Smt. P Mukthida

1

SC 177/2019

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT :: JAGTIAL

PRESENT: P.MUKTHIDA,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

Wednesday, the 31st day of July, 2019

SESSIONS CASE NO. 177 OF 2019

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S., Mallapur.

Name of the accusedNuligonda Chinna Mallaiah, S/o. Bhumaiah, 40 years, Munnurupaku, Occ: Coolie, R/o.Mallapur. Crime No.225/2017

Charges framedSections 448, 436, 453-A (2) of Indian Penal Code.

P.R.C. No.1/2019

Case committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the charge under Section 448, 436, 153- A(2) IPC,and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Mos.1 to 3 (Quran) and Mo4 (Prayer Mats and some burnt papers) shall be returned to PW1 after expiry of appeal time. The Superintendent Sub- Jail, Jagtial is directed to released the accused forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.

This case coming before me on 24-07-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for State, and Sri Ch.Rajender Rao, Advocate/Legal Aid Counsel for accused, upon pursuing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter 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 case committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Metpalli to the Court of Sessions Division, Karimnagar, under Sections 448, 2

SC 177/2019

436, 453-A (2) IPC by his order dated 22.03.2019 in P.R.C. No.1/2019 and made over to this Court by the Court of Sessions Division, Karimnagar for disposal in accordance with the law.

2.The S.I. of Police, P.S., Mallapur, charge sheeted the accused in

Cr.No.44/2015 for the offence under Sections 448, 436, 453-A (2) IPC. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that: The accused has trespassed into Jama

Masjid situated in the outskirts of Mallapur on 30.12.2017 from the back side and opened the grills, secured 15 Qurans, 16 Paras, 7 Janimas and other sacred books which was placed in a cupboard and put them on a bed sheet at the Imam standing place for doing prayers and set fire to them with match stick and to prevent his identity, he put helmet found inside the

Masjid and fled away from the scene and thus, he committed the offence under Sections 448, 436, 453-A (2) IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Metpalli took cognizance of the offence and after furnishing copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Division,

Karimnagar by his order dated 22.03.2019 in P.R.C. No.1/2019 and the same was made over by the Court of Sessions Division, Karimnagar to this

Court for trial and disposal.

4.On appearance of the accused and after hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused, this Court has

framed charges under Sections 448, 436, 453-A (2) IPC, against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has cited 16 witnesses to prove its case against the accused and has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and

Mos.1 to 4.

3

SC 177/2019

6.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charge under Sections 448, 436, 453-A (2) IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.PW1 is the complainant and president of Jama Masjid committee and

PW2 to 4 are caste elders and members of the said committee, Mallapur.

PW5 is a witness to Extra Judicial Confession of the accused, while PW6 has taken photographs of the scene at the request of Police P.S., Mallapur.

Pws.7 and 8 are mediators to the Crime Details Form, seizure panchanama and confession statement of accused respectively. PW9 is the investigating officer in the case. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 is that about 1 ½ years ago when they went to Jama Masjid for the early morning Namaz, they came to know that some unknown people burnt Quran Sharif and Janemaz, in the middle of night by putting the same at one place and the same was noticed by one Md.Jameel ul Hakh, the Imam and they doused the fire. PW1 stated that he found 15 Qurans and 7 Janemaz burning in the middle of the prayer hall and he along with people of his community, who came from the Namaz, and his villagers doused the fire and later he went to P.S. Mallapur and lodged a report under Ex.P1. PWs.1 to 4 denied knowledge as to who had committed the act and stated that they did not find any person suspiciously near the Masjid. PW6 testified that about 20 months ago, the Police

Mallapur called him to Masjid situated in the village and asked him to take photographs of the burnt books and other materials in the Masjid and accordingly he took Ex.P2 photographs and handed over to the S.I along with C.D. PW7 testified that about 1 ½ years ago some one burnt Qurans in the Masjid in his village and in that regard police came to the Masjid and recorded Crime Details Form in the presence of himself and one Syed Khaja 4

SC 177/2019

and seized the burnt Qurans and other material from the scene and obtained their signatures. He identified his signatures as witness No.1 on the Crime Details Form and on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and identified Mos.1 to 3. During cross examination it was elicited from him that he has no knowledge how many Qurans was burnt but he has seen partially burnt books and ash at the scene and being illiterate, he has no knowledge what was written on those books. He further stated that apart from Qurans he has also seen prayer mats at the scene and denied the suggestion that he signed on Ex.P3 and P4 in the P.S. The evidence of PW8 is that in January, 2018 at the time of Shivarathri festival all the villagers of

