Naseem Sultana

Page No.1 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ARMOOR

Present: Smt.Naseem Sultana,

Senior Civil Judge, Armoor

Dated this the 17thday of March, 2025

O.S.No. 184 of 2018

Between:

Gundoji Thirumala D/o Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, aged 47 years, Caste: Kammari, Occu: Tailor R/o H.No.7-53, Kammarpally village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

.. Plaintiff

AND

1.Gundoji Gangubai W/o Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, aged 71 years, Occu: House-wife, R/o H.No.5-60, Kammarpally village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

2.Bokkanpally Meghalatha D/o Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman W/o Bokkanpally Laxman, aged 45 years, Caste: Kammari, Occu: House-hold R/o H.No.5-60, Kammarpally village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

.. Defendants

This suit coming before me on 10-03-2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Aleti Gangadhar and Sri B.Pavan Prasad,

Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri J.Muralidhar, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for partition and separate possession.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: That the defendant No.1 is the mother and defendant No.2 is the sister of the

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.2 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 plaintiff. The husband of defendant No.1, who is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 by name Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, who was the kartha of the family and he was having immovable properties on his name. He worked as Panchayath Secretary in the Gram

Panchayath and retired from service in the year 1995. He got suffered with paralysis about six years ago and he got long treatment of 5 years, as he was bed-ridden and died on 04-01-2017, leaving the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs and successors.

3.It is submitted that Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman was the owner and possessor of the RCC roofed house bearing No.7-53, measuring total site area 172.33 Sq.yards situated at Kammarpally village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad. He has purchased open place of collapsed house bearing No.7-53, measuring 172.33 Sq.yards situated at Kammarpally village through registered sale deed document

No.1375 of 2008 dated 09-05-2008 from the income of the joint family.

He has constructed the RCC roofed building over the said open place of the dismantled house and the Gram Panchayath has allotted the house

No.7-53 to it. The said house is in the name of Gundoji Laxman @

Kammari Laxman in the Gram Panchayath records. The said RCC roofed house bearing No.7-53 measruing 172.33 Sq.yards situated at

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.3 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

Kammarpally village, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘A’ property.

4.It is further submitted that he has also purchased the open plot and got mutated the same in the name of his wife i.e., defendant No.1 in the Gram Panchayath records and constructed the RCC roofed house

No.5-60 situated at Kammarpally village with his own earnings. The said house No.5-60 situated at Kammarpally village, which stands in the name of defendant/Gundoji Gangubai in the Gram Panchayath records is hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘B’ property.

5.It is also submitted that the father of plaintiff and defendant

No.2 and the husband of defendant No.1 i.e., Gundoji Laxman @

Kammari Laxman was the pattedar, owner and possessor of the land in survey No.386/10 to an extent of Ac.1-20gts situated at Kammarpally village, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘C’ property and also of the land in survey No.386/85 to the extent of Ac.0-30gts situated at

Kammarpally village, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘D’ property, which is inherited from his ancestors.

6.It is also submitted that the Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman has purchased the open plot beside the house No.5-60 situated at

Kammarpally village, worth of Rs.5,02,956/- and got it registered in the

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.4 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 name of defendant No.2 i.e., his youngest daughter through registered sale deed document No.381/2003 of SRO, Bheemgal. He has also purchased a house bearing No.5-92, situated at Kammarpally village, worth of Rs.1,09,800/- from his own earnings and got registered the same in the name of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed vide document No.1439 of 2012 of SRO, Bheemgal. He has also purchased the open plot in survey No.129, total site area 385.00 Sq.yards situated at Kammarpally village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad, worth of

Rs.5,77,680/- and got it registered in the name of defendant No.2 through registered sale deed vide document No.1385 of 2005 of SRO,

Armoor. He has purchased all these properties from his joint family income and got it registered in the name of defendant No.2. When the plaintiff came to know about it, then she went to her father and defendants No.1 and 2 and requested them to partition all the joint family properties i.e., suit schedule A, B, C and D properties, then the father of the plaintiff viz., Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, defendants No.1 and 2 assured to the plaintiff that they will give the entire suit schedule properties A, B, C and D to the plaintiff only by registering the same in her favour. So the plaintiff believed their words, but the father of the plaintiff due to his sickness and on the instigation of the defendants has not registered it in the name of plaintiff. After

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.5 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff went to the defendants and requested them to transfer the suit schedule A, B, C and D properties in her name by registering the same, but the defendants denied for it. Hence, the suit.

7.The defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement by submitting that the plaintiff is the second wife of defendant No.2’s husband. She got divorced from her first husband by name Ramdas and developed physical and illegal relationship with the husband of defendant No.2 and that defendant No.2’s husband by name

Bokkanpally Laxman has performed second marriage with the plaintiff.

Thereafter the husband of defendant No.2, Bokkanpally Laxman has deserted the defendant No.2 from his society and that her husband is living with the plaintiff at Basheerabad village, Kammarpally mandal,

Dist.Nizamabad.

8.It is further submitted that a panchayath was held, wherein the plaintiff has executed an Agreement dated 29-09-2012 in favour of defendant No.2, wherein she has admitted the marriage with

Bokkanpalli Laxman and she has stated that she does not have any right and title over the house bearing No.5-60 (suit schedule-B property) and she has stated that she does not have any right and title

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.6 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 over the Dorolla Bapathu house bearing No.7-53 (suit schedule ‘A’ property) and defendant No.2 is having absolute right and title over the suit schedule A and B properties. After the second marriage of the plaintiff with the husband of defendant No.2, the defendant No.2 was taking care of her children alone.

9. It is further submitted that the suit schedule-B property is the self acquired property of defendant No.1/Gundoji Gangubai herein and she has purchased the said property with her own earnings by rolling beedies and it is denied that the said suit schedule-B property was purchased by Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman with his earnings in the name of defendant No.1. It is further submitted that the suit schedule-C and D properties are the government assigned lands and it was allotted to Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman. During the life time of Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, the defendant No.2 has taken care of him and got treated him. The defendant No.2’s husband,

Bokkanpally Laxman has not provided any maintenance to the defendant No.2 and her children and totally deserted them. As such,

Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman has executed the will deed document dated 11-11-2015, wherein he has stated that after his death the house bearing No.7-53 (suit schedule- A property) and suit schedule

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.7 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

C and D properties shall be transferred to his grand son viz., Santhosh, who is the son of defendant No.2. Hence, after the death of Gundoji

Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, the suit schedule A, C and D properties were bequeathed/transferred to his grandson Santhosh and the plaintiff has no right over the said properties by virtue of said document, Santhosh has became the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule A, C and D properties.

10.It is further denied that the father of plaintiff and defendant No.2 has purchased the open place beside the house No.5-60, 5-92 and open place in survey No.129 measuring total site area 385.00 Sq.yards, all are situated at Kammarpally village in the name of defendant No.2 with his earnings. It is submitted that defendant No.2 has purchased the above said properties from her own earnings. As such, the said properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.2 and her children. The plaintiff has no right, title and share in the suit schedule A to D properties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

11.On the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are joint family property of n the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession ?

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.8 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property with metes and bounds and for vacant possession ?

4. To what relief ?

12.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Exs.A1 to A14 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs1 to 4 are examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

13.ISSUES No.1 to 3:Admittedly the plaintiff is the sister of defendant No.2/Bokkanpally Meghalatha and daughter of defendant

No.1 and Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman. The defendant No.1 and

Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman is having only two daughters i.e., plaintiff and defendant No.2. It is also an admitted fact that the suit schedule -A property i.e., house No.7-53 situated at Kammarpally village was purchased by Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman vide registered sale deed vide Ex.A1. The plaintiff has also filed the pahanies vide Exs.A5 and A7 showing that Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari

Laxman is the owner of the suit schedule C and D properties. Though it has been contended by defendant No.1 that house bearing No.5-60 situated at Kammarpally village vide suit schedule-B property was purchased by her from the income she received by doing beedi rolling work.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.9 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

14.Though it has been contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has executed Ex.B1/Agreement dated 29-09-2012 by stating that she is relinquishing her right over the house bearing No.5-60 and the plots situated at Gandhinagar. Whereas as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the document vide Ex.B1 is a compulsorily registerable document, but the same is not registered. As such, Ex.B1 is not acceptable in evidence. Even for a moment if the same is accepted, then also as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is no where mentioned that the plaintiff has relinquished her rights over the house No.7-53 situated at Kammarpally village vide suit schedule A property. Though it has been mentioned in

Ex.B1 that she is not having any relation with regard to H.No.7-53, it is nowhere submitted that she will not have any right or share in the suit schedule-A house. It is also nowhere mentioned with regard to relinquishing her share and rights in the suit schedule C and D properties. Moreover, the document vide Ex.B1 which is a compulsorily registerable document is not acceptable in evidence.

