Sri P.j.theja Saai

Page 1 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur

Thursday, the 13th day of July, 2023

C.C.No.233of 2011

(Cr.No. 50 of 2011 of Srisailam I Town Police Station)

Between

The State: Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police,

Srisailam I Town Police Station …..Complainant

And

1.Sivaiahswami, aged 55 years, S/o Venkaiah Swamy, R/o Suryanandi, Manikgiri, Yanagondi, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga Post, Karnataka State.

2.Jaga Jevan Reddy, aged 49 years, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy, H.No.18/4/738, Aliyabad, near Charminar, Hyderabad.

3.JeediRamulu, aged 40 years, S/o Shanappa, Driver of Jeep, Manikeswarimatha Sri Sukha Ashramam, Srisailam.

4.Telugu Buchappa, aged 49 years, S/o Malkappa, Yanagondi Village, Gulbarga District, Karnataka State.

5.Y. Veeresh, aged 26 years, S/o Sankarappa, Cook, Yanagondi, Sedam Taluk, Gulbarga District,

Karnataka State. ….. Accused

This case is coming before me on 13.07.2023for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri T.

Rama Krishnudu, Learned counsel for the Accused no.1 to no.5, and upon hearing

Page 2 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

arguments on both sides, upon considering the material on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The State: Sub-Inspector, Srisailam I Town Police Station, filed Police

Report against the accused no.1 to 5 in Crime No. 50 of 2011 for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506, 109r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “IPC”).

2.Accused no.1 surrendered before this court on 12.09.2011 and he was released on bail. PW.2 arrested the accused no.2 to no.5 on 15.09.2011, and released them on bail after obtaining self-bail bonds.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under sections 323, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPCagainst the accused no.1 to no.5.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents were furnished to the

Accused No. 1 to 5, as required under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.Accused No. 1 to 5 were examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C, read over and explained the accusation in Telugu for the offences under sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. It is relevant to mention that Accused no.1 to no.5 ought to have been examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C as the punishment under sections 323, 506 of IPC is less than two years. This Court is of the view that the same is not fatal to the case of the

Prosecution. Section 109 of IPC is deleted while framing the charge in the present case.

6.During the trial, to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined LW.3/M.

Sivaram as PW.1, LW.4/K.Nageshwara Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police as

PW.2, LW.1/MallalaSubba Rao as PW.3. The death certificate of LW.2/Avula

Reddy was filed on 27.07.2022. Exhibits P1 to P5 are marked on behalf of the prosecution.Ex.P1 is the FIR dated 12-08-2011. Ex.P2 is the statement of LW.1

Page 3 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

(PW.3) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3 is the statement of LW.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P4 is the Rough Sketch dated 25.08.2011 (note: it is signed with

date 12.08.2011). Ex.P5 is the Report given by PW.3 dated 12.08.2011. Exhibits

D1 to D3 are marked on behalf of the Defence. Ex.D1 is the report of the SDPO,

dated 27.02.2023. Ex.D2 is the report dated 02.11.2021 along with the letter

addressed by the PW.3 dated 20.04.2021. Ex.D3 is the CA application dated 05.11.2021. Ex.C1 is marked during the examination of PW.3 by this court. Ex.C1 is the underlined portion in statement of PW.3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No. 1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., this court read over and explained the incriminating material against them from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in Telugu. They denied the same and reported no evidence in defence.

8.Heard the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the Accused no.1 to no.5.

9.During the course of arguments, the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution proved that the accused No. 1 to 5 had committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The Learned Counsel

for the Accused no.1 to no.5 argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove

the guilt of the accused and prays to acquit the accused.

10.Though not necessary for adjudication of the present case, this court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant docket orders(in brief) of the present case:

a.On 07.04.2014, a memo was filed stating that stay is granted vide CRLP No.

9037 of 2011 on the file of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

b.On 03.10.2018, both the parties were directed to get ready in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1375-1376 of 2013 and the circular of the Hon’ble High Court vide ROC No.2573/OP cell- 2018.

c.On 19.03.2021, summons were issued to LW.1 (PW.3), LW.2, LW.3 (PW.1).

Page 4 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

d.On 02.11.2021, LW.1 (PW.3) was directed to appear on a conditional order on the next date of adjournment failing which steps would be taken to compel his appearance.

e.On 15.11.2021, the Police filed a report dated 15.11.2021 stating that summons were not served to LW.1(PW.3).

f.On 09.12.2021, an official memorandum was directed to be issued to the

SDPO to effect the service of summons to LW.1 (PW.3).

g.On 22.03.2022, office was directed to address fresh summons to be served through the SDPO.

h.On 11.04.2022, Policefiled a report dated 11.04.2022 along with report given by VRO, Sunnipenta village and the Ward Secretary, Guntur stating that whereabouts of LW.1 (PW.3) are unknown. The police were directed to effect service of summons to LW.1 (PW.3) through proper procedure as early as possible.

i.On 08.06.2022, Fresh Summons were issued to LW.1 to LW.4.

j.On 27.07.2022, Special report dated 12.07.2022 is filed by the police along with the report of the concerned VRO that the whereabouts of LW.1 (PW.3) are not known. Hence, the evidence of LW.1(PW.3) was closed. Death certificate of LW.2 is filed. LW.3 is examined as PW.1.

k.On 01.12.2022, LW.4 is examined as PW.2. Evidence of Prosecution is closed.

l.On 07.12.2022, Accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. Heard arguments. The case was posted for judgment on 13.12.2022.

