide PRC No.21 of 2017. Later the learned II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4, as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case against them to the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Nizamabad, under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On issuance of summons, Accused Nos.1 and 3 appeared and later during the proceedings, due to non appearance of Accused No.3 subsequently, the case against him was split up vide SC No.128 of 2024. After that Accused No.1 was examined and charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against him, the same is read over and explained to him in known Language for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of Accused No.1, the prosecution in all examined

PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and MO1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explained him about the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence and for which Accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

Heard both sides.

5 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

Now the point for consideration, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused No.1, for the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt?

8.It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.01.2017, at about 1700 hours, while

PW1 was proceeding to his grandmother’s house on his bike in the mean time,

Accused Nos.1 to 3 argued with PW1 about his bike riding and quarreled with him and the said issue was compromised at the instance of LW5/Neeradi Nandubabu and

LW6/Eyya Nathaniyal. On 03.01.2017 at about 1330 hours, Accused Nos.1 to 4 assembled at Accused No.1’s residence and planned to eliminate the PW1 as to get the upper hand in the community and on knowing that PW1 was present at LW2/N.

Pranay Kumar’s house, Accused Nos.1 to 4 as per their pre-plan went to the house of

LW2/N. Pranay Kumar at about 1400 hours on their bikes i.e., Bajaj Pulsar black colour bearing No.TS 16 EK 5317 and Bajaj Pulsar red colour bearing No.AP 25 AF 9684 by carrying iron rods, sticks and knife and stopped in front of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar’s house. Then on hearing the sounds of bikes, PW1 came out of the house and all of sudden Accused Nos.1 to 4 attacked him with sticks and iron rods with an intention to kill him. Due to which PW1 sustained injuries over his head, left leg and right hand and again Accused No.1 tried to stab PW1 with knife but PW1 escaped, later Accused No.1 beat PW1 with stick which was available at the scene. Further Accused No.2 also beat him with an Iron rod, due to which he sustained injuries over head and all over the body. On hearing hues and cries of PW1, LW2/N. Pranay Kumar came out and tried to rescue PW1 from the clutches of Accused persons, but Accused Nos.3 and 4 beat

LW2/N. Pranay Kumar mercilessly with sticks and rods, due to which LW2/N. Pranay

Kumar also sustained injuries on his left leg and back side.

6 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

In order to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1, the prosecution has examined

PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MO.1.

9.The evidence of PW1, who is the injured shows that at about five years ago, on one day in the evening hours, while he was standing in front of the house of PW3, at that time some unknown persons came there on motorcycles and beat him from back side on his head, due to that he fell unconscious. Later he came to know that he was shifted to Government hospital, Nizamabad. When he was in hospital some unknown person obtained his signature on blank papers. Except this he do not know anything about the facts of the case. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

10.The evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are eye witnesses shows that at about six years ago, on one day in the evening hours, they heard hues and cries in front of their house, then they went there and found PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar have sustained injuries. After that they shifted PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar to Government hospital, Nizamabad and on enquiry they revealed that some unknown persons have beat PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar with sticks and rods. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witnesses hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

11.The evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama shows that at about 5 or 6 years ago, on one day while they were going to Dharmaram to Bardipur, police intercepted them and obtained their signatures on some written papers stating it as panchanama. They do not know the contents of the panchanama. No panchanama was conducted in their presence. The learned APP 7 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024 requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

12.The evidence of PW6 and PW7, who are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama shows that at about 7 or 8 years ago, while they were in their agricultural fields, they received information that Police came to their house and on that they went to their house and there police asked them to sign on blank papers. No panchanama was conducted in their presence and no one confessed anything and nothing was seized in their presence. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witnesses hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

13.The evidence of PW8, who is investigating officer shows that on 03.01.2017 at 1430 hours, he received information from Government hospital, Nizamabad that two persons ie., PW1 and LW2/Pranay Kumar were admitted in hospital with bleeding injuries. On that immediately he rushed to Government hospital, Nizamabad and there he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at 1530 hours. After that he returned back to police station and basing on the statement of PW1, he has registered a case in crime No.04 of 2017 under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued first information report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he again visited Government hospital, Nizamabad and secured the presence of PW1 to PW3, LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, LW5/Nandu Babu and LW6/Eyya

Nathaniyal, examined and recorded their statements and he has also issued requisition to Doctor to issue medical certificate. After that he has visited scene of offence situated at Bardipur village of Dichpally mandal and there he secured the presence of PW4 and PW5, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough 8 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024 sketch of the scene. Later on 04.07.2017, on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to Dharmaram (B) village and there he has apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 4 and on interrogation when Accused are ready to confess, he has secured the presence of PW6 and PW7 and in their presence recorded the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 4 and on the confession made by Accused Nos.1 to 4, he along with panch witnesses and Accused Nos.1 to 4 proceeded besides to sub station,

Bardipur in the land of Alaparthi Sathyanarayana and seized one stick at the instance of Accused No.1 and one iron rod from the possession of Accused No.4. After that brought the Accused Nos.1 to 4 to the police station, effected their arrest and after following due procedure produced them before the court for judicial remand. On 07.01.2017, he has obtained medical certificates of PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar from Dr. Sandeep Reddy. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 4 along with case property. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that he has never received information from Government hospital on 03.01.2017 and he has never visited the hospital and recorded the statement of PW1. Further he denied the suggestion that he has never examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. Further denied that he has never visited the alleged scene of offence and never conducted scene of offence panchanama by calling the panch witnesses to the police station and obtained their signatures on blank papers. Further denied the suggestion that PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar have never sustained any injuries and they never underwent treatment at Government hospital and for that reason he has never cited any Doctor as witness and he has created Exs.P17 and P18. Further denied that he has never conducted the confession panchanama of Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 have never confessed anything 9 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

before him and nothing was seized from his possession and by calling panch witnesses

to police station he has obtained their signatures on blank papers and he himself has planted MO.1. Further denied the suggestion that Accused No.1 is no way concerned with the present case and he has registered a false case and without proper investigation he has laid false charge sheet and deposing false.