15.It is further contended that Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman has executed a will deed vide Ex.B2 by stating that after his life, the son of defendant No.2 viz., B.Santhosh will be his legal heir with regard to

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.10 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 the properties vide House No.8-00, 7-53 (suit schedule-A property) and the lands in survey No.386/10 and 386/85 to an extent of Ac.1-20gts and Ac.0-30gts respectively vide suit schedule C and D properties.

Though it is mentioned with regard to the house No.8-00, but in the entire case record it is nowhere found that Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari

Laxman is also the owner and possessor of the house bearing No.8-00.

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, if Ex.B2 were to have been executed by alleged Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari

Laxman, then he would not have mentioned the wrong house number.

Moreover, admittedly there are two signatures reflecting on Ex.B2 alongwith his thumb impression and it is nowhere mentioned by the defendants nor DW3 who said to have scribed Ex.B2 nor DW4 who said to have signed on Ex.B2, that what made Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari

Laxman to sign twice on Ex.B2.

16.Furthermore, DW3 has stated in his cross examination that while he has scribed Ex.B2, defendant No.1/DW2 and defendant No.2/DW1 were present in the house and after his scribing the will deed, he has handed it over to Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman. DW4 has stated in his cross examination that while executing Ex.B2, his sister

Gangubai/DW2 and Meghalatha/DW1/defendant No.2 were present

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.11 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 alongwith them. He has clearly stated that he do not know Gundoji

Laxman @ Kammari Laxman has signed twice and also put his thumb impression on it. Whereas DW2 in her cross examination has stated that while executing Ex.B2/Will deed, she was not present. She has clearly stated that she was inside the house. Both DWs 1 and 2, who are defendants No.1 and 2 has stated that they do not know the date when

Ex.B2 was alleged to have been executed by Gundoji Laxman @

Kammari Laxman. Moreover, DW1/Gundoji Gangubai has stated that she do not know which properties exactly were transferred by her father in the name of her son. On the question putforth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that in Ex.B2 house No.8-00 situated at

Kammarpally is mentioned. Whereas there is no such house in the name of her father and as such, her father has not executed Ex.B2, as, if he would have executed Ex.B2, then he would have not shown wrong house number, for which, DW1 has stated that she do not know the house numbers. Furthermore, she has stated that soon after executing of Ex.B2 her father has handed over it to her. Moreover, DW4 has also admitted in his cross examination on the question putforth by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that on confrontation with the signature on Ex.A13/signature on deposition in CC No. 98 of 2016 on the file of JFCM Court, Armoor, by the learned counsel for the plaintiff

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.12 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018 to the witness, DW4 has identified the signature of Gundoji Laxman @

Kammari Laxman and again on confrontation with Ex.B2, the witness/DW4 has stated that there is a slight difference in the signature of Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman reflecting on Ex.A13 and signature reflecting on Ex.B2. Moreover, DW4 has no where stated that Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman has signed in the presence of himself and his brother Raja Lingam.

17.Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act reads as :

“The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.13 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act reads as :

Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

“If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.”

18.Hence, the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder when a suspicion is surrounding the execution of the Will. Whereas the defendants could not prove the execution of will deed vide Ex.B2 by

Gundoji Laxman @ Kammari Laxman, as there are several contractions with regard to execution of said Will deed. Hence, it is clear that plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1 and Gundoji Laxman and that defendant No.2 is the sister of plaintiff. As such, they are the members of Hindu joint family and that the suit schedule A to D properties are the joint family properties and that the plaintiff being the member of the joint family is having share in the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties. Hence, Issues No.1 to 3 are decided in favour of the plaintiff.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.14 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

19.ISSUE No.4: In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed with costs. The plaintiff alongwith defendants No.1 and 2 shall have 1/3rd share equally in the suit schedule ‘A’ to ‘D’ properties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 17th day of March, 2025

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Gundoji ThirumalaDW1: Bokkanpally Meghalatha PW2: Mothkuri Raja GoudDW2: Gundoji Gangubai DW3: N.Chandrashekar DW4: M.Rajalingam

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the) FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is the registered sale deed vide document No.1375 of 2008 dated 17-05-2008 Ex.A2 is the Market value certificate of suit schedule -A property dated 15-03-2016 Ex.A3 is the Ownership certificate dated 13-04-2016 Ex.A4 is the Market value certificate of suit schedule-B property dated 11-05-2018 Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of Pahani for the Fasli year 1427 in respect of suit schedule-C property dated 02-08-2017

Ex.A6 is the Market value certificate of Suit schedule-C property dated 18-04-2018 Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of pahani in respect of suit schedule-D property dated 31-08-2017 Ex.A8 is the Market value certificate of suit schedule-C property dated 18-04-2018 Ex.A9 is the Death certificate of Gundoji Laxman dated 24-07-2017

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.15 of 15 Judgment in OS No. 184 of 2018

Ex.A10 is the Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.1439 of 2012 dated 07-06-2012 Ex.A11 is the Certified copy of the registered sale deed vide document No.381 of 2003 dated 28-03-2003 Ex.A12 is the certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.893 of 2005 dated 02-05-2005 Ex.A13 is the signature in page No.2 of Ex.A1. Ex.A14 is the signature on deposition in CC No. 98 of 2016 on the file of JFCM Court, Armoor

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 is the Agreement/Opponda patram dated 29-09-2012 Ex.B2 is the Will deed dated 11-11-2015 Ex.B3 is the Receipt No.1503 dated 22-11-2017 of Gram Panchayath, Kammarpally.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

1

CC No.644 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT ARMOOR

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2019

CC. NO.644 OF 2018

Between : The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Mupkal.

...Complainant

//AND//

A1: S.K.Yamin @ Sameer @ Ch.Gopi, S/o Hyder, Age: 34 years,

Caste: Muslim, Occ: Centring works, R/o Chilukawada, Jagithyal now at Ramnagar, Nirmal. A2:Shankar Mareva Mankar S/o Mareva Mankar, Age: 27 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Agril., R/o Ganganagar, Kinwat village and mandal of Nanded District of Maharashtra state. A3:Ravi Mothiram Mane, S/o Mothiram Mane, Age: 27 years, Caste: Kaikadi, Occ: Agril., labour, R/o Dhathanagar (Gokunda), of Kinwat village and mandal of Nanded District of Maharashtra State.

...Accused

(A1 has voluntarily admitted his guilt and convicted and that this

case is against A2 and A3 only)

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 20-02-2019 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri. Avari Ramesh, Counsel for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

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

Accused No.2 and 3 are arraigned before this Court for the offence

U/sec.411 IPC. This is a case of lurking trespass by accused No.1 into the house of PW1 situated at Nallur village of Mupkal mandal during night time with an intention to commit theft and also committed theft and kept the same with A2 and A3 or in alternatively for being in possession of the stolen property/MO.1 to MO.15 knowingly that it is a stolen property punishable U/sec.411 IPC, for which police Mupkal registered a case in

Crime No.22/2018 against the accused No.1 to 3.

JMFC 2

CC No.644 of 2018

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.03.2018 at 9-00 am,

PW1/complainant lodged a report by stating that on 3.03.2018 he along with his wife and his daughter went to Morthad to attend a jathara by duly locking their house and on 05.03.2018 at about 7-00 pm, they returned back to their house and found that the house locks were broken and then they entered into the house and found that three almirahs were opened and some unknown offenders have broken the lock and committed theft of 80 grams of gold ornaments, 22 tulas of silver ornaments. Hence PW1 requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of PW1, PW10/Sub-Inspector of police, P.S.,

Mupkal registered a case in Cr. No.22/2018 for the offence punishable

U/sec.457 and 380 IPC, by issuing the FIR and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, he has examined and recorded the statement of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at Nallur village, there he conducted crime-details form in the presence of the mediators and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence in the CDF itself. On 31.05.2018 he got information that A1 who is involved in this case was arrested by Nirmal police in their crime and on interrogation, A1 confessed to have committed this offence and hence he filed a requisition for issuing PT warrant against A1 before this Court and then he handed over the case CD file to PW9 for further investigation. PW9 has received the case CD file from PW10 and took up further investigation, during the course of investigation, on 18.06.2018, he has produced A1 from Adilabad

District jail before this Court on executing PT warrant and then PW9 handed over the case CD file to PW11 for further investigation. PW11 has received the case CD file from PW9 and took up further investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW11 has verified the investigation

JMFC 3

CC No.644 of 2018

done by PW9 and PW10 and found it to be correct. Later PW7 has handed over the case property/gold necklace weighing 25.89 grams, three gold rings weighing 15 grams, four pairs of silver anklets, two kumkum box, one pair of silver toe rings, one pair of silver anklets(kadiyalu)/MO.1 to

MO.10 to him, which was recovered from A2 and A3 and then he/PW11 deposited the same before this Court. On 14.08.2018, he served the notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to A2 and A3 and they appeared before him on the same day at police station and he released them on their furnishing required sureties. After completion of investigation, PW11 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 for the offence U/secs.457 and 380 IPC and for the offence U/sec.411 IPC against accused No.2 and 3.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offence U/secs.457, 380 IPC against the accused No.1 and the offence U/sec.411 IPC against accused

No.2 and 3. Case copies are furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. On production of accused No.1, he pleaded and admitted his guilty voluntarily without any kind of force, undue influence or coercion.