m.On 13.12.2022, received a copy of alleged complaint from LW.1(PW.3) stating that the police filed a report stating that his whereabouts are unknown but he is available and police wrongly failed the said report. The case was adjourned for hearing of Learned APP on the complaint received.

n.On 27.12.2022, notice was issued to the concerned SHO.

o.On 09.01.2023, HC.No.2847 appeared before the court and filed an explanation by the SHO dated 09.01.2023. though the Learned APP stating that they have submitted the reports and original copies through proper channel.

p.On 12.01.2023, this court suo motu recalled the evidence of LW.1 (PW.3) under section 311 of Cr.P.C as his evidence appears to be essential to the just decision of the case. Summons to LW.1 (PW.3) were directed to be issued through Registered Post with acknowledgement due and also through the

Page 5 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

SDPO, Atmakur. The SDPO, Atmakur is directed to file a report of causing service of summons to LW.1(PW.3).

q.On27.02.2023, Registered Post to LW.1 (PW.3) is returned with endorsement “no such addressee in this door number” and SDPO also filed a report dated 27.02.2023. The case was adjourned for hearing on the report.

r.On 06.06.2023, It was stated by the police that LW.1 (PW.3) will be present on 12.06.2023. the case was adjourned at request and for hearing on the report.

s.On 12.06.2023, LW.1 (PW.3) did not appear.

t.On 22.06.2023, upon hearing the learned APP and upon pursuing the record, this court came to the opinion that summons could not be served on LW.1 (PW.3) despite best attempts. The learned APP and the Learned Counsel for the Accused were informed to argue about the invocation of power under

Section 258 of Cr.P.C. on the next date of adjournment.

u.On 06.07.2023, LW.1 was present and was examined as PW.3 v.On 10.07.2023, Accused no. 1 to no.5 were examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C w.On 11.07.2023, Heard the arguments of both sides and posted for further hearing.

11.Now the points for determination are:

I. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused No.1

to 5 for the offence under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

a. Whether the accused No.1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention,

voluntarily caused hurt to PW.3?

II. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused No.1

to 5for the offence under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all

reasonable doubt?

a. Whether the accused No.1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention,

threatened PW.3?

b. Whether such threat consisted of some injury to PW3, with an intent

to cause alarm to PW.3?

Page 6 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

Evidentiary Factors for Determination:

12.PW.1/M. Sivaramdeposed in his chief examination that he knows all the accused and they work in the same ashramam at main branch in Yanagondi of

Karnataka State. On 11.08.2011, all the accused came to their branch at Srisailam and talked to PW.3 and went away. On the same day after 9:00 P.M, when PW.1 was in ashramam, he heard some shouts outside of Ashramam. When he came out, he found all the accused quarrelling with PW.3.

13.PW.2/K.Nageswara Rao,the then Sub-Inspector of Police deposed in his chief examination that on 12.08.2011 at 11:00 A.M., while he was in police station, he received a written complaint. On 25.08.2011, after receipt of permission from

Hon’ble JMFC, he started his investigation. He left the police station and visited

the scene of offence. He examined LW.1(PW.3), LW.2 and LW.3 (PW.1) under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C. LW.1 (PW.3) disclosed the names of the Accused no.2 to no.5 in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C and he prepared the rough sketch at scene of offence.

14.During the cross examination of PW.2/K.Nageswara Rao,the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, he deposed that the distance between the Srisailam I Town PS and manikeshwariMatha Ahsramam is about 1 km and it takes 30 minutes by walk from the scene of offence to the police station. It is true that LW.1 (PW.3) did not mention the name of PW.1 in his complaint vide Ex.P5. It is true that LW.1 (PW.3) stated only the name of accused no.1 but did not mention the names of other accused in his complaint vide Ex.P5. He forwarded the complaint to Hon’ble

JMFC on the same day of complaint through post. It is true that statements of

LW.1(PW.3), LW.2, LW.3 (PW.1) under section 161 of Cr.P.C and Ex.P4 were recorded and prepared on 12.08.2011. He adds that 12.08.2011 is mentioned by mistake instead of 25.08.2011.

15.PW.3/MallalaSubba Rao deposed in his chief examination that on the day of ugadi, 2011, the committee members of Manikeswari Matha Ashram asked him to look after the Goshala as a caretaker. On 11.08.2011, at about 8:00 A.M to 9;00

A.M., accused no.1 asked him to leave the ManikeswariMathaAshramam and he

Page 7 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

told accused no.1 that he will leave the ashramam premises if the committee members who appointed him ask him to leave the premises. on 11.08.2011, at about 9:00 P.M., the accused no.1 and his followers came to his room and knocked the doors and upon opening, they necked him out of his room and also accused no.1 abused him in filthy language. He cannot exactly remember the followers of accused no.1 but accused no.1 and his followers took him almost 100 feet from his room, by beating him on his head, neck and back. His spectacles also broke when they pushed him. He was also pushed form a step which is 2 feet height and pathala Ganga is situated around 10 feet from there. There was chance that he might have fallen there. He ran away from the scene of offence to the Srisailam I

Town Police Station.

16.During the cross examination of PW.3/MallalaSubba Rao, he deposed that he was not given any written appointment letter by the committee members of

ManikeswariMathaAhsram. He added that his appointment was recorded in the minutes of the executive committee meetings. He did not verify the credentials of the members of the above said committee. He gave report vide Ex.P5 at around 10:00 P.M to 10:30 P.M on the date of incident. Police have gone to the scene of offence that day itself to enquire the same.