14.The perusal of evidence shows that PW1, who is the injured stated that while he was standing in front of the house of PW3, some unknown persons came there on motorcycles and beat on his back side of head, due to which he fell unconscious. When he was in hospital, some unknown persons obtained his signatures on blank papers.

The PW2, who is the wife of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar stated that on hearing the hues and cries in front of their house, she went there and observed PW1 and her husband have sustained injuries and on her enquiry, they stated that some unknown persons have beat them. PW3 have also not supported the version of prosecution and her evidence is on same lines as that of PW2. The PW4 and PW5 who are the panch for scene of offence for scene of offence and PW6 and PW7 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama have also turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution. The only evidence on record is that of PW8, which shows that he has deposed as to investigation done after recording the statement of PW1 and filing of charge sheet, after completion of investigation, but PW1 himself has turned hostile. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, who is also injured, basing on the report about LW2/N. Pranay Kumar given by the concerned. However, PW2 and PW3 who are wife and mother of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar have also turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution. The perusal of 10 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024 entire evidence of the prosecution shows that PW1 who is the injured and PW2 who is the wife of other injured/LW2/N. Pranay Kumar and PW3, who is the mother of

LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, have all not supported the version of prosecution and the same in the case of panch witnesses for scene and confession panchanama. This Court is opinion that solely basing on the evidence of PW8, it cannot be concluded that the

Accused No.1 has committed the offence. In the circumstances, this Court is opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused No.1 is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The case properties shall be produced before the Court during the trial of case against Accused Nos.2 and 3.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Neeradi Uday KumarComplainant/ Injured PW2:Neeradi SonyEye witness / Wife of PW1 PW3:Neeradi RajamaniEye witness PW4:K. Dasharatham Panch witness for scene of offence PW5:N. Padma RaoPanch witness for scene of offence PW6:Mohd. UsmanPanch witness for confession & seizure panchanama PW7:Shaik ShadullaPanch witness for confession & seizure panchanama PW8: K. Narender ReddyInvestigating officer.

11 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

FOR DEFENCE: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on certified copy of statement Ex.P2:Certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3:Certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:Certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Signature of PW4 on certified copy of panchanama (CDF) Ex.P6:Signature of PW4 on certified copy of sketch map Ex.P7:Signature of PW5 on certified copy of panchanama (CDF) Ex.P8:Signature of PW5 on certified copy of sketch map Ex.P9:Signature of PW6 on certified copy of confession panchanama Ex.P10 : Signature of PW6 on certified copy of seizure panchanama Ex.P11: Signature of PW7 on certified copy of confession panchanama Ex.P12 : Signature of PW7 on certified copy of seizure panchanama Ex.P13: Certified copy of statement of PW1 Ex.P14: Certified copy of first information report Ex.P15: Certified copy of crime details form along with sketch map Ex.P16: Certified copy of confession along with seizure panchanama of A1 to A4 Ex.P17: Certified copy of medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P18Certified copy of medical certificate of LW2/Neeradi Pranay Kumar

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MOs MARKED

MO.1: Centering stick (seized from A1).

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

12 of 11 SC. No.3 of 2024

: C A L E N D E R :

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 3 of 2024

(PRC No.14 of 2017 of II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad)

1. Crime No. & P.S., : 4 of 2017of P.S Dichpally.

2. Full description of Accused :

A1: Eyya Ashok S/o Late Anantha Rao, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o Bardhipur village, Dichpally Mandal. (The case against A3 split up vide SC No.128 of 2024)

3. Date of offence:02.01.2017

4. Date of statement recorded by IO:03.01.2017

5. Date of apprehension:04.01.2017

6. Date of release: 19.01.2017

7. Date of commitment:04.08.2017

8. Date of commencement of trial:03.12.2024

9. Date of closure of trial:13.03.2025

10. Date of Judgment:17.04.2025

11. Explanation of delay: --

Sd/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

SC/300162/2017 Acquitted

Neeradi Uday Kumar vs A1-Eyya Ashok

17 Apr 2025

1 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Present: Sri N. Srikanth Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2025.

Sessions Case No.162 of 2017

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Dichpally, Nizamabad.

Name of Accused Mulugu Samuel S/o Late Gangadhar, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Bardhipur village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District. (The case against A2 is split up vide PRC 21 of 2017) (The case against A1 and A3 split up vide SC No.3 of 2024)

ChargeUnder section 307 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused No.4 is not found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The case properties shall be produced before the Court during the trial of case against Accused Nos.2 and 3.

Prosecution conducted bySri P.Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused No.4 defended bySri S. Manjith Singh, Advocate for Accused.

This case was committed by II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.14 of 2017(Crime No.4 of 2017 of P.S Dichpally, Nizamabad)

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Sri B. Manik Raj, Advocate for Accused, and

the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

2 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

The case of the prosecution is that :

2.On03.01.2017 at 1430 hours, LW11/K. Narender Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police has received information from Government hospital, Nizamabad that two persons i.e.,

Nos.1 to 4 suddenly attacked with iron rods, sticks and knife, on seeing the same

LW2/Pranay tried to rescue from the clutches of Accused persons, but they also bet

LW2/Pranay mercilessly and fled away from there on their bikes. Due to which he sustained injuries on his head, left leg, right hand and his cousin brother/LW2/ Pranay sustained injuries on his left leg and back side. Thereafter shifted them to

Government hospital, Nizamabad for treatment. Further the complainant added that the Accused persons attacked with an intention and planning to murder him. Hence, requested to take action against Accused.