Mallapur went to Somanna Gutta and at night time they observed fire in the cattle shed of a villager of Mallapur and in that regard the Police P.S.,

Mallapur took him, one Dabba Ramesh, and the village sarpanch and others to the place of fire where they saw one Hanuman Flag, Helmet and an Iron rod and that police recorded panchanama in their presence and in the presence of accused and seized those things. He further stated that he was working as V.R.O. Mallapur at that time and that the Helmet that was found at the scene belonged to one of his officemen and that in February, 2018 there was an incident in the Masjid, situated opposite to M.R.O. Office,

Mallapur and when he went to the Masjid, he observed that some Qurans and prayer mats were burning. He further stated that he came to know that the accused had committed the incident in the Masjid but the accused did not confess before him about the Masjid incident and that the police did not call him with regard to that incident.

9.PW5 is a witness to the Extra Judicial Confession of the accused. His evidence is that on 14.02.2018, he asked the accused in his agricultural land, which is adjacent to his land, as he had seen the accused several 5

SC 177/2019

times in the evening hours in his land only and asked him on 14.02.2018, why he was not going home and what he was doing in that land, upon which, the accused confessed before him that he has set fire to the cattle shed of Yella Raji Reddy and Yenugu Hanumandlu of their village about 2 or 3 months prior to that day and on being questioned why he did so, the accused further confessed that both of them spoke against him in a panchayat and therefore, he damaged their cattle sheds. PW5 further deposed that the accused also confessed before him that when he went to

Kondagattu Temple, 2 Muslims snatched his phone, purse and cash and therefore, he wanted to teach them a lesson by causing damage and hence he set fire to prayer mats and Namaz books in the Masjid situated in his village Mallapur. PW5 also stated that on the next day there was

Shivarathri festival and that night when he went to Somanna Gutta, he observed fire in the cattle shed of Bundra Srinivas Reddy of his village and suspected that it might also be the act of accused and immediately called said Srinivas Reddy and his friend Dabba Ramesh on phone and told them to search for the accused in his agricultural land and when he later returned to the village at about 1.30 am and enquired from the Srinivas Reddy and

Ramesh whether they found the accused, he was informed that they did not go to the land of accused but searched on the main road. PW5 further testified that he immediately took Srinivas Reddy and Ramesh and went to

P.S. Mallapur and informed the S.I about the confession of accused and further told him that the accused might have set fire to the cattle shed of

Srinivas Reddy also and that he is likely to be found in his agricultural land and then, all of them including the S.I went to the land of accused and found him there and then the S.I interrogated the accused and took him to

P.S.

6

SC 177/2019

10. It was elicited in the cross examination of PW5 that Bundra Srinivas

Reddy and Ramesh are his friends and that the land of accused is adjacent to his land. However, he denied the suggestion that the accused quarreled with him as he encroached upon 5 guntas of land of the accused and further denied the suggestion that Yella Raji Reddy and Yenugu

Hanumandlu are also his friends. He further admitted that he stated before the Police that the accused has confessed before him that Yella Raji Reddy and Yenugu Hanmandlu did not give him Rs.200/- when he wanted to do

Somanna Vratham and denied the suggestion that the accused never confessed anything before him and that he was deposing false against the accused only because of the land disputes with the accused.

11. PW9 is the investigating officer in the case. His evidence in chief is that on receiving complaint from PW1, he registered a case in

Cr.No.225/2017 under Section 448, 436, 453-A (2) and issued FIR and took up investigation, recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 4 and one Md.Jameel ul Hakh, Syed Rafi, Md.Rafi and Md.Junaid and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of PW7 and one Syed Khaja and got the scene photographed by PW6 and seized Mos.1 to 4 from the scene. He further testified that on 14.02.2018, while he was investigating the case in

Cr.NO.26/2018 of P.S. Mallial under Section 436 IPC, he received information from PW5 about accused being present in the fields of Nallagonda Chinna

Mallaiah and he secured PW5, PW6 and PW8 and one Dabba Ramesh and went to the outskirts of Mallapur, apprehended the accused and interrogated him in the presence of panchas at which time the accused confessed committing the offence in this case. PW9 further stated that he recorded confession statements of accused in the presence of panchas and seized one orange flag and green flag, one match box and 2 iron rods from 7