17.During the examination of PW.3/MallalaSubba Rao under Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act, he deposed that he does not know the accused no.2 to no.5. Police examined him after 2 to 3 days of the date of incident. He does not know the details of accused no.2 to no.5 as on the date of his examination by the police. He stated in his report vide Ex.P5 that his spectacles broke when accused pushed him.

18.PW.3/MallalaSubba Raoin his report vide Ex.P5, mentioned that the committee members of ManikeswariMatha Ashram appointed him in the Goshala as a caretaker. On 11.08.2011 morning, accused no.1 asked him to leave the

ManikeswariMathaAshramam and he told accused no.1 that he will leave the ashramam premises if the committee members who appointed him ask him to leave the premises. On 11.08.2011 at about 9:00 P.M., accused no.1 and his followers abused him in filthy language, necked and pushed him out, beat him and pushed him from the steps. He ran way and came to the police station.

Page 8 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

19.Ex.P5 was received on 12.08.2011 at 11:00 hrs by PW.2. It is mentioned in

Ex.P5 by PW.2 that the ingredients of the complaint are non-cognizable offences and he will take up investigation after getting permission from the Hon’ble court.

Point No. I& II:

20.Appreciation of evidence and reasons thereof, for point No. I& II are interrelated to each other and for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the three points are clubbed together. This court is of the view that that there are rival claims among the committee members of ManikeswariMatha Ashramand the same is evident from Ex.P5 and the deposition of PW.3.

21.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of PW.1to PW.3coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5.

22.PW.1 deposed in hischief examination that on 11.08.2011, after 9:00 P.M, when he was in ashramam, he heard some shouts outside of Ashramam. When he came out, he found all the accused quarrelling with PW.3. The deposition of PW.1 is very vague. There is no whisper in the deposition of PW.1 that accused no.1 to no.5 caused hurt to PW.3. There is also no whisper in the deposition of PW.1 that accused no.1 to no.5 threatened PW.3. Moreover, PW.3 in his report vide Ex.P5 did not state the presence of PW.1 at the scene of offence. The deposition of PW.1 is also silent about his subsequent conduct whether PW.1 tried to pacify the quarrelling or informed the police immediately. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1is not helpful to the case of the prosecutionin the present facts and circumstances of the case.

23.PW.2 is the investigating officer who deposes about the manner in which he received the complaint and the investigation is conducted. Hence, the entire case of the prosecution effectively rests on thesole testimony of PW.3.

24.This court noticed the following discrepancies in the testimony of PW.3, after going through the material on record:

Page 9 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

i.PW.3, in his examination by the court deposed that he does not know the details of accused no.2 to no.5 as on the date of his examination by the police, whereas Ex.C1 is the underlined portion of the statement of PW.3 under

Section 161 of Cr.P.C wherein he stated the details of accused no.2 to no.5.

ii.PW.3, in his chief examination stated that he was also pushed form a step which is 2 feet height and pathala Ganga is situated around 10 feet from there, whereas PW.3in his report vide Ex.P5did not mention the same.

iii.PW.3, in his cross examination deposed that he gave report vide Ex.P5 at around 10:00 P.M to 10:30 P.M on the date of incident i.e., 11.08.2011, whereas PW.2 stated in his chief examination that he received the written complaint on 12.08.2011.

iv.PW.3, in his cross examination deposed that police have gone to the scene of offence that day itself i.e., 11.08.2011 to enquire the same, whereas PW.2 stated in his chief examination that he started his investigation on 25.08.2011, after receipt of permission from Hon’ble JMFC.

v.PW.3, in his examination by the court deposed that the police examined him after 2 to 3 days of the date of incident i.e.,11.08.2011, whereas PW.2 admits that thestatement of PW.3 was recorded on 12.08.2011. The dates mentioned by the PW.3 do not correlate with dates mentioned by PW.2.

vi.PW.3, in his chief examination stated that his spectacles also broke when accused pushed him, whereas PW.3in his report vide Ex.P5 did not mention the same.

vii.The sequence of events mentioned in chief examination of PW.3 and Ex.P5 does not correlate with each other.

25.The above discrepancies assume greater significance as there are rival claims among the committee members of ManikeswariMatha Ashram which is evident from Ex.P5 and the deposition of PW.3. Therefore, this court holds that the evidence of PW.3, PW.2 and Ex.P5, are not corroborated with each other. Hence,

Page 10 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

the testimony of PW.3is unreliable and it does not inspire confidence. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in The State of Himachal Pradesh v. Trilok Chand and Ors. reported in

AIR 2001 SC 2328, wherein it was held as follows:

“Contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are fatal for the case, though minor discrepancies or variance in their evidence will not disfavour [See: State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj MANU/SC/0714/1999 : (2000) 1 SCC 247]. Considering the circumstances of the case on hand, it can be said that the discrepancies are comparatively of a major character and go to the root of the prosecution story. We cannot therefore ignore them to give undue importance to the prosecution case. It is well settled that the Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence [See: Sukhdev Yadav v. State of Bihar, MANU/SC/0561/2001: (2001) 8 SCC 86].”