3.After recording the statement of injured by LW11/K. Narender Reddy, basing on that, he registered a case in Crime No.4 of 2017 for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of 3 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017 investigation, he visited the Government hospital, Nizamabad, there he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 6 i.e., Neeradi Pranay kumar, Smt. Neeradi

Dharmaram(B) village, Dichpally Mandal and apprehended the Accused Nos.1 to 4 at

4. The learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the cognizance for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 4. Later during the proceedings, due to non service of summons against Accused 4 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

Nizamabad, under Section 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On issuance of summons, Accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 appeared and later during the proceedings, due to non appearance of Accused Nos.1 and 3 subsequently, the case against them was split up vide SC No.3 of 2023. After that Accused No.4 was examined and charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC was framed against him, the same is read over and explained to him in known Language for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of Accused No.4, the prosecution in all examined

PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and MO1.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, Accused No.4 was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and explained him about the incriminating evidence appearing in the prosecution evidence and for which Accused denied and reported no defence evidence.

Heard both sides.

5 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

Now the point for consideration, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused, for the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt?

8.It is the case of the prosecution that on 02.01.2017, at about 1700 hours, while

PW1 was proceeding to his grandmother’s house on his bike in the mean time,

Accused Nos.1 to 3 argued with PW1 about his bike riding and quarreled with him and the said issue was compromised at the instance of LW5/Neeradi Nandubabu and

LW6/Eyya Nathaniyal. On 03.01.2017 at about 1330 hours, Accused Nos.1 to 4 assembled at Accused No.1’s residence and planned to eliminate the PW1 as to get the upperhand in the community and on knowing that PW1 was present at LW2/N.

Pranay Kumar’s house, Accused Nos.1 to 4 as per their pre-plan went to the house of

LW2/N. Pranay Kumar mercilessly with sticks and rods, due to which LW2/N. Pranay

Kumar also sustained injuries on his left leg and back side.

6 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

In order to prove the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MO.1.

11.The evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama shows that at about 5 or 6 years ago, on one day while they were going to Dharmaram to Bardipur, police intercepted them and obtained their signatures on some written papers stating it as panchanama. They do not know the contents of the panchanama. No panchanama was conducted in their presence. The learned APP 7 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017 requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

13.The evidence of PW8, who is investigating officer shows that on 03.01.2017 at 1430 hours, he received information from Government hospital, Nizamabad that two persons ie., PW1 and LW2/N. Pranay Kumar were admitted in hospital with bleeding injuries. On that immediately he rushed to Government hospital, Nizamabad and there he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at 1530 hours. After that he returned back to police station and basing on the statement of PW1, he has registered a case in crime No.04 of 2017 under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC and issued first information report and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he again visited Government hospital, Nizamabad and secured the presence of PW1 to PW3, LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, LW5/Nandu Babu and LW6/Eyya

Nathaniyal, examined and recorded their statements and he has also issued requisition to Doctor to issue medical certificate. After that he has visited scene of offence situated at Bardipur village of Dichpally mandal and there he secured the presence of PW4 and PW5, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough 8 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017 sketch of the scene. Later on 04.07.2017, on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to Dharmaram (B) village and there he has apprehended Accused Nos.1 to 4 and on interrogation when Accused are ready to confess, he has secured the presence of PW6 and PW7 and in their presence recorded the confession statements of Accused Nos.1 to 4 and on the confession made by Accused Nos.1 to 4, he along with panch witnesses and Accused Nos.1 to 4 proceeded besides to sub station,

before him and nothing was seized from his possession and by calling panch witnesses

The PW2, who is the wife of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar stated that on hearing the hues and cries in front of their house, she went there and observed PW1 and her husband have sustained injuries and on her enquiry, they stated that some unknown persons have beat them. PW3 have also not supported the version of prosecution and her evidence is on same lines as that of PW2. The PW4 and PW5 who are the panch for scene of offence for scene of offence and PW6 and PW7 who are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure panchanama have also turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution. The only evidence on record is that of PW8, which shows that he has deposed as to investigation done after recording the statement of PW1 and filing of charge sheet, after completion of investigation, but PW1 himself has turned hostile. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, who is also injured, basing on the report about LW2 given by the concerned stating that as he went abroad. However, PW2 and PW3, who are wife and mother of LW2/N.

Pranay Kumar have also turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution.

The perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution shows that PW1 who is the injured 10 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017 and PW2 who is the wife of other injured/ LW2/N. Pranay Kumar and PW3, who is the mother of LW2/N. Pranay Kumar, have all not supported the version of prosecution and the same in the case of panch witnesses for scene and confession panchanama.

This Court is opinion that solely basing on the evidence of PW8, it cannot be concluded that the Accused has committed the offence. In the circumstances, this

Court is opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, Accused No.4 is not found guilty for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and he is acquitted for the same under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months. The case properties shall be produced before the Court during the trial of case against Accused Nos.2 and 3.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION:

11 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on statement Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P5:Signature of PW4 on panchanama (CDF) Ex.P6:Signature of PW4 on sketch map Ex.P7:Signature of PW5 on panchanama (CDF) Ex.P8:Signature of PW5 on sketch map Ex.P9:Signature of PW6 on confession panchanama Ex.P10 : Signature of PW6 on seizure panchanama Ex.P11: Signature of PW7 on confession panchanama Ex.P12 : Signature of PW7 on seizure panchanama Ex.P13: Statement of PW1 Ex.P14: First information report Ex.P15: Crime details form along with sketch map Ex.P16: Confession along with seizure panchanama of Accused No.1 Ex.P17: Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P18Medical certificate of LW2/Neeradi Pranay Kumar

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MOs MARKED

MO.1: Iron rod (seized from A4).