SC 177/2019

the fields and then the accused led them to his house where he seized one orange flag in front of the house and stated that the accused confessed about taking one helmet in front of Masjid and that he threw it in the village bank. PW9 stated that they could not find the helmet even after searching and that the accused was involved in 5 crimes and he sent Mos.1 to 4 to

F.S.L for report and produced the accused before the concerned Court for

Judicial Remand in Cr.No.26/2018and on his transfer, he handed over the

C.D file to D.Pruthvidhar, S.I of Police, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

12.During cross examination, PW9 admitted that the complaint and FIR were given against unknown offenders and that PWs.1 to 4 and other witnesses examined by him gave their statements about unknown offender only and further stated that only basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, his role in the offence was established. He admitted that though he relied on the statement of PW5 to proceed with the case and has recorded the statement of PW5 in Cr.No.26/2018, he did not record the statement of PW5 under Section 161 Cr.P.C in this case. He denied knowledge whether the land of PW5 and the accused are abutting each other and whether there was land dispute between them regarding 5 guntas. He denied the suggestion that PW5 has only stated before him that he has suspicion on the accused but did not state that the accused committed the offence. PW9 stated that he recorded the statement of PW6 on 14.02.2018 in the land of accused but he has not taken photographs of the land of accused and did not examine neighbours of accused. He denied the suggestion that he has never visited the scene and that the accused was falsely implicated in several cases basing on the false statement of

PW5.

8

SC 177/2019

13.Admittedly, none has witnessed who has burnt the Qurans and Prayer

Mats in the Masjid during night time and the incident was first observed by the Imam Md.Jameel ul Hakh, who had informed PW1 and PWs.2 to 4 and consequently Ex.P1 report was given to Police. None has seen the accused or any one moving suspiciously near the scene at the time of morning prayers on the date of incident. The role of accused in the instant case was known by the investigating officer only basing on the statement of PW5 recorded by him in Cr.No.26/2018 of P.S.Mallapur but not in this case. The flags, match box, iron rods seized by PW9 in the presence of PW8 and one

Dabba Ramesh also do not belong to this offence. Above all, a perusal of the confession statements cum recovery panchanama reveals that it does not bear crime number and even the seizure panchanama does not contain any crime number but as per the oral evidence of PW9 it pertains to

Cr.No.26/2018.

14.Now what remains to be seen is to what extent the statement of PW5 is reliable to believe that the accused has confessed before him about committing the offence in the instant case.

15.According to the prosecution, the accused has made Extra Judicial

Confession about committing the offence in this case and some other incidents of burning property of his villagers by name Srinivas Reddy, Yella

Raji Reddy and Yenugu Hanumandlu. Offence in this case was reported to

Police on 30th December, 2017 and according to PW5 the accused confessed before him on 14.02.2018. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Alokd Nath Dutta vs State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 that the confession is ordinarily admissible in evidence. It is a relevant fact and it can be acted upon. Confession may under certain 9

SC 177/2019

circumstances and subject to law laid down by the superior Judiciary from time to time can form the base for conviction. It is however, trite that for the said purpose, the Court has to satisfy itself in regard to: (i) voluntariness of confession; (ii) truthfulness of the confession; (iii) corroboration. A detailed confession which would otherwise be within the special knowledge of the accused may itself be not sufficient to raise a presumption that confession is a truthful one. Main features of a confession are required to be verified. If it is not done, no conviction can be based only on the sole basis thereof.

16. In the case of Sahadevan and another vs State of Tamilnadu, the

Hon'ble Apex Court has framed certain principles after referring to several

important cases decided on Extra Judicial Confession, as under: (i) The

Extra Judicial Confession is a week evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the Court with greater care and caution. (ii) it should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) it should inspire confidence.

(iv) An Extra-judicial Confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.

17.Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court, if it is observed from the evidence on record, it becomes very clear that the prosecution has not passed the test of credibility of extra- judicial confession of accused before PW5 for the reason that the said confession cum recovery panchanama does not bear even the crime 10

SC 177/2019

number in which it was recorded and none of the persons whose properties are said to have been damaged by the accused by burning were examined by the investigating officer after he came to know that the accused was behind the commission of those offences, including the one on hand. That apart, according to PW8, the Police Mallapur took him and the Sarpanch of

Mallapur village by name Dabba Ramesh to the cattle shed of a Mallapur villager in January, 2018 where fire was observed by the villagers at night time and the police seized one Hanuman flag, helmet and iron rod under panchanama in the presence of accused and all the witnesses. According to PW9, he received information from PW5 on 14.02.2018 while he was investigating the case in Cr.No.26/2018 of P.S.Mallapur under Section 436