26.When there are there are rival claims among the committee members of

ManikeswariMatha Ashram which is evident from Ex.P5 and the deposition of

PW.3, the prosecution has a duty to produce independent witness in view of the fact that the incident happened at Ashram.The prosecution produced PW.1 who is an independent witness but his evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution in the present facts and circumstances of the case, for the reasons stated supra. It is no more res integra that if the sole testimony of the injured witness is trustworthy and reliable, then non-examination of other witnesses is not by itself fatal to the prosecution case. However, as stated supra, the testimony of

PW.3does not inspire confidence and is not reliable. Therefore, the present facts and circumstances of the case warrant examination of independent witness besides

PW.3.Hence, this court is of the opinion that non-examination of independent witness, to corroborate the case of the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

27.In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in TakhajiHiraji v. Thakore KubersingChamansing and Ors.

reported in AIR 2001 SC 2328, wherein it was held as follows:

Page 11 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

“19. So is the case with the criticism leveled by the High Court on the prosecution case finding fault therewith for non-examination of independent witnesses. It is true that if a material witness, which would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness which though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non- examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the Court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The Court of facts must ask itself -- whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the Court can safely act upon it uninfluenced by the factum of non-examination of other witnesses.”

28.There is also no whisper about the details of the accused no.2 to no.5 either in the Ex.P5 or in the deposition of PW.3. PW.3 in his chief examination deposed that he cannot exactly remember the followers of accused no.1. Therefore, there is a doubt cast upon the involvement of accused no.2 to no.5 on the alleged date of incident. Moreover, PW.2 admitted that the statements of PW.3, LW.2, PW.1 under section 161 of Cr.P.C were recorded andEx.P4 was prepared on 12.08.2011 but adds that 12.08.2011 is mentioned by mistake instead of 25.08.2011. This also raises a serious doubt on the manner in which PW.2 conducted the investigation in the present case. In this context, this court is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramakant Rai v. Madan Rai. reported in AIR 2007

SC 77, wherein it was held as follows:

“Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence,or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely

Page 12 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common-sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.”

29.There is also no reason forthcoming from the prosecution, as to why the

Ex.P5 was received by PW.2 on 12.08.2011, at 11:00 A.M., after almost 12 hours from the admitted time of incident more particularly when the police station is about 1 km from the scene of offence, as per PW.2 and when PW.3 specifically deposed in his chief examination that he ran away from the scene of offence to the

Srisailam I Town Police Station.

FINDING:

30.Having regard to the above referred judgments, the material on record and the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW.1 to PW.3 coupled with Exhibits P1 to P5 are not sufficient to prove that (i) the accused no.1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to PW.3, (ii) the accused no.1 to 5, in furtherance of common intention, threatened PW.3.

31. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused no.1 to 5for the offences under sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt. Point no. I& II are answered in favour of the accused no.1 to 5 and against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused no.1 to 5 are entitled for acquittal.

32.In the result, Accused No.1 to Accused No.5are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted for the same under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 5 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per the provision under Section 437 (A) of Cr.P.C. There is no order for disposal of property as no property was seized and produced before this court.

Typed in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13thday of July, 2023.

Sd/- Sri P.J. Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur

Page 13 of 14 C.C.No. 233of 2011 JMFC, Atmakur

Dt:13.07.2023

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: M. Sivaram

P.W.2: K. Nageshwara Rao, the then Sub-Inspector of Police

P.W.3: MallalaSubba Rao

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: FIR dated 12-08-2011

Ex.P2:Statement of LW.1 (PW.3) under Section 161 Cr.P.C

Ex.P3: Statement of LW.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C

Ex.P4: Rough Sketch dated 25.08.2011 (note: it is signed with date 12.08.2011)

Ex.P5:Report given by PW.3 dated 12.08.2011

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1: The report of the SDPO, dated 27.02.2023

Ex.D2:The report dated 02.11.2021 along with the letter addressed by the PW.3

dated 20.04.2021

Ex.D3: The CA application dated 05.11.2021

FOR COURT:

Ex.C1: The underlined portion in statement of PW.3 under section 161 of Cr.P.C

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- Sri P.J. Theja Saai

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur // True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur

Page 14 of 14 O.S.No. 84 of 2022 JCJ, Atmakur

Dt:19.06.2023

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Principal Asst. Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Dis. No. ________Dated________.

// True Copy //

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Atmakur

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR

PRESENT: SRI P.J. THEJA SAAI,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

Monday, the 12th day of August, 2024.

P.R.C. No.45/2023

State represented by Sub Inspector of police,

Atmakur P.S .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Shaik Khaja Hussain, age 27 years, S/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

2. Shaik Shahirun Bee, age 49 years, W/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

3. Shaik Pedda Vali, age 55 years, S/o.Late Pedda Hussainsa.

All are residents of Pedda Anantapuram village,

Atmakur mandal. .. Accused

This case came on 01-08-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Kurnool for the State and of Sri K. Govinda Reddy, advocate

for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this court passed the

following:

O R D E R

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S has filed charge sheet in crime

No.202/2018 for the offences punishable Under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused no.1 to 3

2. This case was taken on file against Accused for the offences punishable

Under Sections 498-A & 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by the then Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur. On appearance of the Accused no.1 to 3 copies of

documents relied upon by the prosecution was supplied to them as required U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Heard. Perused the record. The material relied on by the prosecution prima facie reveals that the Accused no.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

sessions, Kurnool. Hence, this case is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Kurnool, under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The Accused no.1 to 3 were released on bail as per the orders of the then Hon’ble IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.1872/2018 dated, 20-12-2018. Hence, Accused are on bail as per the provisions of Section 209(b) of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The office is directed to submit the entire case record and the material objects, if any, to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool, as per the provisions of

Section 209 ( c) of Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool, is notified about the commitment of the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool under Section 209(d) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

7. When the accused no.1 to 3 are questioned about their means to engage a defense counsel on their behalf to defend them in the case before the Hon’ble Court of sessions, they stated that they have means to engage a defense counsel before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

8 In the result, the case against Accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal

Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case

records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is hereby notified under section 209 (d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of August, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.12-08-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.45/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.45/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.202/2018, U/Sec. 498-A & 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S as the case against the accused no.1 to 3 is committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.12-08-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.45/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.45/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.202/2018, U/Sec. 498-A & 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S as the case against the accused no.1 to 3 is committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

F O R M NO.35.