On appearance of the accused No.2 and 3, they are examined U/sec.239

Cr.P.C. A charge for the offence punishable U/sec.411 IPC against accused

No.2 and 3 is framed, read over and explained to them, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-11 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and MO-1 to MO-15 are marked on its behalf. PW1 is the defacto complainant and victim. PW2 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW3 and PW5 are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of A1. PW4 is the panch witness for confession panchanama. PW6 is the panch witness for confession and

JMFC 4

CC No.644 of 2018

recovery panchanama of A2 and A3. PW7 to PW11 are the investigating- officers. The SI of police, Mupkal has filed a report along with the certificate issued by VRO, Nallur through APP by submitting that

LW5/P.Vinod Kumar is residing at abroad and it is not known that when he will return, considering the same, the evidence of LW5 is closed by this

Court. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW2/J.Anasuya,

LW3/G.Sheshasri, LW4/Gadhari Rajesh, LW7/G.Laxman, LW9/B.Chinna-

Reddy and LW13/Velmala Gangadhar. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 are the photographs of MO.1 to MO.10. Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 are the photographs of MO.11 to MO.15. Ex.P9 is the crime-details form. Ex.P10 is the confession panchanama. Ex.P11 is the recovery panchanama.

Ex.P12 is the recovery panchanama. Ex.P13 is the certified copy of confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P14 is the confession panchanama.

Ex.P15 is the recovery panchanama. Ex.P16 is the first information report.

Ex.P17 to Ex.P24 are the bunch of (8) photographs. MO.1 is one gold- necklace. MO.2 is three gold rings. MO.3 to MO.6 are four pairs of silver- anklets. MO.7 is one pair of silver toe rings. MO.8 is one pair of silver small kadiyalu. MO.9 is one kumkuma box. MO.10 is one small silver bowl. MO.11 is one cooler. MO.12 is one TV. MO.13 is Tata sky set up box.

MO.14 is one home theater. MO.15 is two remotes.

6.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the accused No.2 and 3 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which they denied all the allegations leveled against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused

JMFC 5

CC No.644 of 2018

No.2 and 3 for the offence punishable U/sec.411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution is required to prove that accused No.1 went to the house of PW1 in the intervening night of 03/04-03-2018, broke open the lock of the house doors and committed theft of 80 grams of gold ornaments, 22 tulas of silver ornaments, all worth of Rs.84,000/- and kept the stolen ornaments with A2 and A3 and they dishonestly received the same from A1 without any enquiry and sold out the 40 grams and the amount was spent for house hold articles and later the police has recovered MO.1 to MO.15 from the possession of accused No.2 and 3 at the instance of accused No.1.

10.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW1 who is the complainant has deposed that on 3.03.2018, he himself along with his family members went to attend a Jathara by duly locking their house situated at Nallur village and on 05.03.2018 at 7-00 pm, they returned to their house and found that the house door lock was broke opened and the almirahs were also kept open and he has found that 8 tulas of gold in form of 2 rings, one gold necklace, 22 tulas of silver anklets and other ornaments were missing. Hence he lodged the complaint. As such, PW1 has clearly stated that some unknown offenders has committed the said theft and he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.

Hence the evidence of PW1 is not helpful to prove the prosecution case against the accused.

11.PW2 who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting crime details form, though supported the prosecution case but it does not help

JMFC 6

CC No.644 of 2018

the prosecution to prove the case against the accused.

12.PW3 who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting confession-cum-recovery panchanama of accused No.1 has deposed that on 5.07.2018 at 5.30 pm, police has conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1 at Velpoor P.S wherein A1 confessed to have committed this offence along with other thefts and on 6.07.2018, the police along with himself, PW5 and A1 went to the house of one Prakasham panthulu at

Nirmal, wherein on the third floor in the pent house A1 is residing as a tenant and from his house he has shown TV, cooler, home theater, one set up box and others/MO.11 to MO.15 and the police has seized the same by preparing the panchanama and on the same day, the accused took them to Kinwat village of Nanded District to the Manippuram gold finance office and the police has recovered one gold chain and gold bracelet in his presence by preparing the recovery panchanama. But he has clearly stated that he cannot identify A1. Moreover, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that he cannot say the name of the colony in which the

Manipuram gold finance office is situated at Kinwat fro where the police said to have recovered gold chain, gold bracelet. Hence it creates a doubt about giving credit worth to the evidence of PW3. Furthermore, PW3 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused.

13.PW4 who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting confession panchanama of accused No.1 has deposed that on 31.05.2015, at 5.30 pm, police has conducted confession panchanama of A1 in his presence at Bile bazar at Nirmal wherein the A1 confessed to have committed this theft along with other thefts at Nirmal, Jagitial and at other places and he further confessed that he has kept the stolen articles with

JMFC 7

CC No.644 of 2018

A2 and A3 at Kinwat thaluka at Maharashtra state. Whereas the confession made by accused by self incriminating himself is not acceptable as per the law provided under Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

14.PW5 who is said to be one of the mediator while conducting confession-cum-recovery panchanama has deposed that on 5.07.2018 at 7.30 pm, police conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama of A1 at

PS Velpoor, wherein A1 confessed to have committed this offence along with other thefts and he has kept the gold and silver ornaments to A2 and

A3, and they have given Rs.90,000/-. From that amount he has purchased

LED TV, cooler, Home theater and two set up boxes and two remotes and he spent the remaining amount. Thereafter the accused had led them and the police to Kinwat to the house of one Panthulu and there the police has recovered 8 tulas of gold ornaments and silver ornaments by prepearing the panchanama and from there the accused has led them to his house at

Ramnagar, Adilabad and from there the police has recovered LED TV, cooler, home theater, two set up boxes and two remotes from the house.

Though he has stated that the police has recovered 8 tulas of gold ornaments and silver ornaments from the house of panthulu. But the investigating officers has not made the efforts to examine the said panthulu as a witness. Moreover, in his cross-examination on the questions put forth by learned counsel for the accused, PW5 has admitted that he do not know the name of the police personnel who accompanied them. He has also admitted that he cannot say the house number of the said panthulu at Kinwat and he cannot say the exact ornament seized. He has also admitted that no one has weighed or certified the said ornaments. He has also admitted that the police has not shown him the receipts of the recovered LED TV, cooler, set up box or remote. Hence in view of above

JMFC 8

CC No.644 of 2018

discussion it can be stated that the evidence of PW5 is not worthwhile to incriminate the accused No.2 and 3 in this case.

15.PW6 who is said to be another mediator while conducting confession-cum-recovery panchanama has deposed that on 31.07.2018, at about 6.45 pm, police conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama of

A1 and A2 at the bus stand, Kinwat, wherein A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence and from there the A1 and A2 led them and the police to Tirupathi Jewellers situated at Balapur village of Hingoli District and there the police has recovered 4 pairs of silver anklets, one silver kumkuma barani, one pair of small silver kadiyalu, one gold necklace weighing about 2 ½ tulas, 3 gold rings weighing about 15 grams/MO.1 to

MO.10 by preparing the recovery panchanama. But in his cross- examination, he has admitted that he do not know the exact distance between the Armoor to the said Hingoli District and he cannot say the distance between Kinwat to Hingoli. He further admitted that the recovered items were not tested by the goldsmith to confirm whether it is really silver or gold ornaments or not and he do not know when the accused said to have hypothicated the said jewellery. Moreover, the police has not filed any documents from the said Munappuram gold finance to show that the accused has hypothicated the said stolen gold before the said finance company. Moreover no one from said finance company is examined as a witness to come to proper conclusion of the case. From the above discussion an adverse inference can be drawn in giving credit worth to the version of PW6, is to prove that he stood as the mediator while conducting confession-cum-recovery panchanama. Hence the evidence of

PW6 is not helpful to prove the charges charged against A2 and A3.

JMFC 9

CC No.644 of 2018

16.PW7 investigating officer, in his cross-examination, on the questions put forth by learned counsel for the accused has admitted that he has not recovered any receipts pertaining MO.11 to MO.15. He further admitted that he has not mentioned the house number of A1 in the panchanama/Ex.P11 and he has not examined the owner of the said house as a witness and he has not obtained CC TV footage from the Manippuram gold finance. He further admitted that he has not mentioned in the panchanama that he got weighed the gold and silver ornaments and he has not obtained any certificate from the concerned Municipality to show that Munappuram gold shop is situated at Balapur. He has also admitted that he has not examined any one from the surroundings shop of the said

Munappuram gold shop.