IPC that the accused was present in the fields of Nallagonda Chinna

Mallaiah and along with PWs.5 and PW6 he went to the outskirts of Mallapur village and apprehended the accused and interrogated him and then the accused admitted committing the offence and that he led the police to his house also where PW9 seized one orange flag in front of his house. PW9 did not state anything that even before he went to the accused, the accused had confessed before PW5 about committing this offence and other offences and according to him, the role of accused in this case was established only basing on the confession cum seizure panchanama of accused.

18.As per Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, confession of accused in the presence of police is not admissible and as per Section 27 of the said act recovery of anything made in pursuance of the confession of the accused is admissible. No property pertaining to this case was seized from the possession of accused in pursuance of his alleged confession but the property that was seized pertained to Cr.No.26/2018 as per the evidence of 11

SC 177/2019

PW9. Therefore, the confession cum seizure panchanama/Ex.P7 is of no utility to prove the guilt of the accused, in this case. PW9 has also stated that he has recorded the statement of PW5 in Cr.No.26/2018 but not in this case. PW9 admitted that he did not examine neighbours of the accused and as already stated above, none of the other presence whose properties were allegedly burnt by the accused were recorded by investigating officer, probably for the reason that they are not concerned with the instant case.

19.When the entire case of prosecution rested on the sole evidence of

PW5 in whose presence the accused is said to have made extra-judicial confession about this offence, the burden on the prosecution is far more has held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases cited above. According to the defense, there is a land dispute pertaining to 5 guntas between the accused and PW5 but PW5 denied the said suggestion. However, he admitted that his land is adjoining the land of accused. Except PW5, no other prosecution witness has spoken about the role of accused in this case and the accused has denied making any extra-judicial confession before

PW5, when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. For the said reasons, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged confession of accused before PW5 was voluntary and truthful and the prosecution has also failed establish the credibility ofthe evidence of

PW5 as the same is not corroborated by other prosecution witness. Though prosecution alleged that the accused has committed the offence under

Section 153A (2) of IPC, it is failed to prove that the incident complained of led to enmity among different religions in Mallapur village and thereby caused hatred or ill will between different religious groups in the village.

In the back drop of aforesaid discussion and the material on record, this

Court finds that the prosecution could not prove the guilt of accused for the offence under Sections 448, 436, 153-A(2) IPC 12

SC 177/2019

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge under

Section 448, 436, 153-A(2) IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Mos.1 to 3 (Quran) and Mo4 (Prayer Mats and some burnt papers) shall be returned to PW1 after expiry of appeal time.

The Superintendent Sub-Jail, Jagtial is directed to released the accused forthwith, if he is not required to be detained in any other case.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 31st day of July, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

Jagtial. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For the prosecutionFor the defence PW1 M.A.Sathar.---None--- PW2 Mohd.Mahaboob. PW3 Mohd.Hussain. PW4 Mohd.Madhar. PW5 K.Raji Reddy. PW6 M.Srinivas. PW7 G.Raja Reddy. PW8 B.Suresh. PW9 Ch.Satish. Exhibits marked For the prosecution Ex.P130.12.2017Original Complaint.

Ex.P2---2 photographs with C.D.

Ex.P330.12.2017Crime Details Form.

Ex.P430.12.2017Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama.

Ex.P530.12.2017First Information Report.

Ex.P6---F.S.L Report.

Ex.P714.02.2018Attested copy of confession cum seizure panchanama. For the defence ---Nil--- Material Objects Marked Mos.1 to 3 are Qurans. Mo4 is prayer mats and burnt papers.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

Jagtial.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: SMT.P.MUKTHIDA,

Senior Civil Judge,

Jagtial.

Thursday, the 1st day of August, 2019

O.S.NO. 96 OF 2016

Between:- Pandiri Laxmi, W/o.Bheemaiah, D/o.Late Toparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah, Age: 65 years, Hindu, Occ: Household, R/o.H.NO.5-22, Itikyala V/o Raikal mandal. …Plaintiff. A N D 1Thoparapu @ Jagtial Gangadhar, S/o.Late Narsaiah, Age: 51 years, Hindu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.NO.1-85/1, Medipalli village and mandal.

2Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsu, W/o.Late Narsaiah, Age: 49 years, Hindu, Occ: Household, R/o.H.NO.1-86, Medipalli village and mandal.