Notice of commitment by the Magistrate to the Public Prosecutor

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

P.R.C. No. 45/2023

in Cr.No. 202/2018 of Atmakur police station.

Between.

State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S.

Cr.No.202 /2018 of Atmakur police station. .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Shaik Khaja Hussain, age 27 years, S/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

2. Shaik Shahirun Bee, age 49 years, W/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

3. Shaik Pedda Vali, age 55 years, S/o.Late Pedda Hussainsa.

All are residents of Pedda Anantapuram village,

Atmakur mandal. ... Accused

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur hereby given notice that they committed the above noted case for trial at the next Sessions, and the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District instructs the Public

Prosecutor to conduct the Prosecution of the said case.

The charge sheet against the accused no.1 to 3 are for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Atmakur.

To,

The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool.

Extract of Register No.26 in P.R.C.45/2023 on the file Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Atmakur.

1.Name of the caseP.R.C.45/2023 2Name of the accused.1. Shaik Khaja Hussain, age 27 years, S/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

2. Shaik Shahirun Bee, age 49 years, W/o Shaik Pedda Vali.

3. Shaik Pedda Vali, age 55 years, S/o.Late Pedda Hussainsa.

All are residents of Pedda Anantapuram village, Atmakur mandal

3.Substance of occurrence Under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.Name of the complainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S. 5Name of the prosecutionVide separate list enclosed. witnesses 6Names of defence witnesses None

7.Summary of the facts proved orVide separate committal order. confessed. 8Result of the EnquiryThis case is committed to the Court of

Sessions, Kurnool Division, Kurnool

U/s.209(a) Cr.P.C.

9.Date of offence 13-11-2018 10Date of complaint 14-11-2018 11Date of apprehension 20-11-2018 12Date of closing of enquiry12-08-2024

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Diary Extract in P.R.C. No. 45/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District

26-12-2023 This case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 to 3. Issue summons to the accused by 23-01-2024.

23-01-2024A1 to A3 present. Copies are furnished to Accused no.1 to 3, for sureties call on 6-2-2024.

6-2-2024A1 to A3 present. Sri KGR filed Memo of Appearance for A1 to A3, for sureties call on 27-2-2024.

27-2-2024A1 Present. A2 and A3 absent. P.O is on training case is posted to 30-4-2024.

30-04-2024A1 and A3 called present. A2 called absent. P.O is on training case is posted to 19-6-2024.

19-6-2024A1, A3 present, A2 absent, petition is filed and allowed at request, for sureties call on 9-7-2024.

9-7-2024A1 called absent, A2 and A3 called present, for sureties, P.O is on training case is posted to 24-7-2024.

24-07-2024A1 to A3 present. Sureties are furnished for consideration call on 1-8- 2024.

1-8-2024A1 to A3 present. For consideration call on 12-8-2024 12-08-2024Accused no.1 to 3 are called present. Case copies furnished under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard. Perused. Committal order is pronounced in the open court. (VSO)

In the result, the case against Accused no.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused no.1 to 3 are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is

hereby notified under section 209 (d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 45/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Shaik Khaja Hussain 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days

2. Shaik Shahirun Bee 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days

3. Shaik Pedda Vali 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days __________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 45/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Shaik Khaja Hussain 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days

2. Shaik Shahirun Bee 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days

3. Shaik Pedda Vali 20-11-2018 22-12-2018 32 days __________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR

PRESENT: SRI P.J. THEJA SAAI,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

Monday, the 12th day of August, 2024.

P.R.C. No.27/2023

State represented by Sub Inspector of police,

Atmakur P.S .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Thota Anjaneyulu @ Tota Anjaneyulu S/o Eranna, age 35 Years, R/o Nagalooty gudem Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal.

2. Thota Naganna @ Tota Naganna, age 37 years, S/o Veeranna

@ Eranna, Nagalootygudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal. .. Accused

This case came on 30-07-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Kurnool for the State and of Sri U. Sreedhara Adiga, M. Hussainaiah, advocates for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S has filed charge sheet in crime

No.257/2022 for the offences punishable Under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused no.1 and 2.

2. This case was taken on file against Accused for the offences punishable

Under Sections 326 & 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by the then Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur. On appearance of the Accused no.1 & 2 copies of

documents relied upon by the prosecution was supplied to them as required U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Heard. Perused the record. The material relied on by the prosecution prima facie reveals that the Accused no.1 & 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 326 & 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The offence under section 307 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

sessions, Kurnool. Hence, this case is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Kurnool, under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The Accused no.1 & 2 were released on bail as per the orders of the then Hon’ble Court of Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.No.1496/2022 dated, 07-12-2022. Hence, Accused are on bail as per the provisions of Section 209(b) of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The office is directed to submit the entire case record and the material objects, if any, to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool, as per the provisions of

Section 209 ( c) of Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool, is notified about the commitment of the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool under Section 209(d) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

7. When the accused no.1 & 2 are questioned about their means to engage a defense counsel on their behalf to defend them in the case before the Hon’ble Court of sessions, they stated that they have means to engage a defense counsel before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

8 In the result, the case against Accused no.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the

Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure

Code. The Accused are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is hereby notified under section 209

(d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12 th day of August, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.12-08-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.27/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.27/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.257/2022, U/Secs. 326 & 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S as the case against the accused no.1 and 2 is committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.12-08-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.27/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.27/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.257/2022, U/Secs. 326 & 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S as the case against the accused no.1 and 2 is committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

F O R M NO.35.