17.PW8 who is another investigating officer, in his cross-examination, has admitted that the said road where he has done the vehicle checking is a busy road and he has not examined anyone from the persons gathered while conducting confession-cum-recovery panchanama as a witness. He further admitted that they have made the weighing of the recovered gold and silver ornaments through the goldsmith pertaining to Armoor. Though he has stated that the recovered gold and silver ornaments were weighed through gold smith but the said goldsmith is not examined before this

Court to support the contention of PW8.

18.PW10 another investigating officer has admitted in his cross- examination that he has not examined the neighbouring persons to the scene of offence, as a witness and he has not mentioned the details of developing and taking print of the photos which was said to have taken by him from his cell phone and he has not filed the CD of the said photos.

JMFC 10

CC No.644 of 2018

PW11 who is the another investigating officer has admitted in his cross- examination that he has got weighed the case property/MO.1 to MO.10 through one gold smith and he has admittedly not filed any receipt showing that it were weighed and the said goldsmith is also not examined to prove the contention of the PW1. Hence it states about the lacunae in investigating the matter by the investigating officers/PW7, Pw8 and PW10 and it is fatal to the case.

19.Hence, in view of all the above discussion, it can be concluded that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused No.2 and 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.In the result: the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.411 IPC. Accordingly the accused No.2 and 3 are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 3 shall stand cancelled. The case property i.e.,

MO.1 to MO.15 which was already given to PW1/owner of the property vide Crl.M.P. No.670/2018, dated: 20.08.2018 shall be made absolute after lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to PA, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 22nd day of February, 2019.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW1: Jakkula Lingamaiah - complainant/victim PW2/LW6: Adhari Ganesh – panch witness for CDF PW3/LW10: Chadal Rajendhar – panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A1

JMFC 11

CC No.644 of 2018

PW4/LW8: Mohammod Mohiyddin – panch witness for confession panchanama PW5/LW11: Manchiryal Ramesh – panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama PW6/LW12: Oraganti Dhasarath – panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of A2 and A3 PW7/LW15: P.Ramana Reddy – Investigating officer/arrested A2 and A3 PW8/LW14: D.A.John Diwakar – Investigating officer/arrested A1 PW9/LW17: G.Rajeshwar Reddy – second investigating officer PW10/LW16: Ch.Vijay Kumar – first investigating officer PW11/LW18: M.Narsaiah – third investigating officer.

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: Complaint, dated: 6.03.2018 Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the photographs of MO.1 to MO.10 Ex.P4 to Ex.P8 are the photographs of MO.11 to MO.15 Ex.P9: Crime-details form, dated: 6.03.2018 Ex.P10: Certified copy of confession panchanama of A1, dtd: 5.07.2018 Ex.P11: Certified copy of recovery panchanama, dated: 6.07.2018 Ex.P12: Certified copy of recovery panchanama, dated: 6.07.2018 Ex.P13: Certified copy of confession panchanama of A1, dated: 31.5.2018 Ex.P14: Certified copy of confession panchanama, dated: 31.07.2018 Ex.P15: Certified copy of recovery panchanama, dated: 31.07.2018 Ex.P16: First information report, dated: 6.03.2018 Ex.P17 to Ex.P24 are the bunch of (8) photographs.

For Defence :- - NIL -

MOs MARKED

MO.1 is one gold necklace MO.2 is three gold rings MO.3 to MO.6 are four pairs of silver anklets MO.7 is one pair of silver toe rings MO.8 is one pair of silver small kadiyalu MO.9 is one kumkuma box MO.10 is one small silver bowl MO.11 is one cooler MO.12 is one TV MO.13 is Tata sky set up box MO.14 is one home theater MO.15 is two remotes.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

JMFC

Page 1 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

IN THE COURT OF ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE, ARMOOR

Present: Smt.Naseem Sultana, Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Dated this the 21st day of March, 2025

Sessions Case No 173 of 2024

Name of complainant:The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mupkal.

Name of Accused A1:Smt.Girmani Chandrakala W/o Saikrishna, aged 30 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occu: House- wife, R/o H.No.3-59, Kothapally village, Mupkal mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

A2:Chinthakayala Tirupathi S/o Nagaiah, aged 38 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occu: Agriculture, R/o H.No.2-85, Kothapally village, Mupkal mandal, Dist.Nizamabad

Charge:Under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC Plea of Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding:Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. MOs 1 and 2 shall be confiscated to the State and MO3 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri Khandesh Srinivas, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Armoor.

Accused defended by:Sri Aleti Gangadhar, Advocate for the accused.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 2 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

This case was committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, in PRC No.10 of 2024 (Crime No.63/2023 of PS Mupkal).

This case came before me on 20-03-2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Khandesh Srinivas, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri Aleti Gangadhar, Advocate

for the accused and upon hearing on both sides and having stood over

for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:

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

1.The accused No.1 and 2 are arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24-07-2023 at 10.30 a.m.

PW1/Smt.Girmani Sayamma went to the police station, Mupkal and lodged a complaint by stating that she is blessed with two sons and three daughters and that she has performed the marriage of her younger son/Girmani Saikrishna (deceased) with accused No.1. That since some days, her younger daughter-in-law/A1 is having illicit relationship with A2 and that she fled away alongwith A2 to somewhere. On that her younger son/deceased lodged a complaint at

Mupkal police station and a case was registered. That on 23-07-2023 the Mupkal police traced out her younger daughter-in-law/A1 and handed over to them. That on 23-07-2023 at about 9.00 p.m. A1 and

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 3 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

A2 quarreled with her younger son/Girmani Saikrishna, abused him in filthy language. Due to which her younger son/Girmani Saikrishna felt insulted and on 24-07-2023 at about 6.00 a.m. he left the house and at about 10.00 a.m. she came to know through the villagers that her younger son hanged with a lungi to the neem tree at the agricultural fields of Raja Venkati situated at the outskirts of Kothapalli village.

Hence, PW1 has lodged a complaint to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the complaint of PW1/Girmani Sayamma,

PW8/Ch.Bhaskara Chari, Sub-Inspector of Police, Mupkal police station has registered a case in Crime No. 63 of 2023 for the offence under

Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. Subsequently he has examined and recorded the statement of PW1, PW2 and LW3/G.Narsubai. On the same day, he has visited the scene of offence situated at the outskirts of Kothapally village at the agricultural fields of PW3/Pashapu Raja Venkati and there he has conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of the mediators, PW5/Battini Vigneshwar Goud and

LW7/Kothapally Rajeshwar and also drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence by seizing one lungi. Further he has taken the

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 4 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor photographs of the scene of offence and also the deceased and recorded the statements of other witnesses. Further he has also conducted the Inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the same mediators, at the scene of offence. Thereafter he has handed over the dead body of the deceased to the Medical Officer/PW7 for conducting Postmortem examination and he has collected the Post Mortem Examination report issued by PW7. That on 02-08-2023 he has apprehended A1 and

A2 at Gandhi statue situated at Mupkal village and on interrogation,

A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence and in pursuance of A1’s confession, he has seized one blue colour redmi cell phone from A1 and in pursuance of A2’s confession he has seized one black colour redmi cell phone from A2 under the cover of confession cum recovery panchanamas. Thereafter he has effected their arrest and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. Further he has addressed a letter to LW12/G.Jithender, Reliance Jio Infocomm

Limited, Hyderabad and LW13/Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited,

Hyderabad for furnishing the call data records of cell phones of A1 and

A2 vide cell phone Nos.8919579040 and 9908293892 respectively.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 5 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

That Lw12 has sent the call detail record through letter dated 26-02-2024 and a certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence

Act. After completion of investigation, he has filed the charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor, took cognizance of the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2. On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2 before the Court, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Armoor furnished the copies of documents to them as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and later, committed the case to the Court of

Sessions, Nizamabad, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and the Hon'ble

Prl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to Law. Accordingly the case was numbered as SC No. 173 of 2024.

5.On appearance of the accused No.1 and 2, charge for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC is framed against the accused No.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in their

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 6 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor vernacular language, who having understood the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to prove its case, got examined PW1 to

PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P22, MOs1 to 3. The evidence of

LW3/Smt.Girmani Narsubai, LW4/Smt.Jogu Mamatha, LW6/Pashapu

Rajeshwar, LW10/Madduri Vijay Kumar, LW12/G.Jithendar and

LW13/Nodal Officer, Bharathi Airtel Limited, Hyderabad is given up by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor.

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused No.1 and 2 and perused the record.

9.Point for consideration:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w

34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 7 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

POINT:

10.The prosecution ought to prove that the accused No.1 and 2 alleged to haveabused the deceased/Girmani Saikrishnain filthy language and abetted him to commit suicide, as such he died by hanging to a neem tree with a lungi. To prove the same, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PWs 7 and 8 and Exs.P11 to

P17.