3Thoparapu @ Jagtial Naresh, S/o.Late Narsaiah, Age: 28 years, Hindu, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.NO.1-86, Medipalli village and mandal.

4Sirikonda Jyothi, W/o.Narayana, D/o Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah, Age: 31 years, Hindu, Occ: household, R/o.Itikyal V/o Raikal mandal.

5Chityala Latha, W/o.Naresh, D/o Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsu, Age: 35 years, Hindu, Occ: household, R/o.H.No.1- 2-58, Jansi Road, near Ramakrishna Degree college, Korutla.

...Defendants.

This suit coming on 16-07-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Bhumeshwar Advocate for the Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, situated at

Medipall village and mandal.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that:- She, defendant No.1, 2 father of defendant No.5 and father of defendants No.3 and 4 are the children of one Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah @ Narsu. Their father died 10 years ago intestate leaving behind the parties to the suit as his legal heirs. The husband of defendant NO.2 and father of defendants

No.3 and 4 by name Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah is the first son of their father and he died leaving behind the said defendants as his legal heirs. The mother of defendant NO.5 is the sister of plaintiff and she too has expired. All the parties to the suit are Hindus governed by

Mitakshara school of law and are members of Hindu joint family. The schedule properties bearing H.Nos.1-86 and lands ad measuring Ac.5- 25 guntas in Sy.No.105 and 6 guntas in Sy.No.1/Ow, situated at

Medipalli village and revenue mandal are the joint family properties acquired by late Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah and after his death the parties to the suit are in joint possession of the same. The defendant

No.1 being the sole member in their joint family, he has been looking after the schedule properties but for few months prior to filing the suit, he mismanaged them and colluded with other defendants and tried to alienate the schedule properties to deprive her right in 1/4th share of the schedule properties by way of partition and separate possession by metes and bounds.

3.The defendants No.1 to 5 were served with summons but they did not file any written statement and consequently, all the defendants were set exparte.

4.Heard the counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

Points for consideration:- 3 1Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for?

5.The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A6. She has reiterated the contents of plaint pleadings in her chief examination affidavit. Ex.A1 is ownership certificate of H.No.1-86 while

Ex.A2 is attested copy of property tax assessment register for the year 2016-17, for the said house. Both Exs.A1 and A2 revealed that item

No.1 of the plaint schedule i.e., house bearing No.1-86 still stands in the name of father of plaintiff Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah. Exs.A3 and

A4 are Mee-seva copies of pahanies for 1426 Fasli for the land in

Sy.Nos.105 and 1/Ow and reveal that the plaintiff's father is Pattadar and Possessor of item No.2 and 3 of schedule lands ad measuring Ac.5- 25 guntas in Sy.No.105 and 6 guntas in Sy.No.1/Ow respectively.

Ex.A5 is Mee-seva copy of 1-B ROR showing the property standing in the name of Jagtial Narsaiah as in 1427 Fasli. Ex.A6 is 3 market value certificates of the schedule properties. The defendants having remained exparte, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted and Exs.A1 to A5 prove the claim of the plaintiff that the schedule properties are the properties of her deceased father Thoparapu @ Jagtial Narsaiah @

Narsu and she being his daughter and legal heir, she is entitled for a share in the suit properties.

6.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is preliminary decreed with costs, declaring that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 are entitled for 1/4th share each and defendants No.2 to 4 are together entitled for 1/4th share, in the suit schedule properties and for partition 4 and separate possession of the same.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me, In the open court, on this the 1stday of August, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For the plaintiff For the Defendants PW1. Pandiri Laxmi. ---Nil---

For the plaintiff:- Ex.A1---Ownership certificate of H.No.1-86 issued by Panchayat Secretary, G.P. Medipally. Ex.A2---Attested copy of extract of property tax assessment register for the year 2016-17. (2 pages) Ex.A3---Mee-seva copy of pahani for 1426 Fasli for Sy.No.105. Ex.A4---Mee-seva copy of pahani for 1426 Fasli for Sy.No.1/Ow. Ex.A5---Mee-seva copy of 1-B ROR for 1426 Fasli. Ex.A6---Market value certificates. (3)

For the Defendants ---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial.

1

HMOP 53/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: SMT.P.MUKTHIDA,

Senior Civil Judge,

Jagtial.