Notice of commitment by the Magistrate to the Public Prosecutor

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

P.R.C. No. 27/2023

in Cr.No. 257/2022 of Atmakur police station.

Between.

State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S.

Cr.No.257 /2022 of Atmakur police station. .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Thota Anjaneyulu @ Tota Anjaneyulu S/o Eranna, age 35 Years, R/o Nagalooty gudem Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal.

2. Thota Naganna @ Tota Naganna, age 37 years, S/o Veeranna @ Eranna, Nagalootygudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal

... Accused

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur hereby given notice that they committed the above noted case for trial at the next Sessions, and the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District instructs the Public

Prosecutor to conduct the Prosecution of the said case.

The charge sheet against the accused no.1 & 2 are for the offences under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code of Atmakur P.S.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Atmakur.

To,

The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool.

Extract of Register No.26 in P.R.C.27/2023 on the file Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Atmakur.

1.Name of the caseP.R.C.27/2023 2Name of the accused.1. Thota Anjaneyulu @ Tota Anjaneyulu S/o Eranna, age 35 Years, R/o Nagalooty gudem Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal.

2. Thota Naganna @ Tota Naganna, age 37 years, S/o Veeranna @ Eranna, Nagalootygudem, Byrlooty, Atmakur Mandal

3.Substance of occurrence Under Sections 326, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.Name of the complainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Atmakur P.S. 5Name of the prosecutionVide separate list enclosed. witnesses 6Names of defence witnesses None

7.Summary of the facts proved orVide separate committal order. confessed. 8Result of the EnquiryThis case is committed to the Court of

Sessions, Kurnool Division, Kurnool

U/s.209(a) Cr.P.C.

9.Date of offence 16-11-2022 10Date of complaint 16-11-2022 11Date of apprehension 18-11-2022 12Date of closing of enquiry12-08-2024

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Diary Extract in P.R.C. No. 27/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District

20-09-2023 This case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs.326 and 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused no.1 and 2. Issue summons to the accused by 5-12-2023.

5-12-2023A1 and A2 present. Copies are furnished to A1 and A2, for sureties call on 21-12-2023.

21-12-2023A1 and A2 present. P.O is on C.L, hence case is posted to 8-2-2024.

8-2-2024A1 and A2 present. At request for sureties call on 14-3-2024 14-3-2024A1 and A2 absent. P.O is on training, case posted to 27-3-2024 27-3-2024A1 and A2 absent. P.O is on training, case posted to 19-4-2024 19-4-2024Accused absent. Petition filed and allowed. At request for sureties and committal call on 26-06-2024.

26-6-2024A1 and A2 present. P.O is on training, case posted to 30-7-2024 30-7-2024A1 and A2 present. Old sureties continued as per memo for consideration call on 12-8-2024.

12-08-2024Accused no.1 & 2 are called present. Case copies furnished under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard. Perused. Committal order is pronounced in the open court. (VSO)

In the result, the case against Accused no.1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 326 & 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused no.1 & 2 are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is

hereby notified under section 209 (d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 27/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Thota Anjaneyulu 18-11-2022 09-12-2022 21 days

2. Thota Naganna 18-11-2022 09-12-2022 21 days __________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 27/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Thota Anjaneyulu 18-11-2022 09-12-2022 21 days

2. Thota Naganna 18-11-2022 09-12-2022 21 days __________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ATMAKUR

PRESENT: SRI P.J. THEJA SAAI,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

ATMAKUR.

Monday, the 05th day of February, 2024.

P.R.C. No.13/2023

State represented by Sub Inspector of police,

Pamulapadu P.S .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Ediga Ranga Swamy Goud @ E. Rangaswami S/o Ediga Chinna Venkata Swami Age 55 years.

2. Ediga Narasimha Goud @ Rangaswami, S/o E. Rangaswami, age 28 years, H.No.22/186,

Valmiki Nagar, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool .. Accused

This case came on 05-02-2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, Kurnool for the State and of Sri C. Venkateswarlu, advocate

for the accused no.1 and 2 and having stood over for consideration, this court

passed the following:

O R D E R

1. The Sub-Inspector of police, Pamulapadu P.S has filed charge sheet in crime No.171/2020 for the offences punishable Under Sections 448, 307, 326 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the Accused no.1 and 2

2. This case was taken on file against Accused no,.1 and 2 for the offences punishable Under Sections 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code by the then Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur. On appearance of the Accused no.1 and 2 copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution was supplied to them as required U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3. Heard. Perused the record. The material relied on by the prosecution prima facie reveals that the Accused no.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The offence under section 307 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

sessions, Kurnool. Hence, this case is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court,

Kurnool, under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. The Accused no.1 and 2 were released on bail as per the orders of the then Hon’ble VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in Crl.M.P.1079/2020 dated, 26-11-2020. Hence, Accused are on bail as per the provisions of Section 209(b) of Criminal Procedure Code.

5.The office is directed to submit the entire case record and the material objects, if any, to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool, as per the provisions of

Section 209 ( c) of Criminal Procedure Code.