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

12 of 11 SC. No.162 of 2017

: C A L E N D E R :

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 162 of 2017

(PRC No.14 of 2017 of II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad)

1. Crime No. & P.S., : 4 of 2017of P.S Dichpally.

2. Full description of Accused :

Mulugu Samuel S/o Late Gangadhar, Aged: 45 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Bardhipur village, Dichpally Mandal, Nizamabad District.

(The case against A2 is split up vide PRC 21 of 2017) (The case against A1 and A3 split up vide SC No.3 of 2024)

3. Date of offence:02.01.2017

4. Date of statement recorded by IO:03.01.2017

5. Date of apprehension:04.01.2017

6. Date of release: 19.01.2017

7. Date of commitment:04.08.2017

8. Date of commencement of trial:03.12.2024

9. Date of closure of trial:13.03.2025

10. Date of Judgment:17.04.2025

11. Explanation of delay: --

Sd/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

SC/15/2022 Acquitted

SHO Makloor vs Gangoni Sugunakar @ Subbu

28 Mar 2025

1 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD.

Present: Sri N. Srikanth Babu, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sessions Case No.15 of 2022

Name of complainantThe State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Makloor, Dist. Nizamabad.

Name of AccusedGangoni Sugunakar @ Subbu S/o Gangoni Pothanna, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o H.No.2-29, Madhapoor village, Makloor Mandal, Nizamabad District. ChargeUnder section 306 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of (06) months. Prosecution conducted bySri P. Laxmi Narsaiah, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

Accused defended bySri Jagan Mohan Goud, Advocate for Accused.

This case was committed by II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, in PRC No.89 of 2021 (Crime No.98 of 2019 of P.S Makloor Nizamabad).

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for state and Sri Jagan Mohan Goud, Advocate for the

Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Makloor Police Station, Nizamabad has filed charge sheet in Crime No.98 of 2019 against the Accused for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC.

2 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

The case of the prosecution is that :

2.On receipt of information on 24.06.2019 at 1700 hours, from Prathibha hospital, Nizamabad, LW18/D. Sainath, SI of Police has rushed there and examined the complainant/Mamindla Prameela, where in she stated that prior to 12 years back in the year 2007, her elder daughter/K. Prabhavathi performed inter caste marriage with Gangone Sugunakar/Accused and during their wedlock she was blessed with a son by name Steven. Her daughter used to work as a Nurse in Sri Sai Venkateshwara hospital. On 21.06.2019 in the night at about 12.00 midnight, the complainant’s daughter-in-law Shoba woke up her and stated that her daughter Prabavathi set herself ablaze. Immediately she rushed to her house and found her daughter with burn injuries from face to legs, while the neighbours Ganga Manjula, Alle Vimala,

Mamatha and some other surrounded her and her son-in-law/Sugunakar was also present. They shifted her daughter in an Auto to hospital, where she worked earlier, where Dr. Aruna Madam referred her to Government General Hospital, Nizamabad and they took her to Government General hospital and admitted her on the serious condition and they further shifted her to Prathiba hospital and admitted there. On questioning why she set ablaze, she stated that two days back a dispute arose between her and her husband and not understanding what to do she doused herself with spirit and set herself ablaze.

3.Basing on the above statement of complaint, LW18 has registered a case in

Crime No.98 of 2019 U/h Woman Burns and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he deputed LW17/B. Gangamani to record the statement of

LW2/Koti Prabhavathi and accordingly LW17/B. Gangamani recorded the statement 3 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022 of LW2/K. Prabhavathi in vernacular language. Later LW18/D. Sainath has filed requisition before Hon’ble Magistrate to record declaration of the victim. As such

LW16/Smt. P. Chandana, Spl. JMFC, Excise, Nizamabad has recorded declaration of the victim. Thereafter on 25.06.2019, he visited the scene of offence situated at

Ramaswamy Camp H/o Deekampally village of Makloor Mandal and he there secured the presence of two mediators i.e., LW10/Boda Pramod and LW11/Kaparthi Mosha conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in

Crime details form. Later LW18/D. Sainath has examined the scene of offence minutely but no incriminating material was found. Later on 26.06.2019, LW18/D.

Sainath was informed that the victim/Kota Prabhavathi died while undergoing treatment and the dead body was shifted to Government hospital, Nizamabad, as such he altered the section of law from Woman Burns to 174 Cr.P.C and visited the

Government hospital, there secured the presence of LW10/Boda Pramod and

LW12/Kancha Rama, conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased/ Prabhavathi. During the course of inquest, he has examined and recorded the statement of LW3/Koti Steven and after the he handed over the dead body of the deceased for post mortem examination and after completion of post mortem examination handed over the dead body to the blood relatives. LW15/Dr. M. Shankar

Naik, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased has opined that the cause of death is due to ‘Septicemia consequent to Burns’. Later on 30.09.2019 he has obtained DD from LW16/Smt. P. Chandana, Spl. JMFC, in which the victim stated that prior to four days back a dispute arose with her husband and he is responsible for her death. As such he altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C to Sec.306 IPC and examined and recorded the statements of Lws.4 to 9 i.e., Kaparthi Yadamma, 4 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

Chinthala Praveena, Ganta Manjula, Alle Vimala, Ganta Chandraleela and Pasula

Mamatha respectively. During the course of further investigation, on 19.06.2021 on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to Madhapoor and there apprehended the Accused and on interrogation Accused confessed to have committed the offence. Later he took the Accused into custody and brought him to

Police Station and effected his arrest and produced him before the Court and he was remanded to Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

4. The learned II-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad, took the cognizance for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused before the Court, the learned II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Nizamabad, furnished the copies of documents to him as contemplated

under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Principal Sessions

Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section

306 of IPC and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of Accused before this Court, Charge for the offence under

Section 306 of IPC was framed against him, the same is read over and explained to

Accused in Telugu Language for which Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to prove the guilt of Accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

5 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

Heard both sides.