11.On careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW1/Girmani

Sayamma who is the complainant and son of the deceased, who has set the law into motion by way of filing the complaint/Ex.P14 to the police, deposed that about one year ago, her son/Sai Krishna has committed suicide by hanging himself at the agricultural land situated at Kothapally village, due to financial problems and debts. She has further stated that she do not know anything about this case and that she has not lodged any complaint and she do not know the contents of the complaint and that she has merely put her thumb impression on a paper at the instance of police and that police did not examined her nor recorded her statement.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 8 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

12.PW2/Girmani Sunildev who is the elder brother’s son of the deceased, deposed that about 1 ½ years ago at about 7.30 a.m. or 8.00 a.m. he has received a phone call from his villagers who informed him that his paternal uncle, Sai Krishna has committed suicide at the agricultural lands of one Raja Venkati/PW3 by hanging himself with his lungi. As such, he went there and found that the deceased was dead.

He further deposed that the deceased has died due to financial problems and debts and that he do not know anything about this case and that police did not examined him nor recorded his statement.

13.As such, PWs 1 and 2 who are the material witnesses did not supported the prosecution case. On their cross-examination by the learned Addl. P.P., after obtaining permission from the Court, nothing trust-worth was elicited to prove the charges charged against the accused.

14.PW3/Pashapu Raja Venkati who is cited as witness and the owner of the agricultural fields wherein the deceased has committed suicide, has deposed that about 1 ½ years ago in the morning hours, he has received a phone call from his brother, who has informed him that Sai Krishna has committed suicide by hanging himself with his

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 9 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor lungi to one neem tree which is in his agricultural fields situated at

Kothapally village. He further deposed that the deceased has died due to the financial problems and debts and that he do not know anything about this case and that police has not examined him nor recorded his statement. Hence, PW3 also turned hostile and nothing trustworth was elicited on his cross examination by the learned Addl.Public

Prosecutor, after obtaining permission from the Court.

15. Coming to the evidence of PW4/Kothapally Rajeshwar and

PW5/Battini Vigneshwar Goud who are said to be the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and also Inquest panchanama, deposed that no crime details form was prepared nor any rough sketch was drawn nor any inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased, in their presence by the police in this case. They have deposed that about 1 ½ years ago at about 12.00 noon or 12.30 p.m.

they have signed on a blank paper at the instance of the police.

Though they have admitted their signatures reflecting on Crime details form and Inquest panchanama, but they have stated that they have signed on blank papers at the instance of the police and they do not know the contents of crime details form and Inquest panchanama.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 10 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

On their cross examination by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, they denied the suggestion that police conducted crime details form in their presence and also drawn the rough sketch in their presence.

They have also denied the suggestion that the police has conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and also denied that they are deposing false.

16.Coming to the evidence of PW6/V.Srinivas who is said to be one of the mediators while conducting confession cum recovery panchanama of A1 and A2, has stated that on 02-08-2023 at 11.30 a.m.

at Gandhi statue, Mupkal police has conducted confession cum recovery panchanama of A1 and on the same day at 12.30 p.m. at the same place conducted the confession cum recovery panchanama of A2 vide Exs.P11 and P12 respectively and in pursuance of their confession, police has seized MO1/blue redmi cell phone from the possession of A1 and from A2 seized black redmi cell phone. During the cross examination on the question putforth by the learned counsel

for accused, PW6 has stated that A1 and A2 has confessed to have

committed this offence in the police station in the presence of

Sub.Inspector of Police and that while A1 and A2 were giving the said

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 11 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor statements, then the Sub.Inspector of Police has simultaneously recorded their statements. Whereas the confession made before the police is not admissible in law. Further in his chief he has stated that the confession cum seizure panchanamas took place at Gandhi statute,

Mupkal. Whereas in his cross he has stated that A1 and A2 confessed to have committed this offence in the police station. As such, PW6 is giving two different versions with regard to the place of conducting confession cum recovery panchanamas. Furthermore, PW6 has admitted that he cannot say the cell phone numbers of A1 and A2 and also the model numbers of MO1 and MO2. As such, a doubt arises with regard to PW6 being stood as a mediator to the said confession cum recovery panchanamas and his evidence is not credit worthy to prove the charges charged against the accused.

17.Furthermore, though PW8, the Investigating Officer has stated that he has collected the call data record of the cell phones of A1 and A2 vide phone numbers 8919579040 and 9908293892. But he has not filed any document to show that these numbers belongs to A1 and A2 respectively.

Further in his cross on a question putforth by the learned counsel for the accused, PW8 has stated that he has not collected any messages in between

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 12 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

A1 and A2 by showing their illegal relationship. He has also admitted that he has not filed the call data record showing the particular timings of the phone conversations in between A1 and A2. As such, the call data record vide Ex.A20 is not helpful to prove the illicit relationship of A1 and A2.

Furthermore, no witness has stated anything with regard to the illegal relationship in between A1 and A2, including PW1, who is the mother of the deceased and the complainant.

18.Coming to the evidence of PW7/Dr.P.Srikanth, Medical Officer who has conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and issued Postmortem Examination report/Ex.P13, opining the cause of death as “hanging”. Though the evidence of PW7 coupled with

Ex.P13 proves the death of the deceased, but it does not prove that accused No.1 and 2 have abetted the deceased in committing suicide.

Moreover, PWs 1 to 3 who are material witnesses have categorically stated that the deceased/Girmani Saikrishna has committed suicide by hanging, due to financial problems and debts.

19.Hence their remains the evidence of PW8/Ch.Bhaskara Chary, the

Investigating Officer. There is no corroborating evidence supporting the version of PW8, as PWs 1 to 3, who are the material witnesses have turned

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 13 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor hostile and did not supported the prosecution case. Hence, it would not be proper to convict the accused basing on the sole uncorroborated testimony of PW8, who is the police personnel.

20.Hence, in view of the above discussion, it can be concluded that, the prosecution could not elicit any incriminating material against the accused No.1 and 2 to connect them with the offence. As such, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, against the accused No.1 and 2 and failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused No.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal.

21.In the result, accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. MOs 1 and 2 shall be confiscated to the State and MO3 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 21st day of March, 2025.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 14 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

LW1/PW1:Smt.Girmani Complainant and mother of the Sayammadeceased.

LW2/PW2:Girmani Sunildevwitness/elder brother’s son of the deceased

LW5/PW3:Pashapu Raja Witness Venkati

LW7/PW4:Kothapally Panch witness for scene of offence and RajeshwarInquest panchanama

LW8/PW5:Battini VigneshwarPanch witness for scene of offence and GoudInquest panchanama

LW9/PW6:Nalaboju SrinivasPanch for confession and recovery panchanamas of A1 and A2

LW11/PW7: Dr.D.SrikanthMedical Officer

LW14/PW8: Ch.Bhaskara ChariInvestigating Officer FOR DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of) FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Contents of the complaint.

Ex.P2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P6: Signature of PW4 on Rough sketch

Ex.P7:Signature of PW4 on Inquest panchanama

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page 15 of 15 Judgment in SC.No.173 of 2024 dt: 21-03-2025 on the file of the Asst. Sessions Judge’s Court, Armoor

Ex.P8:Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P9:Signature of PW5 on Rough sketch

Ex.P10:Signature of PW5 on Inquest panchanama

Ex.P11:Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1

Ex.P12:Confession cum recovery panchanama of A2

Ex.P13:Postmortem Examination report

Ex.P14:Complaint

Ex.P15:First Information Report

Ex.P16:Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P17:Rough sketch of the scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P18:Photographs of the scene of offence and the deceased (9 Nos)

Ex.P19:Inquest panchanama

Ex.P20:Call datails record

Ex.P21: Certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act

Ex.P22:Photographs of MO1 and MO2 (3 Nos) FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MOs. MARKED

MO1: Blue colour Redmi cell phone MO2: Black colour Redmi cell phone MO3: one lungi

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Asst. Sessions Judge, Armoor

Page No.1 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ARMOOR

Present: Smt.Naseem Sultana,

Senior Civil Judge, Armoor

Dated this the 26thday of March, 2025

O.S.No. 15 of 2024

[old O.S No. 59 of 2015]

Between:

1. Brahmarouthu Chandrashekar S/o Late Narsaiah, aged 41 years, Occu: Service R/o H.No.2-6-94, Pusalagally, Nizamabad.

2. Brahmarouthu Vishwateja W/o Late Giri Babu, aged 4 years, minor,

3. Brahmarouthu Nikhil S/o Late Giri Babu, aged 1 ½ years, minor. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are minors, represented through their next friend, guardian and natural mother Brahmarouthu Sujatha W/o Late Giri Babu, aged 33 years, Occu: House-wife,

4. Brahmarouthu Mahesh S/o Late Narsaiah, aged 38 years, Occu: Pvt.Service, All R/o H.No.2-6-94, Pusalagally, Nizamabad.

.. Plaintiffs

AND

1.Brahmarouthu Kishan S/o Limbagiri, aged 60 years, Occu: Carpenter, R/o H.No.3-9-24, Opposite Nakash Sangham, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

2.Brahmarouthu Narsaiah S/o Limbagiri, aged 58 years, Occu: Carpenter, R/o H.No.3-9-24, Opposite Nakash Sangham, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

3.Brahmarouthu Gangadhar S/o Limbagiri, aged 50 years, Occu: Carpenter, R/o H.No.3-9-24, Opposite Nakash Sangham, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

4.Brahmarouthu Narsingrao S/o Laxminarsaiah, aged 48 years, Occu: Carpenter, R/o H.No.3-2-21, near Markandeya temple, Kotagally, Nizamabad.

5.Brahmarouthu Chittibabu S/o Vittal, aged 45 years, Occu: Carpenter, NTR colony R/o H.No.1-31/1/, Balkonda village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad.

6.Brahmarouthu Poshetty S/o Limbagiri, aged 50 years, Occu: Panter, R/o H.No.2-6-94/1, Pusagally, Nizamabad.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.2 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

7.Brahmarouthu Manoj S/o Chittibabu, aged 20 years, Occu: Carpenter,R/oH.No.1-31/1,Nakashgally,Balkonda, Dist.Nizamabad.

8.Sangu Madhuri W/o Sai, aged 22 years, Occu: House-wife, R/o Puranapet, mandal Bheemgal, Dist.Nizamabad. [Defendants No.7 and 8 are added as per the orders in I.A.No.357 of 2022 dated 05-07-2022]

.. Defendants

This suit coming before me on 21-03-2025 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Yerram Ganapathi, Sri Yerram Vignesh and Sri Y.Satish Kumar Goud, Advocates for the plaintiffs and Sri P.Dayakar Varma, Advocate for the defendants and after having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for Perpetual Injunction.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows: the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the open place with shattered mud walls admeasuring 2471.44 Sq.yards, hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘A’ property and an old shattered house admeasuring 1472.44 Sq.yards, situated at Nakashgally, Balkonda village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad, hereinafter referred to “suit schedule ‘B’ property”. The suit lands were inherited by the plaintiffs through Late Brahmarouthu Narsimlu S/o

Narsaiah, his son Late Brahmarouthu Limbagiri S/o Narsimlu and his son

Late Brahmarouthu Narsaiah.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.3 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

3.It is submitted that the properties of Late Brahmarouthu

Narsimlu were partitoned long back in between his two sons Late

Narsimlu and Late Limbagiri. The properties of Late Limbagiri were partitioned in between his two sons Narsaiah and Poshetty long back. It is further submitted that the open place with shattered mud walls admeasuring 2471.44 Sq.yards situated at Nakashgally, Balkonda village and an old shattered house admeasuring 1472.44 Sq.yards situated at Nakashgally,Balkonda village and mandal, i.e,. the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands fell to the share of Late Narsaiah. The father of plaintiff No.1 viz., Narsaiah died during the year 2009. After his death the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ lands were succeeded by his sons

Chandrashekar, Giri Babu and Mahesh. Giribabu died six months ago and after his death, his two minor sons succeeded to the suit schedule lands. They are Brahmarouthu Vishwateja/plaintiff No.2 and

Brahmarouthu Nikhil/plaintiff No.3, who are in joint possession of the suit schedule lands. The plaintiffs are in continuous peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands.

4.It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are settled at

Nizamabad and by taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the defendants are representing the people that the suit schedule

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.4 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 properties are their own and they are the only legal heirs. Whereas, there are no legal heirs, except the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the plaintiffs have recently came to know that the defendants are mis-representing the people and trying to dispose the suit schedule lands by negotiating the price for the suit schedule lands on 02-05-2015 with the intending purchasers. The neighbours intervened in between and made it public that the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties belong to the plaintiff. As such, there is every chance that the defendants taking undue advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs may dispossess the plaintiffs. That the acts of the defendants are illegal, unwarranted and unauthorised. The defendants have no right to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs by force and without due process of law. Hence, this suit.

5.The defendants No.1 to 6 has filed the written statement by denying the allegations made in the plaint by the plaintiffs. It is denied that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties and it is also denied that the plaintiffs has inherited the total suit lands through Brahmarouthu Narsimlu. It is also denied by the defendants that Brahmarouthu Narsimlu has partitioned his properties in between his sons and that Late Limbagiri has

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.5 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 partitioned his properties among his two sons i.e., the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.6.

6.It is also denied that the suit schedule lands fell to the share of late Narsaiah and that after the death of Narsaiah, the plaintiffs have succeeded the suit schedule lands.

7.It is further submitted that the plaintiffs are never in joint possession over the suit lands and that the suit schedule lands originally were the ancestral properties of both the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6, but it is not partitioned till date. Infact, the lands were acquired through their grandfather Limbagiri and after his death, it is in joint possession of the plaintiffs father and defendants. The plaintiffs has filed this false suit by mis-representing the facts. That the plaintiffs showed the pedigree in the plaint, but they did not showed that the actual and total existing land and out of total land how much land was inherited by their father. As such, the plaintiffs has suppressed the facts and putforth a false claim in the suit. As the suit lands got much potential value, keeping this in view the plaintiffs has filed this suit to grab the suit lands. It is further submitted that the documents filed by the plaintiffs are no way concerned with this case and that the plan filed by them does not disclose the suit schedule

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.6 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 property existing and the boundaries which mentioned in appended to the plaint. Though the plaintiffs showed in the pedigree that the defendants are the co-parcenors to them, but they have not showed any of the defendants to any side of the suit schedule properties boundary. That the plaintiffs are claiming the total suit schedule properties by filing this false suit and that they have not paid proper court fee. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

8.On the basis of the pleadings in the plaint and written statement, the following issues were framed :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties i.e., (open place with shattered mud walls admeasuring 2471.44 Sq.yards and old shattered house admeasruing 1472.44 Sq.yards, both situated at

Nakashgally, Balkonda village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad) within the prescribed boundaries as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3. If so, to what relief ?

9.At the event of trial, the plaintiffs got examined plaintiff No.1 as

PW1 and also got examined PWs 2 and 3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. But the evidence of PW2 was eschewed.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.7 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

Whereas defendant No.6 got himself examined as DW1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

10.After completion of the recording of evidence, this Court heard the arguments for the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and learned counsel for the defendants.

11.Having heard and perused the record, this Court proceeded to decide the issues as under:

12.ISSUE No.1: The plaintiffs has filed the suit for injunction in respect of the open place with shattered mud walls admeasuring 2471.44 Sq.yards situated at Nakashgally, Balkonda (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘A’ property) and an old shattered house admeasuring 1472.44 Sq.yards, situated at Nakashgally, Balkonda village and mandal, Dist.Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule ‘B’ property). It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners and possessors of the suit lands and that the defendants and their men are interfering into their peaceful possession. In order to establish their claim, the plaintiff No.1 got himself examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. In support of the evidence of the plaintiffs, PW2 and PW3 were also examined, but the evidence of Pw2 was eschewed, as he has not appeared for his

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.8 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 cross examination. PW3 has supported the contention of the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit lands and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule lands.

The plaintiffs sought reliance on Exs.A1 to A7 documents. Ex.A1 is original copy of Urdu document executed on 2nd Bahman, 1344 Fasli of the registered sale deed, Ex.A2 is the original copy of Urdu document i.e., Agreement dated 10-06-1952, Ex.A3 is the original translation of

Urdu document in English of the registered sale deed, Ex.A4 is the original copy of Urdu document with regard to the permission letter

dated 16th Asfandar, 1344, Ex.A5 is the original copy of the translation

of Urdu document in English of the Agreement dated 10-06-1952,

Ex.A6 is the original copy of translation of Urdu document in English of the permission letter by N.Narsimlu and Ex.A7 is the original copy of property tax receipt dated 29-03-1976. It is also admitted by PW1 in his cross examination that Ex.A3 (which is translation copy of Ex.A1) shows that his great grandfather has purchased the open land situated at

Balkonda. He has also admitted that the said document Ex.A3 does not show that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

PW1 has also admitted in his cross examination on the question putforth by the learned counsel for the defendants that as per Ex.A4,

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.9 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 whose translation copy in English vide Ex.A6, the receipt which reflects the name of the great grandfather viz., Narsimlu and that either himself or his father are not related with the said documents. Whereas

Ex.A2, for which Ex.A5 is the true translation copy pertains to the divorce of one Gangubai which is no way related with the suit schedule properties. Even PW1 has also admitted that Ex.A5 is the divorce deed, which is no way concerned with the suit schedule lands. Ex.A7 is the municipal tax receipt issued by Municipality, Nizamabad in the name of one B.Linganna for the house bearing No.2-5-468/1. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he do not know whether Ex.A7 belongs to the suit schedule lands or not. Further PW1 has clearly admitted in his cross examination on the question putforth by the learned counsel for the defendants that Exs.A1 to A7 does not disclose about the inheritance of suit schedule property to his father from his forefathers. Hence, admittedly the documents Exs.A1 to A7 does not prove that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. Moreover, the said documents does not show the survey number and extent and that no single document disclose the name of the plaintiffs or their father’s name as owner and possessor of the suit schedule lands. Moreover, it has been admitted by

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.10 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 the PW1 in his cross examination that his paternal uncle,

Poshetty/Defendant No.6/DW1 also has a share in the suit schedule properties.

13.Whereas, it is the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs are never in joint possession over the suit schedule properties and that the suit schedule lands and other properties were the ancestral properties of both the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 6 and the same is not partitioned till date and the suit schedule properties were acquired through their grand father Limbagiri and after his death, it is in joint possession of the plaintiff’s father and defendants. It is also their contention that though the plaintiffs have shown the pedigree in the plaint, but they did not show that the actual and total existing land and out of total land how much land was inherited by their father.

14.Furthermore, it is no where mentioned in the pleadings of the plaintiffs that the defendants have interfered or tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit schedule lands. It is also admitted by PW1 in his cross examination that he has not mentioned in his plaint averments that on 03-05-2015 the defendants interfered into the suit schedule properties, though it is mentioned in his chief affidavit. Though it has

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.11 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 been mentioned in the cause of action sub-heading in the plaint that on 02-05-2015, the cause of action arose when the defendants and their henchmen negotiating the sale price to alienate the suit schedule property and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs, but no evidence is putforth to prove the said contention. Moreover, the plaintiff

No.1/PW1 has also admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed any partition deed which took place among his father and grandfathers. PW1 further admitted that he cannot say the boundaries of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the plaintiffs could not prove the cause of action against the defendants. Moreover, the counsel for the defendants has relied upon the case law in between Anathula

Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others in AIR 2008, SC 2033, wherein it is held that “Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff’s title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff’s title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.12 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024 plaintiff’s lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.”

15.As such, the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that in a suit for permanent injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without the declaration of title, when the plaintiff’s title is in dispute. In the present case also, there is a dispute with regard to title of the plaintiffs, as the plaintiff No.1/PW1 himself has admitted in his cross examination that his paternal uncle/Poshetty/defendant No.6 also have a share in the suit schedule properties.

16.Hence, on careful consideration of the entire evidence of PWs 1 and 3, coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 and the evidence of DW1, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima facie case and the balance of convenience in their favour and also failed to prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit. The defendants have rightly rebutted the plaintiffs evidence in material particulars about the suit lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief muchless the relief of injunction and that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiffs.

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.13 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

17.ISSUE No.2: In view of my finding in Issue No.1, the plaintiffs are not entitled for Perpetual Injunction against the defendants. Hence,

Issue No.2 is answered in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

18.ISSUE No.3: In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court, on this the 26th day of March, 2025

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Brahmarouthu Chandrashekar DW1: Brahmarouthu Poshetty PW2: Polakonda Madhukar PW3: Penti Balraj

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of the) FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is original copy of Urdu document executed on 2nd Bahman, 1344 Fasli of the registered sale deed, Ex.A2 is the original copy of Urdu document i.e., Agreement

dated 10-06-1952,

Ex.A3 is the original translation of Urdu document in English of the registered sale deed, Ex.A4 is the original copy of Urdu document about the permission letter dated 16th Asfandar, 1344, Ex.A5 is the original copy of the translation of Urdu document in English of the Agreement dated 10-06-1952,

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

Page No.14 of 14 Judgment in OS No. 15 of 2024

Ex.A6 is the original copy of translation of Urdu document in English of the permission letter by N.Narsimlu Ex.A7 is the original copy of property tax receipt dated 29-03-1976.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor

Senior Civil Judge,

Armoor.

CC No.202 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR

Present: Smt Naseem Sultana, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Armoor.

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2019

CC. NO.202 OF 2016

Between : The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S., Armoor.

...Complainant

//AND//

Pashapu Janardhan @ Armoor Janardhan, S/o Mallaiah, Age: 52 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agril., R/o H.No.6-44/1/A Anksapoor village of Velpoor mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 18-02-2019 in the presence of APP for the prosecution and Sri V.Jagadeeshwar Reddy, Advocate for accused and being stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivers the following:

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

Accused is arraigned before this Court for the offence U/secs.337 and 338 IPC. This is a case of causing accident to the Auto bearing No.TS- 01 UA 4661 of PW9 by the accused due to his rash or negligent act in the form of driving of I20 Car bearing No.AP 25 AD 9099 and dashed to the said Auto from opposite direction, due to which the passengers of the said

Auto i.e., PW1, PW3 and PW4 has received grievous injuries, whereas PW2 has received simple injuries, for which the police, Armoor registered a case in Cr. No.73/2016 for the offences punishable U/secs.337 and 338 IPC against accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that, on 13.03.2016, PW9 who is the

Auto driver has boarded the passengers/PW1 to PW4 in his auto at Armoor

CC No.202 of 2016

and while they were proceeding to Velmal village and on the way at about 5-00 pm, when they reached near rice mill in the Issapally village, in the meantime the accused who was the driver of I20 Car bearing No.AP 25 AD -9099 drove it in rash and negligent manner towards Armoor and hit to the Auto bearing No.TS 01 UA 4661 of PW9 from its opposite direction, due to which, the passengers of the auto i.e., PW1 to PW3 received grievous injuries and PW4 received simple injury. Hence LW1/Gadhari

Praveen requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the report of LW1/Gadhari Praveen, PW10/Inspector of police, P.S. Armoor registered a case in Cr. No.73/2016 for the offence punishable U/sec.337 IPC, by issuing the FIR and then handed over the case CD file to PW12 for further investigation. PW12/Sub-Inspector of police, Armoor has received the case CD file from PW10 and took up the further investigation. During the course of investigation, PW12 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence situated at Issapally village, there he has conducted Crime Detail Form in the presence of the mediators and drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence in the CDF itself. On 15.03.2016 he has served the notice

U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C on the accused and the accused appeared before him at police station and on interrogation of the accused, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and he has verified the driving license of the accused and the documents of the crime vehicle, then he has released him on his furnishing required sureties and PW12 gave requisition to the

MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. Later on 28.03.2016 he has visited the

Velmal village, there he has examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and later PW12 has received the medical certificates of PW1 to

PW4 from PW6 to PW8/medical officers and as per the medical certificates

CC No.202 of 2016

of PW1, PW3 and PW4 has received grievous injuries, hence he added the

Section 338 IPC also. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/secs.337 and 338 IPC.

4.This Court took cognizance of the offences U/secs.337 and 338 IPC against the accused. On appearance of the accused, case copies are furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. The accused is examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C by explaining the substance of the accusation for the offences punishable U/secs.337 and 338 IPC for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In support of its case, prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-12 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P110 are marked on its behalf. PW1 to PW4 are the eye witnesses and the injured. PW5 is the owner of the crime vehicle. PW6 to

PW8 are the medical officers. PW9 is the eye witness and driver of the

Auto. PW10 is the first investigating officer. PW11 is the motor vehicle- inspector. PW12 is the second investigating officer. The prosecution has filed a report by submitting that LW1/Gadhari Praveen has went to abroad for his livelihood and it is not known that when he will return, whereas the police Armoor has not made the efforts to serve the summons on

LW8/A.Bhupati Reddy and LW9/K.Sathyam Reddy even after giving several opportunities, hence considering the same, the evidence of LW1, LW8 and

LW9 are closed. Ex.P1 is the receipt. Ex.P2 is the portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5. Ex.P3 is the medical certificate of PW4. Ex.P4 is the medical certificate of PW1. Ex.P5 is the medical certificate of PW2. Ex.P6 is the medical certificate of PW3. Ex.P7 is the first information report. Ex.P8 is the MVI report. Ex.P9 is the crime-details form. Ex.P10 is the complaint.

CC No.202 of 2016

6.After the closure of prosecution's evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C., to which he denied all the allegations leveled against him and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination are:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/secs.337 and 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.The prosecution is required to prove that the accused being the driver of I20 Car bearing No.AP 25 AD 9099 drove the same in rash or negligent manner and hit to the Auto bearing No.TS 01 UA 4661. Due to which, the PW1, PW3 and PW4 received grievous injuries and PW2 received simple injuries.