6. The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool, is notified about the commitment of the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool under Section 209(d) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

7. When the accused no.1 and 2 are questioned about their means to engage a defense counsel on their behalf to defend them in the case before the Hon’ble Court of sessions, they stated that they have means to engage a defense counsel before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

8 In the result, the case against Accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of

Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal

Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case

records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is hereby notified under section 209 (d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Typed to my dictation directly by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 05 th day of February, 2024.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.05-02-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.13/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.13/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.171/2020, U/Sec. 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code as the case against the accused no.1 and 2 are committed to the

Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

Office of the Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Dt.05-02-2024

From To Sri. P.J. Theja Saai, The Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge Judl. Magistrate of I Class Kurnool. Atmakur.

Honoured Sir,

Sub:- Courts – Criminal – Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur – Entire Case records in P.R.C. No.13/2023 on the file of this Court – Submitted – Regarding. - - - I submit herewith the entire case records in P.R.C.No.13/2023 on the file of this Court connected in Cr.No.171/2020, U/Sec. 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code as the case against the accused no.1 and 2 are committed to the

Honourable Court of Sessions, Kurnool.

Yours faithfully,

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur

F O R M NO.35.

Notice of commitment by the Magistrate to the Public Prosecutor

on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur.

P.R.C. No. 13/2023

in Cr.No.171/2020 of Pamulapadu police station.

Between.

State represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Pamulapadu P.S.

Cr.No.171 /2020 of Pamulapadu police station. .. Complainant.

Versus

1. Ediga Ranga Swamy Goud @ E. Rangaswami S/o Ediga Chinna Venkata Swami Age 55 years.

2. Ediga Narasimha Goud @ Rangaswami, S/o E. Rangaswami, age 28 years, H.No.22/186,

Valmiki Nagar, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool ... Accused no.1 and 2

The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur hereby given notice that he committed the above noted case for trial at the next Sessions, and the

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District instructs the Public

Prosecutor to conduct the Prosecution of the said case.

The charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 are for the offences Punishable under Sections 448, 307, 326 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Atmakur.

To,

The Public Prosecutor, Kurnool.

Extract of Register No.26 in P.R.C.13/2023 on the file Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Atmakur.

1.Name of the caseP.R.C. 13/2023 2Name of the accused.1. Ediga Ranga Swamy Goud @ E. Rangaswami, S/o Ediga Chinna Venkata Swami Age 55 years.

2. Ediga Narasimha Goud @ Rangaswami, S/o E. Rangaswami, age 28 years, H.No.22/186,ValmikiNagar, Nandikotkur town, Kurnool

3.Substance of occurrence Under Sections 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4.Name of the complainantState represented by Sub-Inspector of police, Pamulapadu Mandal. 5Name of the prosecutionVide separate list enclosed. witnesses 6Names of defence witnesses None

7.Summary of the facts proved orVide separate committal order. confessed. 8Result of the EnquiryThis case is committed to the Court of

Sessions, Kurnool Division, Kurnool

U/s.209(a) Cr.P.C.

9.Date of offence 10-08-2020 10Date of complaint 11-08-2020 11Date of apprehension 04-11-2020 12Date of closing of enquiry05-02-2024.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Diary Extract in P.R.C. No. 13/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District

22-08-2023 This case is taken on file for the offences punishable U/Secs.448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2. Issue summons to the accused by 27-12-2023.

27-12-2023A1 and A2 present. Copies are furnished to A1 and A2 for sureties call on 25-1-2024 25-1-2024A1 and A2 present. A1 and A2 produced sureties for consideration call on 5-5-2024 05-02-2024A1 and A2 present, for consideration.

05-02-2024Accused no.1 and 2 are called present. Case copies furnished under section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. Heard. Perused. Committal order is pronounced in the open court. (VSO)

In the result, the case against Accused no.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 and 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court, Kurnool for trial under Section 209(a) of Criminal Procedure Code. The Accused are on bail, as per section 209 (b) of Criminal Procedure Code and are hereby directed to appear before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions after receipt of summons. The office is directed to submit the entire case records, property documents and material if any, of the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Kurnool under section 209 (c) of Cr.PC. The Public prosecutor is

hereby notified under section 209 (d) of Cr.PC about the committal of the case.

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 13/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Ediga Ranga Swami Goud 04-11-2020 28-11-2020 24 days

2. Ediga Narasimha Goud 04-11-2020 28-11-2020 24 days _______________________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

Statement showing the detention period of the Accused during the

investigation, trial or enquiry in P.R.C. No. 13/2023 on the file of the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, Nandyal District.

S.No. Name of the Date of Date of Remand

Accused Remand Release Period

1. Ediga Ranga Swami Goud 04-11-2020 28-11-2020 24 days

2. Ediga Narasimha Goud 04-11-2020 28-11-2020 24 days _______________________________________________________________________________

Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur.

JCJ, Atmakur Page 1 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR

PRESENT: Sri. P J THEJA SAAI, Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Wednesday, the 12thday of July, 2023

O.S.No.47of 2022

Between

1. Budda Leelavathamma, W/o Late B.Chandra Sekhar Reddy, aged about 38 years, Housewife,

2. Budda Naga Chandrika, D/o Late B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 17 years, minor,

3. Budda Naga Rakesh Reddy, D/o Late B. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Aged about 15 years, minor,

No.2 and no.3 are minors, Represented by their mother (Plaintiff no.1) as natural guardian.

All are Hindus, R/o D.No. 3-76, Regadaguduru Village, Velugodu Mandal, Kurnool District.

….. Plaintiffs

And

1. Budda Venkateswara Reddy, S/o Late Budda Rami Reddy, Hindu, aged about 46 years, Agriculturist,

2. Budda Ramulamma,W/o Late Budda Rami Reddy, Hindu, aged about 61 years, Housewife,

Both are r/o Regadaguduru Village, Velugodu Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.