Now the point for consideration, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused for the charged offence beyond reasonable doubt.

8.It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased and Accused performed love marriage. The deceased used to talk in phone with someone where the Accused reprimanded on this. As such on 21.06.2019 at 2300 hours, the deceased was talking on phone where the Accused reprimanded her and in this regard the deceased felt insulted and on the instigation of Accused she took spirit and doused herself and set herself ablaze. On that Accused rushed to her and set off the flames, by the time she sustained burn injuries. Immediately the Accused shifted her to Government hospital,

Nizamabad and later shifted her to Prathiba hospital for meritorious treatment and while undergoing treatment on 26.06.2019 at 0510 hours, she succumbed to burn injuries. In order to prove the guilt of Accused, the prosecution in all examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

9.The evidence of PW1, who is mother of deceased shows that about five years ago, on one day she received phone call from one of their villager, stating that in the night hours her daughter Prabhavathi poured kerosene and committed suicide and on that their neighbours have shifted her to Government hospital, Nizamabad. On that she rushed to Government hospital, Nizamabad and after five days of joining in 6 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022 the hospital, her daughter expired while undergoing treatment. She do not know the reason whey her daughter committed suicide. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything. During the cross examination by the counsel for Accused she stated that she do not know what the police have recorded on her examination. She during her cross examination admitted that she do not know anything about the facts of case.

10.The evidence of PW2, who is son of deceased shows that about five years ago, he was studying in 9th class by staying in hostel at Armoor. After receiving information that his mother has committed suicide, he went to hospital. After that his mother expired while undergoing treatment. He do not know the reason why his mother committed suicide. The learned APP requested the Court to declare the witness hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything. During the cross examination by the counsel for Accused he stated that he do not know what the police have recorded on his examination. He during his cross examination admitted that he do not know anything about the facts of the case.

11.The evidence of PW3 and PW4 shows that at about 5 years ago, on one day they came to know through neighbours that LW2/Koti Prabhavati has committed suicide by pouring kerosene. On that immediately they rushed to the house of the deceased and later with the help of other neighbours shifted her to Government hospital, Nizamabad and after five days LW2/Prabhavathi expired while undergoing treatment. They do not know the reason why she has committed suicide. The learned

APP requested the Court to declare the witnesses hostile and inspite of cross examination did not elicit anything.

7 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

12.The evidence of PW5 shows that on receipt of information from Prathiba hospital, Nizamabad on 24.06.2019 at 1700 hours, he has visited the Prathiba hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and registered a case in Crime No.98 of 2019 for the offence under/H. Woman Burns and issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the court of investigation, he has deputed LW17/B. Gangamani,

WPC, who examined and recorded the statement of deceased/Koti Prabhavathi.

Later he has given requisition to LW16/Smt. P. Chandana, to record the declaration of the victim and accordingly LW16/Smt. P. Chandana, has recorded dying declaration of deceased Prabhavathi. Later on 25.06.2019, he has visited scene of offence situated at Ramaswamy Camp H/o Deekampally village of Makloor mandal and secured the presence of LW10/Boda Pramod and LW11/Kaparthi Mosha and in their presence, he has conducted scene of offence and drawn rough sketch under crime details form.

On 26.06.2019 he received information that deceased has dead while undergoing treatment and thereafter he has shifted the dead body of deceased to Government hospital, Nizamabad and on that he altered the section of law from Woman Burns to 174 Cr.P.C and later he visited the Government hospital, Nizamabad and there he secured the presence of LW10/Boda Pramod and LW12/Smt. Kancha Rama and in their presence conducted inquest panchanama of the deceased. During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of PW2. After inquest, he has handed over the dead body of deceased for post mortem examination and

LW15/Dr. M. Shankar Nayak has held the autopsy over the dead body of deceased, who opined that cause of death is due to Septicemia consequent to Burns. On 30.09.2019 he obtained copy of Dying declaration of deceased and basing on which he has again altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C to 306 of IPC. After that he 8 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022 secured the presence of PW3, PW4 and LW6 to LW9 and examined and recorded their statements. He during his cross examination denied the suggestion that he has never recorded the statement of PW1 and by obtaining her signature on blank paper he has registered a false case. Further denied the suggestion that Accused never confessed anything and no confession panchanama was recorded by him and by calling panch witness to the police station he has obtained their signatures on blank papers and created the same. He also denied the suggestion that Accused is no way concerned with the death of deceased/ Prabhavathi and a false case was registered against Accused and without proper investigation he has laid a false charge sheet and basing on the that he intentionally deposing false.

13.PW6 who is another investigating officer shows that as the part of further investigation, on 19.06.2021 on reliable information he along with his staff rushed to

Madhapoor and apprehended the Accused and on interrogation confessed to have committed the offence and on that he has secured the presence of LW13/Nakkala

Suresh and LW14/Gundaram Prashanth and in their presence conducted confessional panchanama of Accused. Later brought the Accused to Police Station and effected his arrest and after due procedure, produced him before the Court for Judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he had laid charge sheet against the

Accused for the offence under section 306 of IPC. He during his cross examination denied the suggestion that he has never conducted any confession panchanama of the Accused and Accused has never confessed anything before him and by calling panch witnesses to Police Station he has obtained the signatures on blank papers.