10.PW1 who is said to be material witness and the injured has categorically deposed that on 13.03.2016, he, himself along with PW2 and

PW4 were proceeding from Armoor to Velmal village in an auto and when their auto reached at Issapally rice mill and in the meantime one car came from their opposite direction from the Aloor village side driven by its driver in a wrong route in very speed manner has hit to their auto. As such their auto fell down, due to which he received injuries to his teeth and his two tooth were dislocated. PW2 received injuries on her forehead, right hand and PW4 received injuries on her left foot and he was shifted to Happy dental hospital, Nizamabad. He further stated that there were 12 to 15 other passengers in the auto, who also received injuries. The registration number of the auto is 4661 and the registration number of the crime car is

CC No.202 of 2016

AP-25-AD-9099 and the accused was the driver of the crime car. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that police has shown the accused as the driver of the crime car on the day of his giving evidence, outside the

Court hall. He has also admitted that he is not having prior acquaintance with the accused. He has also admitted that he has not stated the descriptive particulars of the accused in his statement before the police.

As such the evidence of PW1 is not helpful in incriminating the accused in this case.

11.PW2 who is another injured has deposed that on 13.03.2016, she, herself along with PW1 and PW4 were proceeding from Armoor to Velmal village in an auto and there were other 10 other passengers also and when their auto crossed Issapally village and in the meantime one car came from their opposite direction driven by its driver in a very speed manner and has hit to their auto. As such their auto fell down and she received injuries on her forehead, right hand. PW1 received injuries to his teeth and his two tooth were dislocated. PW4 received fracture injuries on her left leg and she was shifted to Aparna Hospital, Armoor and PW1 was shifted to one dental hospital at Nizamabad and PW4 was shifted to RR Life Line,

Nizamabad. The registration number of their auto is 4661 and the registration number of the crime car is 9099 and that the accused was the driver of the crime car. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she sat on the back seat of the auto and there were 5 to 6 other passengers apart from them. Hence as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, it is difficult to see what is coming from the opposite direction as she has sat on the back seat of the auto. Moreover,

PW1 and PW2 has merely stated that the car driver drove it in a very speed manner. Whereas to prove an offence U/secs.337 and 338 IPC the

CC No.202 of 2016

rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle in driving it has to be proved.

12.PW3 who is another injured has deposed that about 2 ½ years ago, while she, herself along with PW1, PW2, PW4 were proceeding in an auto from Armoor towards Velmal village and on the way when their auto crossed the Issampally village, in the meantime one car came from their opposite direction and hit to their auto. As such their auto fell down and she received fracture injuries to her two legs. PW1, PW2 and PW4 were also received the injuries. Accused was the driver of the crime car. She has clearly stated that she do not know the registration number of the crime car and in her cross-examination, she has admitted that one bus came infront of their auto and from behind it the crime car came.

Whereas PW1 and PW2 has no where stated about it. Further PW3 has no where stated about the driving of the said car in rash or negligent manner and caused the accident. As rashness or negligence are the essential ingredients to prove an offence U/sec.337 or U/sec.338 IPC. Moreover,

PW3 has admitted that she has identified the accused as PW2 has shown the accused on the day of her giving evidence. Hence her evidence is not credit worth to prove the prosecution case against the accused.

13.PW4 who is the another injured has deposed that on 13.03.2016, while, she herself along with PW1 to PW3 were proceeding in an auto from

Armoor towards Velmal village and on the way when their auto reached near the Issampally village near one rice mill, in the meantime one car came from their opposite direction driven by its driver in a very speed manner and hit to their auto. As such their auto fell down and she received fracture injuries to her right leg. PW1 received fracture injuries to his two

CC No.202 of 2016

legs. PW2 received injuries on her right eyebrow. PW3 received injuries to her ribs. PW9 was the driver of their auto and the registration number of the auto 4661. The registration number of the car is 9099 and the accused was the driver of the crime car. In her cross-examination, she has clearly stated that there is no culvert at the scene of offence, whereas

PW1 to PW3 has stated that there is a culvert bridge at the scene of offence. As such the version of PW4 is not supported by the versions of

PW1 to PW3 with regard to the scene of offence. PW4 has also admitted that she is not having prior acquaintance with the accused prior to the said accident and that she has witnessed the driver on that day, after she has seen him on the date of said accident. Whereas admittedly no test identification parade of the accused took place in this case, hence in such circumstances, it is very difficult to believe the versions of PW1 to PW4 in identifying the accused as the driver of the crime car.

14.PW5 who is said to be the owner of the crime vehicle has categorically stated that in the month of March, 2016, his father/accused has informed him that while he was returning from Macharla village to

Anksapur village and on the way when he reached at Issampally village at rice mill then one auto came from its opposite direction to over take the bus and by seeing the car of the accused, the auto driver tried to take the auto aside which is overloaded with passengers, as such he lost the control and the auto fell down. PW5 is the owner of the crime car but he is a circumstantial witness. Hence his evidence is not worthwhile to incriminate the accused in this case.

15.PW9 who is the driver of the auto has deposed that on 13.03.2016, while he was proceeding by driving an auto from Armoor to Velmal village

CC No.202 of 2016

and on the way, when their auto reached at Issapally village at the rice mill, in the meantime one car came from his opposite direction driven by its driver in a very speed manner in a drunken condition and hit to their auto. As such their auto fell down and the four passengers who sat in the auto received injuries and his two teeth were dislocated. He has clearly stated that he cannot identify the driver of the crime car, as such he has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. Moreover PW9 went ahead and stated that the driver of crime car was in a drunken condition, whereas no other witness has stated about it.

16.PW11/motor vehicle inspector has clearly stated that in one auto, four passengers can travel at a time and that as per the rules no one must sit beside the driver. Whereas as per the versions of PW1 to PW4, there were more than four passengers in the auto and admittedly one person each sat on either sides of the driver, hence it cannot be denied about the negligence of the part of the auto driver.

17.PW12/Investigating officer has admitted in his cross-examination, that it is no where mentioned in the complaint that the alleged crime vehicle is the Alto car. He has further admitted that the alleged accident occurred on 13.03.2016 and the complaint was lodged with a delay of about one day but admittedly he has mentioned in column No.8 of

FIR/Ex.P7 that there is no delay in lodging the complaint. Hence neither the prosecution could not prove the reasons for the said delay. Whereas as per the decided law, if a complaint is lodged with a delay and if no reasons are attributed for the same then it is fatal to the case, in the present case also the lodging of the complaint with a delay is fatal to the case. He has further stated that there were four persons in the said auto at the time of

CC No.202 of 2016

said accident and he do not know that there were about 15 to 16 passengers in the said auto at the time of said incident. He has also admitted that he do not know whether the two passengers were sitting on the either side of the driver of the auto at the time of said incident and that the said incident occurred in the outskirts of Issapally village near one rice mill. He has also admitted that as per his investigation LW1/G.Praveen is not the eye witness but admittedly LW1/G.Praveen neither mentioned in his complaint nor stated in his statement that through whom he came to know about the said accident. He has further admitted that he has not mentioned the name of the crime car as Alto car in his charge sheet and he has not sent the auto for being inspected by the MVI. He has also admitted that he has not collected the driving license of the auto driver/PW9 nor collected the documents pertaining to the said auto nor filed it before this Court. Hence it states about the lacunae in investigating the matter by the investigating officer.

18.Hence, in view of all the above discussion, it can be concluded that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.In the result: the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.337 and 338 IPC. Accordingly the accused is acquitted

U/sec.255(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Dictated to PA, transcribed by him and after its correction, pronounced by

me in open Court on this the 19th day of February, 2019.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.

CC No.202 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :-

PW1/LW3: Master Vadla Manoj – injured/eye witness PW2/LW4: Vadla Laxmi – injured/eye witness PW3/LW6: Gadhari Suguna – injured/eye witness PW4/LW7: Vadla Manusha – injured/eye witness PW5/LW5: Pashapu Mahesh @ A.Mahesh – owner of the crime vehicle PW6/LW12: Dr.M.Sahith – medical officer PW7/LW11: Dr.Ankit Agarwal – medical officer PW8/LW10: Dr.G.Prakash – medical officer PW9/LW2: Haziz – eye witness PW10/LW14: K.Seetharam – first investigating officer PW11/LW13: G.Ashwanth Kumar – motor vehicle inspector PW12/LW15: V.Santhosh Kumar – second investigating officer.

For Defence :- -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution :-

Ex.P1: Receipt, dated: 17.03.2016 Ex.P2: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, dated: 16.03.2016 Ex.P3: Medical certificate of PW4 Ex.P4: Medical certificate of PW1 Ex.P5: Medical certificate of PW2 Ex.P6: Medical certificate of PW3 Ex.P7: First information report, dated: 14.03.2016 Ex.P8: MVI report, dated: 17.03.2016 Ex.P9: Crime-details form, dated: 14.03.2016 Ex.P10: Complaint

For Defence :- - NIL -

MOs MARKED

- NIL -

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ARMOOR.