` ….. Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 12.07.2023for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and the defendants had remained exparte, and upon hearing arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, upon considering the material available on record and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JCJ, Atmakur Page 2 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023

JUDGMENT

1. This is a suit is filed for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares with good and bad qualities and for delivery of possession of one such share to the plaintiffs and for costs.

2.Briefly, the case of the plaintiff as stated in the plaint, is that:

a.One Budda Ramireddy, S/o B. Subbareddy was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which he got the same in oral partition among his two sons and himself. He demised intestate on 30.12.2019. The defendant no.1 and one B. Chandrasekhar Reddy are the sons and the defendant no.2 is the wife of said B. Ramireddy. The said Chandrasekhar Reddy demised leaving behind the plaintiff no.1 (his wife) and plaintiff no.2 and no.3 (his children) as his legal heirs. The plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants. After the demise of the said B. Ramireddy, the plaintiffs have demanded their share in the properties of the said deceased B. Ramireddy and the defendants and the plaintiffs have come to an understanding that the land in

Sy.No.561/A3 to an extent of Ac 0.48 cents has to be given to the share of the defendant no. 2 and agreed to divide the plaint schedule property into two equal shares and one such share each to the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1.

b.Though all the parties to the suit have agreed for the above said understanding, the defendant no.1 again tried to mutate the name of him or the name of the defendant no.2 for the plaint schedule property in the revenue records clandestinely. On that, the plaintiff no.1 got issued a legal notice to the defendant no.1 and the Tahsildar, Velgode on 20.01.2022.

c.The plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 are having equal share in the plaint schedule property as the defendant no.2 is given the other property in Sy.No.

561/A3. So, the plaintiff no.1 on behalf of herself and plaintiff no.2 and no.3 demanded the defendants for partition and separate possession of their half share in the plaint schedule property but the defendants put deaf ear and not willing for partition of the plaint schedule property. So the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition and separate possession of their half share. Hence, this suit.

JCJ, Atmakur Page 3 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023

3.Summons through court were refused by the defendants. Therefore, the summons was deemed to be served to the defendants.Defendants were called absent and there was no representation. Hence, the defendants were set ex-parte on 25.03.2022.

4.To prove their case, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff no.1as Pw1, besides examining one Budda Nagalakshmi Reddy, the third party as Pw2. The Pw1 got marked: i. the attested copy of the Family Member certificate dated 28.12.2021. as Ex.A1, ii. the 1-B register issued by the Grama Sachivalayamdated 12.01.2022, as Ex.A2, iii. the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, BandiAtmakur dated 17.01.2022, as Ex.A3, iv. the office copy of the legal notice dated 20.01.2022, as Ex.A4, v. the postal receipts dated 20.01.2022 (two in number), as Ex.A5, vi. the acknowledgment cards dated 21.01.2022 (two in number), as Ex.A6

5.Perused the material on record and heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the points for determination are:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property, as prayed for?

(iv) To what relief?

Point No.(i) :

7.At the outset, it is relevant to mention that the plaintiff no.1 is the sister-in- law of defendant no.1 and is the daughter-in-law of defendant no.2.In order to substantiate their claim, the plaintiffs examined plaintiff no.1as Pw1 and her chief examination was filed by way of affidavit. Pw1 has reiterated all the averments of the plaint in all material aspects in her chief examination affidavit.Pw1 deposed that Late Budda Rami Reddy died on 30.12.2019 and the family member certificate of Late Budda Rami Reddy vide Ex.A1 reflect her name as daughter-in- law. Pw1 further deposed that the revenue records also reflect the name of the Late

Budda Rami Reddy with respect to the plaint schedule property vide Ex.A2. Pw1 also deposed that she got a legal notice issued to defendant no.1 and the Tahsildar,

Velgode vide Ex.A4 and the same were served on them vide Ex.A6. Pw2 supported the version of Pw1.

JCJ, Atmakur Page 4 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023

8.The defendants did not contest the matter and remained ex-parte, due to which Pw1 and Pw2were not cross examined. Therefore, the testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2 remain unrebutted.

9.This Court has no option except believing the testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2.

The oral evidence of Pw1 and Pw2, coupled with the Ex.A1 to A6, show that the plaintiffs are entitled for half share of suit schedule property. Hence, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

Point No.(ii) :

10.In view of the findings given by this court in point (i), the suit is to be preliminarily decreed with costs as prayed for.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs for partition of the plaint schedule property into two equal shares with good and bad qualities and that

Plaintiffs together are entitled for half share and Defendant No.1 is entitled for another half shareof the plaint schedule property.

Typed in my personal laptop, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12thday of July, 2023.

Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

P.W.1: Budda Leelavathamma P.W.2: Budda Nagalakshmi Reddy

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1: the attested copy of the Family Member certificate dated 28.12.2021 Ex.A2:the 1-B register issued by the Grama Sachivalayam dated 12.01.2022 Ex.A3: the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, BandiAtmakur dated 17.01.2022 Ex.A4: the office copy of the legal notice dated 20.01.2022 Ex.A5:the postal receipts dated 20.01.2022 (two in number)

JCJ, Atmakur Page 5 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023

Ex.A6:the acknowledgment cards dated 21.01.2022 (two in number)

FOR DEFENDANTS: - NIL -

Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

JCJ, Atmakur Page 6 of 6

O.S.No. 47of 2022

Dt:12.07.2023