9 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

14. The perusal of entire evidence on record shows that PW1, who is defacto- complainant and mother of deceased has not supported the version of prosecution and stated that she do not know the reason why her daughter has committed suicide. The Pw2, who is the son of deceased has also not supported the version of prosecution and stated that he do not know reason why his mother has committed suicide. The PW3 and PW4 have also deposed that they do not know reason why the deceased has committed suicide. The only evidence on record is that of PW5 and

PW6, who are the investigating officers, who deposed as to investigation done by them and that PW6 has filed charge sheet after completion of investigation. The prosecution in support of their case got marked Ex.P8, which is the dying declaration, the perusal of Ex.P8 shows that the deceased has stated that for her suicide her husband is responsible as there was a galata between she and her husband about 3 or 4 days ago and she do not know the reason for said galata. The Ex.P8 only shows that due to galata with her husband she has committed suicide but she could not able to say the reason why the dispute arose between them. The deceased has not at all stated the reason behind why her husband is responsible. In the instant case the mother and son of the deceased have not supported the version of prosecution and stated that they do not know the reason why the deceased has committed suicide.

The other prosecution witnesses other than PW5 and PW6 have also turned hostile.

This Court is opinion that solely basing on the evidence of PW5 and PW6, it cannot be concluded that the Accused committed the offence. In the circumstances, this

Court is opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt and Accused is entitled for acquittal.

10 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

In the result, Accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of

IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the same under section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of Accused shall stands canceled after expiry of six months.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 28 th day of March, 2025.

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:M.PrameelaComplainant PW2:Koti StevanSon of deceased PW3:Kaparthi YadammaAunt of the deceased PW4:Chinthala PraveenaSister of the deceased PW5:D. Sainath 1st Investigating Officer. PW6:D. Raja Reddy2nd Investigating Officer & laid Charge Sheet.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P5:Statement of PW1 Ex.P6:First Information Report Ex.P7:Crime details form Ex.P8:Dying Declaration of the deceased/Prabhavthi along with requisition Ex.P9:Inquest panchanama of the deceased. Ex.P10: Post mortem examination report 11 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

Ex.P11: Confession statement of the Accused Ex.P12: Confession panchanama of the Accused

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil - MOs MARKED - Nil - Assistant Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

12 of 11 SC No.15 of 2022

: C A L E N D E R :

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NIZAMABAD

Sessions Case No. 15 of 2022

(PRC No.89 of 2021 of II-Addl. Judl. Class Magistrate, Nizamabad)

Police Station : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Makloor.

1. Cr.No. & P.S., : Crime No.57 of 2023 of P.S Makloor.

2. Full Description of Accused :

Gangoni Sugunakar @ Subbu S/o Gangoni Pothanna, Aged: 43 years, Occ: Auto

Driver, R/o H.No.2-29, Madhapoor village, Makloor Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Date of offence:21.06.2019

4. Date of complaint:24.06.2019

5. Date of apprehension:19.06.2021

6. Date of release: 07.07.2021

7. Date of commitment:24.11.2021

8. Date of commencement of trial:11.11.2024

9. Date of closure of trial:05.03.2025

10. Date of Judgment:28.03.2025

11. Explanation of delay: --

Sd/-

Asst. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. Copy submitted to:

The Hon'ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Order Record 441 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/3/2024	The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Dichpally vs A1. Eyya Ashok	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/300162/2017	Neeradi Uday Kumar vs A1-Eyya Ashok	17 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/36/2023	Vadla Mahesh vs Smt. Vadla Vaishnavi	08 Apr 2025	Order	—
SC/30/2024	The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Town III Nizamabad. vs Aday Rohan	07 Apr 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/29/2024	Smt.Pallapu Supraja vs Petitioner No.2. Pallapu Prashanth	07 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/7/2023	The State through PS.Varni vs Ramavath Ramchandar	28 Mar 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/15/2022	SHO Makloor vs Gangoni Sugunakar @ Subbu	28 Mar 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
OS/47/2023	Bhandari Padmakar Madhu Sudhan Rao vs Udaya Laxmi Peddia	28 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/5/2025	S. Shiva Reddy vs Voddem Narsaiah	27 Mar 2025	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/300044/2017	Jaidi Bhooma Reddy vs Gogula Chinna Sailu	26 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/43/2024	Smt.Devanpalli Ashwini @ Gunda Ashwini vs Gunda Ganga Prasad	24 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/41/2024	Kanjarla Srikanth vs Geetha Mothe	21 Mar 2025	Order	—
S.O.P/21/2024	Smt. Ghousia Begum vs Hiralal Prabhuram and Company	19 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
S.O.P/27/2024	Sri Mohammed Hakeem vs Hiralal Prabhuram and Company	19 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
SC/132/2021	P.S. Dichpally vs Badavath Sangesh	13 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/36/2024	D.Anvesh vs Smt. Donkanti @ Chukka Navaneetha	13 Mar 2025	Order	—
SC/156/2022	Sub inspector of police town V Nizmabad vs Neelapu kishan	11 Mar 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/25/2024	Jangam Ranjith Kumar vs Smt. Jangam Shirisha	07 Mar 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/32/2024	Battu Ashok vs Smt. Battu Sandhya	04 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/87/2024	Telangana Grameena Bank, Br. Nizamabad, rep. by its Manager Sri Venkateshwarloo vs Arshiya Fathima	28 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
S.O.P/4/2024	Donken Chinna Gangadhar vs The Assistant Commissioner of Employees Provident Fund Organisation	28 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
OS/300110/2015	M.V. Nageswara RAo vs Anil Thomas	27 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/58/2024	Smt. Ankam Sony vs Alishetty Vittal alias Ankam Vittal	25 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
S.O.P/15/2024	Mohd. Abdul Waheed vs The Post Master (Head Savings Bank)	24 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
OS/300038/2018	E. Bhooma Reddy vs M/s. Venki Infra and Developers rep. by partners Moturi Venkata Ramana and M. Venugopal	20 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/46/2024	Gidde Sraveen Kumar vs Smt. Gadhari Shirisha	17 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
SC/38/2021	SHO Town IV Nizamabad vs Chkradher Satyanarayana	14 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
SC/76/2020	The state through PS town IV, Nizamabad vs Gandham Gangadhar	12 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
SC/213/2022	State through P.S Mugpal vs Gyada Laxman	07 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/11/2024	Dumpala Gangadhar vs Smt. Dumpala Niharika Alias Mangali Mamatha	03 Feb 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/47/2024	Rathod Vilas vs Rathod Ashwini @ Badavath Ashwini	31 Jan 2025	Order	—
SC/125/2022	Cicrle Inspector of police Nizamaba Townd vs Gurrala Sai Kumar @ Sai	30 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
SC/199/2022	Sub Inspector of police Town I Nizmabad vs Adhe Anitha	27 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
S.O.P/300077/2018	Navkar Gelda Jain vs Vs	27 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/300079/2018	Smt. D. Vinoda vs Smt. Darangeta Oddemma alias D.Oddevva	22 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/63/2024	Patha Sravan Kumar vs Gopireddy Ibranna Mounika alias Patha Mounika	20 Jan 2025	Order	—
S.O.P/32/2023	Smt. Polasa Laxmi Bai vs The Asst Commissioner, Office of Employees Provident Fund Origination	20 Jan 2025	Order	—
H.M.O.P/33/2024	Smt. Nagunoori Lavanya @ Kotthakonda Lavanya vs Sri Nagunoori Durga Prasad	10 Jan 2025	Order	—
OS/22/2023	Dr. Muneera Noorain vs M/s.Viceroy Gardens	07 Jan 2025	Order	—
SC/188/2024	Sub -Inspector of Police Town III P S Nizamabad vs Bodikala Vinod @ Srikanth	06 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
OS/300216/2014	Jam-e-Masjid, Dichpalli rep. by Khursheed Ahmed vs Gulam Mohammed Siddiqui	02 Jan 2025	Judgment	—
SC/97/2024	P.S Dichpally,Nizamabad vs MD.Nadheem	31 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
SC/300255/2016	Md. Saleem vs A1. MD. Ghani	31 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
SC/63/2024	The State through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Indalwai vs Suthari Jagannatham	30 Dec 2024	Judgment	Acquitted
SC/70/2020	SHO Nizamabad III town vs Vital Sai Prakash @ Chinna	23 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
OS/96/2019	Smt Pathuri Sukanya vs T Koteshwar Rao	16 Dec 2024	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/27/2024	Gundreddi Bharath Reddy @ Bharath Reddy vs Gundreddi Spoorthi Reddy @ Spoorthi	29 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/300027/2018	Renikindi Srinivas vs Mamindla Nagaraju	28 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
OS/300023/2018	Bhanuka Shanker vs Smt. Sirpa Pushpa	27 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/33/2023	Neeradi Gopal vs Smt.Neeradi Sujatha	27 Nov 2024	Order	—
S.O.P/14/2024	Karsam Mohan vs Karsam Narsaiah	21 Nov 2024	Order	—
S.O.P/17/2024	Kuthbuddin vs The Asst. Provident fund Commissioner	14 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/300087/2018	Kanna Aparna vs Datrika Ravinder	08 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
S.O.P/13/2024	Smt. Aare Indira vs Assistant Treasury Office	07 Nov 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/30/2024	Badavath Lakkaji Nayak vs Smt. Ramavath Akhila	06 Nov 2024	Order	—
OS/300102/2017	P. Pentaiah vs Mohd. Abdul Samad	04 Nov 2024	Judgment	—
SC/8/2022	state through PS Town - III,Nizamabad rep. by PP vs Gadda Abhilash @ Pandu	30 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
SC/80/2023	The state through sub-inspector of police PS Navipet vs Thimmirishetty Santhosh	28 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
SC/22/2024	State through P.S III Town, Nizamabad vs Dupatala Hanmanthu	28 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
SC/96/2021	SHO III Town vs Ramarthi Anil	17 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
OS/300078/2018	Gajendra Jagan vs Gajendravari Padma	04 Oct 2024	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/45/2023	Smt. Suddapally Divya @ Teddu Divya vs Suddapally Prem Kumar	04 Oct 2024	Order	—
OS/57/2019	K Nagaraju vs Smt Jameela Bee	30 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/42/2023	Sub Inspector of police Town V Nizmabad vs Mohanammed Abdul Noman Haqqani	30 Sep 2024	Judgment	—
SC/121/2022	Sub inspector of police Indalwai vs Kunta Bharathi	27 Sep 2024	Judgment	—
EP/30078/2018	K. Anoop Kumar vs C. Sridhar	25 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/9/2024	Karolla Naresh Yadav vs Smt. Karrolla KavyaSri @ Velpukonda Kavya Sri	25 Sep 2024	Order	—
IP/2/2020	Sri Vangala Laxman Raj vs Smt. Gangamani alias Manemma	24 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/108/2021	Regunta Srinivas vs Regunta Swapna alias Boorla Swapna	24 Sep 2024	Order	—
S.O.P/5/2024	Chennuru Kavitha @ Katipally Rekha vs The Asst. commissioner of provident fund	23 Sep 2024	Order	—
OS/300017/2015	Smt. G. Veeramma vs Sri G. Balraj	20 Sep 2024	Judgment	—
OS/35/2019	Kumari Uppari Neeradi Abhinandana vs Uppari Neeradi Murali	19 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2024	Nimmala Raghuveer vs Nimmala Ganga Laxmi @ Goodchi Golla Laxmi	19 Sep 2024	Order	—
EP/54/2019	M/s Mahija Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. rep. by its Director vs Mohd. Feroz Khan	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
S.O.P/24/2022	Sabbani Prasad vs The Asst. Commissioner, Office of Employees Provident Fund Organization	13 Sep 2024	Order	—
SC/240/2022	Sub Inspector of police Town III Nizamabad vs Goguloth Srinivas	12 Sep 2024	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/15/2024	Bonchetty Anil Kumar vs Bonchetty Soundarya	11 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/21/2024	Chitti Sailu @ Gupthi Sailu vs Neeradi Swaroopa @ Gupti Uma	11 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/43/2023	Ireni Varalaxmi @ Somolla Varalaxmi vs Ireni Mahesh	06 Sep 2024	Order	—
S.O.P/1/2022	Smt. Thadichetla Janaki Bai alias Peddamolla Ammayi vs The Asst. Commissioner, Office of Employees Provident Fund Organization	06 Sep 2024	Judgment	—
OS/56/2019	Kaleru Srinivas vs Mohd Asif Pasha	03 Sep 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/61/2022	Bollaram Soundarya alias Punnam Lavanya vs Punnam Naresh	29 Aug 2024	Order	—
OS/300098/2018	Smt. Bollaveni Bhagya Laxmi alias Kannaboina Bhagyalaxmi vs Bollaveni Yellamma alias Laxmi	28 Aug 2024	Order	—
SC/16/2020	The state through PS. Mugpal vs SK. Chand Pasha	23 Aug 2024	Judgment	—
SC/193/2021	State through PS Town_III,Nizamabad,Rep.by PP vs Chintala Raju	23 Aug 2024	Judgment	—
OS/27/2023	Shaik Rafeeq vs Shaik Manzur Hamid	22 Aug 2024	Order	—
SC/300131/2017	Kanne Thimmanna vs Puduri Anand	21 Aug 2024	Judgment	—
H.M.O.P/10/2024	Smt.Bodhas Suvarna vs Bodhas Mahesh @ Shanker	21 Aug 2024	Order	—
EP/12/2021	M/s. Margadarshi Chit fund Pvt. Ltd, rep. by A. Suresh, Branch Manager. vs Jawagi Jagadeshwar Goud	20 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/14/2023	Ganjugam Sailu vs Ganjugam Prathibha	13 Aug 2024	Order	—
H.M.O.P/31/2023	Smt Gummidala Padma @ Alwala Padma vs Gummidala Naresh	07 Aug 2024	Order	—
SC/80/2022	Sub Inspector of police Town II nizamabad vs Lingampally Balaji	05 Aug 2024	Judgment	—
OS/300149/2016	Shaik Khajavali vs K.Vijaya Laxmi	01 Aug 2024	Judgment	—
EP/1/2023	M/s Sanghavi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., Nizamabad vs Kaleri Subhash Chandra Bose	31 Jul 2024	Order	—
EP/3/2023	M/s Sanghavi Chit Fund Pvt.Ltd., Nizamabad vs Karipe Ganesh	31 Jul 2024	Order	—
IP/3/2021	Guduru Shailaja vs Sudham Harish	31 Jul 2024	Order	—
EP/2/2022	M/s. Mahija Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd, Nizamabad, rep. by its Director K. Srinivas vs K. Ajay Kumar	30 Jul 2024	Order	—
EP/300061/2015	Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Nizamabad. vs N. Raju	30 Jul 2024	Order	—
CC/7/2021	The State through PS town VI, Nizamabad. vs A-1- Md. Zameer	30 Jul 2024	Judgment	—
S.O.P/2/2023	Billa Padma vs The Asst. Commissioner	26 Jul 2024	Order	—

Showing 100 of 441 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		5
Mar 2025		14
Feb 2025		14
Jan 2025		11
Dec 2024		5
Nov 2024		11
Oct 2024		6
Sep 2024		34
Aug 2024		12
Jul 2024		23
Jun 2024		18
May 2024		6

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has N. Srikanth Babu handled?

N. Srikanth Babu has handled 507 court orders since 2022 at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 16 orders per month.

What types of cases does N. Srikanth Babu hear?

Based on available records, N. Srikanth Babu primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Cases) at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is N. Srikanth Babu currently posted?

N. Srikanth Babu is posted as Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex, Nizamabad, Telangana.

Are judgments by N. Srikanth Babu available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by N. Srikanth Babu are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does N. Srikanth Babu dispose cases?

N. Srikanth Babu disposes approximately 16 cases per month, based on 507 orders handled over their tenure at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is N. Srikanth Babu serving?

N. Srikanth Babu has been serving at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

OS 34%

SC 21%

H 17%

S 10%

IP 9%

EP 6%

CMA 2%

CC 1%

Posting History

Feb 2024 — Apr 2025

Addl. Senior Civil Judge · 17 orders
Aug 2022 — Apr 2025

Senior Civil Judge · 490 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 7

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.D.Durgaprasad

Judge, Family Court-cum-III Addl. District and Ses...

72 orders

MS Chaitanya Angari

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

4 orders

Pamujula Srinivasa Rao

I Addl. JFCM Judge

1 orders

Vaddi Hari Kumar

Spl. JFCM For Excise Judge

839 orders

Ms. M.KeerthiRaj

V Addl. Junior Civil Judge

6 orders

P.sai Sudha

Senior Civil Judge

178 orders

G.V.N Bharatha Laxmi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge

397 orders

Smt.Harisha

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge

42 orders

S Narayana

SPL.Judge for Trail of Cases Under SC/ST

1 orders

Smt. D.varoodhini

Fast Track Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases

16 orders

← View all judges at Nizamabad, PDJ Court Complex