Thursday, the 1st day of August, 2019

H.M.O.P. No. 53 OF 2018

Between:- Balmuri Sreedhar Rao, So.Sathyam Rao, Age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-55, Beerpur village and mandal, District Jagtial. …Petitioner.

And

Balmuri Sri Laxmi @ Nalla Sravanthi, W/o.Sridhar Rao, Age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o. presently residing at her parents house Ganga Reddy, R/o. Thombaraopet V/o Medipally mandal. …Respondents.

This petition is coming on 18-07-2019before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.P.Subramanyam Advocate for the Petitioner, and Respondent having chosen to remain exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:- :: O R D E R ::

1.This is a petition filed by the petitioner husband under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce. Both the parties to the petition are Hindus by religion and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is applicable to them.

2.The following are the contents of the petition:-

The marriage of the petitioner and respondent took place on 29-11-2017 at Markandeya Temple at Jagtial, as per the caste and customs prevailing in their community. At the time of marriage the parents of petitioner presented 3 tulas of gold to the respondent. After the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner and lived together for a period of one month only. However, differences cropped up between them for the reasons that the respondent started harassing the petitioner and disliking him and stating that her marriage was performed against her will and only for the sake of her parents she accepted the marriage. The respondent frequently used to 2

HMOP 53/2018

quarrel with the petitioner and his family members and used to insult the petitioner stating that he is not a competent person to lead matrimonial life and always used to question the financial status of the petitioner and she also blamed the petitioner that he is impotent upon which, the petitioner underwent lot of mental agony. The Respondent used to insist the petitioner for separation from his parents and did not discharge house hold duties and the respondent several times went to her parents' house without intimating the petitioner. The petitioner, his parents and the elders several times advised the respondent to change her behaviour, but in vain. Finally on 07-01-2018, the respondent along with gold presented by the petitioner left his society and since then she has been residing in her parents house and the petitioner lost hopes of his future matrimonial life.

Thus, the petitioner has filed this petition for grant of divorce .

3.Notice of the petition was served on the respondent. Respondent was set exparte on 01-02-2019 as she was called absent. Petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and he filed his chief examination affidavit. He got marked

Exs.P1 and Ex.P2.

4.Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The chief examination affidavit is the replica of his petition.

5.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent is to be dissolved by a decree of divorce?

6.The evidence of P.W.1 is on record. As the respondent was set ex parte there is no cross-examination of P.W.1. Resultantly evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged and it is to be accepted as true. The contents of the petition are reiterated in the examination in chief of P.W.1 and as the evidence of P.W.1 remained unchallenged, the averments and allegations in the petition are deemed to have been proved. Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 proves that the 3

HMOP 53/2018

petitioner and the respondent are Hindus, their marriage took place on 29-11-2017 and they are governed by Hindu Law. The evidence of the petitioner further proves that the respondent has harassed and disliked the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner could make out a case for need of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. For the above reasons, this petition is to be allowed to dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent.

Therefore, this petition is allowed.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between petitioner and the respondent that was solemnized on 29-11-2017 is hereby dissolved by granting a decree of divorce. There is no order as to costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me, In the open court, on this the 1st day of August, 2019.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined

For the Petitioner For the Respondent

PW1. B.Sridhar Rao.---Nil--

Exhibits marked

For the Petitioner

Ex.P1---Original wedding card.

Ex.P2---Marriage photograph.

For the Respondent

---Nil---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

Jagtial.

TAKA060001392016

Presented on : 23-02-2016 Registered on : 16-03-2016 Decided on : 01-08-2019 Duration : 3 years, 5 months, 9 days

IN THE COURT OF

Senior Civil Judge AT JAGTIAL ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by SMT. P.MUKTHIDA

H.M.O.P/38/2016

Exhibit No.:

: Thipireddy Ramana Reddy Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Kichulatapalli village of Pegadapalli mandal of Karimnagar district.

VERSUS : Thipireddy Anjali Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Co Thatipalli Chandra Reddy Ro Bathikepalli village of pegadapali mandal of Karimnagar district.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : G.Yudhaveer. Advocate for : appearing for Thipireddy Anjali: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 01-08-2019 )

Petitioner absent. Respondent present. Both counsel submitted that parties are living together. Petitioner counsel endorsed not pressed on petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed as not pressed.

ORDER

Date : 01-08-2019 (SMT. P.MUKTHIDA)

Senior Civil Judge

JAGTIAL

,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(SMT. P.MUKTHIDA)

{JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

JAGTIAL ,KARIMNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS