Smt P.Poornima Devi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KANDUKUR.

CALENDAR IN C.C.No. 339/2015

1.Date of offence 02.07.2015

2.Date of Report or complaint02.07.2015

3.Date of taken on file10.09.2015 Date of apprehension ofA1 on 02.09.2015, A2 to A4 got under 4. accusedsection 41(A) Cr.P.C notices.

5.Date of commencement of trial 17.10.2023

6.Date of closure of trial19.02.2024

7.Date of Sentence or Order18.07.2024 State represented by the Sub Inspector of

8.Complainant Police, Gudlur P.S.

1. Bandlamudi Venu, S/o. Pothuraju, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal. 2.Bandlmudi Kondamma, S/o. Pothuraju, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal. (DIED)

3. Bandlamudi Pothuraju, S/o. Ramaiah,

9.Description of accused Aged about 60 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal.

4. Domala Audinarayanama @ Lakshmi, W/o. Venu, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Mopadu Bungalow, Lakshmi Narasapuram Village, Pamuru Mandal.

Under section 498(A), 494 and 509 of

10. Section of LawIndian Penal Code

Pleaded not guilty.

11. Plea of Accused

Found not guilty.

12. Finding of Court

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, A1 and A4 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498(A), 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code 2 and they are set at liberty and A3 is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 509 of Indian Penal Code and he is set at liberty The bail bonds of A1, A3 and A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced, hence no order is passed.

14. Explanation for delay and Remarks : This case was taken on file on 10.09.2015. On appearance of Accused, case copies of documents were furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. On 03.10.2023 accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 498(A), 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code are framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu in question form, for which, they denied the same and claimed to be tried. Later, on behalf of the prosecution Pw.1 to Pw.4 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On 12.07.2024 Accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and they stated reported no defence evidence on their behalf and heard arguments on both sides. On 18.07.2024 Judgment was

pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE : KANDUKUR.

Present: Smt. P.Poornima Devi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur

FAC:Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Thursday, this the 18thday of July, 2024

Calendar Case No.339/2015

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gudlur Police Station.

.... Complainant.

AND

1. Bandlamudi Venu, S/o. Pothuraju, Aged about 28 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal. 2.Bandlmudi Kondamma, S/o. Pothuraju, Aged about 50 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal. (DIED)

3. Bandlamudi Pothuraju, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 60 years, R/o. Anneboinapalli Village, Lingasamudram Mandal.

4. Domala Audinarayanama @ Lakshmi, W/o. Venu, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Mopadu Bungalow, Lakshmi Narasapuram Village, Pamuru Mandal.

.... Accused.

The case against A2 is abated. * * *

This case is coming on 15.07.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. M.

Malyadri Learned counsel on behalf of A1, A3 and A4 and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gudlur Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.49/2015 for the offences punishable Under

Sections 498(A), 494 and 509 Indian Penal Code.

4

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case:

On 18.09.2005 the marriage of PW1 was performed with A1 as per their caste custom and usage. At the time of the marriage Rs.25,000/- and the gold jewels weighing about 14 grams were given to the accused towards dowry by

LW3/Akkidasu Annapoornama. After the marriage, PW1 joined with A1 and lead happy marital life with him for about some years. During the marital life, they got two daughters. Subsequently A1 started harassing PW1 both mentally and physically with the active support and instigation of A2 and A3.

On one or two occasions, the accused sent PW1 to the house of her parents along with two daughters, asking her to bring money from LW3/ Akkidasu

Annapoornamma. Further the A1 married A4, while PW1 was alive without getting divorce from her with the support of his parents and leading marital life. The accused are also threatening PW1 in dire consequences to see her end by killing her, if she reveals the 2nd marriage issue to anybody by abusing her in vulgar language. Presently PW1 is staying in house of LW3/Akkidasu

Annapoornamma along with her two daughters. PW2, PW3, LW3/Akkidasu

Annapoornamma, LW5/Galanki Chennakesavulu, LW6/ Bandlamudi Malleswari and LW7/Chimala Sreenivasulu came to know about the harassment of the accused on PW1. PW1 turned to Police station and lodge a report about the occurrence; the same was registered and took up investigation on 02.07.2015 at 16.00 hours by the PW4. During the course of investigation the PW8 examined the PW1 to PW3, LW3/Akkidasu Annapoornamma, LW5/Galanki

Chennakesavulu, LW6/ Bandlamudi Malleswari and LW7/Chimala Sreenivasulu 5 recorded their detail statements in part II of case diary under section 161 of

Cr.P.C. PW4 arrested the A1 on 02.09.2015 at 11.00 hours at Anneboinapalli

Village and sent for remand, and on 05.09.2015 issued 41(A) Cr.P.C notices to

A2 to A4. After completion of investigation PW4 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.Cognizance:

After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under section 498(A), 494 and 509 Indian Penal Code.

4.Compliance of Procedural Requirements:

On appearance of A1 to A4, copies furnished to the A1 to A4 under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5. The A1, A3 and A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C.

Charges were framed against A3 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 509 of Indian Penal code and Charges were framed against A1 and A4 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 494, 509 of Indian Penal code and the same were read over and explained to them in Telugu and the A1, A3 and A4 denied the accusation made against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trial.

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to P.W.4 were examined and got marked Ex. P1 to Ex.P6. The learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor has not choose to examine LW3/Akkidasu Annapoornamma, 6

LW5/Galanki Chennakesavulu, LW6/ Bandlamudi Malleswari and LW7/Chimala

Sreenivasulu and Prosecution evidence is closed.

7.After completion of the evidence for prosecution the A1, A3 and A4 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and all the circumstances appearing from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were explained to the accused.

The A1, A3 and A4 denied the same. However, the A1, A3 and A4 did not let in any evidence, oral or documentary, in their defence.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the A1, A3 and A4 and perused the records.

9.Now the points for determination is:

1. Whether the A1, A3 and A4 committed acts that fall within the meaning of cruelty as defined in section 498-A Indian Penal Code and thereby committed an offence?

2. Whether the A1 and A4 committed acts that fall within the meaning of cruelty as defined in section 494 Indian Penal Code and thereby committed an offence?

3. Whether the A1, A3 and A4 committed acts that fall within the meaning of cruelty as defined in section 509 Indian Penal Code and thereby committed an offence?

7

10. Point No.1:-

The case of the prosecution is that the A1, A3 and A4 used to harass the informant for want of additional dowry and necked her out from the matrimonial home.

11. To bring home the charge against the A1, A3 and A4 the prosecution examined P.W1 to P.W4 and got marked Ex P1 to P6

12.PW1 to PW3 turned hostile to the present case by stating that they do not know anything about the present case. Police neither examined them nor recorded their statements. The PW1 state that she did not lodged any complaint against the accused but she signed on some white papers without knowing its contents at request of the police.

13.S. Vijaya Chnadra, the investigating officer got examined as P.W.4.

P.W.4 in his evidence deposed that on 02.07.2015 at about 04.00PM while he was present at the police station PW1 came forward to the police Station and gave complaint to him. The complaint is marked as Ex.P5. Basing on the

Ex.P5 he rgistered the case in Cr.No. 49/2015 under section 498-A, 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. The First Information Report is marked as Ex.P6.

He submitted Original First Information Report to the Hon’ble Court and copiues to all concerned officials. He visited the house and examined PW1 to

PW3, LW3/Akkidasu Annapoornamma, LW5/Galanki Chennakesavulu, LW6/

Bandlamudi Malleswari and LW7/Chimala Sreenivasulu and recorded their statement under section 161(3) Cr.P.C. On 02.09.2015 at about 11.00 AM he 8 arrested the A1 and produced before the Hon’ble Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Kandukur and sent to Judicial remand. On 05.09.2015 he served 41(A)

Cr.P.C notices to A2 to A4. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case against A1 to A4.

14. During his cross examination P.W.4 denied all the questions asked him by Learned defence counsel.

15. The learned Assistant Public prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted that the prosecution proved through the evidence of

P.W.1 to PW.3 and PW.4 that the A1, A3 and A4 harassed the informant, even though the informant did not support the case of the prosecution which is not fatal to the prosecution case and prayed to convict the accused no. 1 to accused No.4 with maximum imprisonment.

15. Per contra the learned counsel for the accused no. 1 to accused

No.4 during the course of arguments submitted that there is no evidence on record, to prove that the A1, A3 and A4 harassed the informant physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and prayed to acquit the accused No.1 to accused No.4 and PW 1 to PW.3 are blood relative. No independents witnesses are supported this case.

16. The A1, A3 and A4 are charged and tried for the offence punishable under section. 498-A of I.P.C as they harassed P.W1.

17. Section 498A of IP.C. reads as under.

9

“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting

her to cruelty”.

Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, 'cruelty’ means:-

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to danger to her life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, or

(b) harassment of the woman where such a harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure her or any person related to her to meet demand.

18. For the A1, A3 and A4 to be liable for punishment under section 498-A I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the A1, A3 and A4 subjected P.W.1 harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and so as to necked out her from her matrimonial home for demand of additional dowry.

19.Thus there is no evidence to show that the A1, A3 and A4 subjected P.W.1 to cruelty, demanding additional dowry as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution the learned Assistant 10

Public Prosecutor rightly not choose to examine LW3/Akkidasu

Annapoornamma, LW5/Galanki Chennakesavulu, LW6/ Bandlamudi Malleswari and LW7/Chimala Sreenivasuluas no purpose will serve on examining them.

20.In view of above discussion, it is evident that there is no sufficient evidence on record to prove that the A1, A3 and A4 committed an offence under section 498-A of I.P.C and the prosecution is unsuccessful to prove the guilt of the A1, A3 and A4 for the said offence beyond all reasonable doubt.

This point is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2:-

21. While appreciating the evidence for the offence punishable under section 494 IPC in this case, it is held that there is no evidence to substantiate the case against the A1 and A4 that the A1 was married with A4 whenever the

PW1 was alive. The accusation against the A1 and A4 under section 494 of IPC also falls to the ground for those very reasons. Accordingly this point is answered.

Point No.3:

23. While appreciating the evidence for the offence punishable under section 509 IPC in this case, it is held that there is no evidence to substantiate the case against the A1, A3 and A4 that they did not modesty by using offensive words, gestures, or actions, or intrudes to informant. The accusation against the A1, A3 and A4 under section 509 of IPC also falls to the ground for those very reasons. Accordingly this point is answered.

11

24. In view of fore going discussion in point No.1 to 3, it is manifest that it is not established that that the A1, A3 and A4 committed the offence punishable under section 498-A, 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code. Hence, the prosecution is unsuccessful to prove the guilt of the A1, A3 and A4 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 494, 509 of IPC.

25. It is not proved that the A1, A3 and A4 committed the offence punishable under section 498-A, 509, 494 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt. They cannot be held liable for the said offences as the benefit of doubt is their favour.

26.In the result, A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code.

Therefore, A1 and A4 are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498(A), 494 and 509 of Indian Penal Code and they are set at liberty and A3 is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 509 of Indian Penal Code and he is set at liberty The bail bonds of A1, A3 and A4 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced, hence no order is passed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18 th day of July, 2024.

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC:ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :FOR DEFENCE: - Pw.1: B. RajaniNone Pw.2: M. Lakshmi Pw.3: P. Malleswari Pw.4: S. Vijaya Chandra

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex. P1: Signature of Complainant Ex.P2: Under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Complaint Ex.P6: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PJCJ, KANDUKUR

FAC:AJFCM, KANDUKUR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

CALANDER IN C.C.No.511/2017.

1.Date of ofeene22.09.2017

2.Date of Report or nomplaiet23.09.2017

3.Date of takee oe fle27.09.2017 Date of appreheesioe of

4.24.09.2017 annused

5.Date of release oe bail27.09.2017 Date of nommeenemeet of

6.26.04.2022 trial

7.Date of nlose of trial25.07.2022

8.Date of Seeteene or Order26.08.2022. State Sub-Iespentor of Poline,

9.Complaieaet Kaedukur towe Poline statioe. KaedulaChieeaRao,S/o Ramamohae, aged about 38 years, Mala by naste, resideet of

10.Desnriptioe of annused Yarraguetapalem, Kaedukur towe, resideet of Saethapeta, beside Veterieary Hospital, Oegole.

11.Sentioe of LawU/Sen.354 of IPC

12.Plea of AnnusedPleaded eot guilty. 13Fiedieg of the Court.Foued eot guilty

14. Sentence or Order :

Ie the result, Annused is foued eot guilty for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal Code. Therefore, Annused is anquitted ueder sentioe 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said ofeene aed he is set at liberty. The bail boeds of annused aed their sureties shall remaie ie forne for a period of six moeths as per sentioe 437-A of Cr.P.C. Ie this nase, eo property is produned.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks :

This nase was takee oe fle oe 27.09.2017. Oe 27.12.2017 nopies were fureished to Annused ueder sentioe 207 of Cr.P.C. The annused were examieed u/s.239 Cr.P.C oe 26.10.2021. Charge ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae

Peeal Code agaiest Annused is framed, read over aed explaieed to him ie

Telugu ie questioe form, for whinh, he deeied the same aed nlaimed to be tried. Trial was nommeened oe 26.04.2022 aed nlosed oe 25.07.2022. Oe behalf of prosenutioe, PW.1 to PW.6 are examieed, Ex.P1 to P5 are marked.

2

After nlosure of the prosenutioe evideene, oe 27.07.2022 Annused was examieed ueder sentioe 313 Cr.P.C., by examieieg the ienrimieatieg portioe of prosenutioe evideene ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied aed reported eo defeene evideene. Oe 11.08.2022 Argumeets heard behalf of both sides. Judgmeet proeouened ie opee nourt oe 26.08.2022. Heene, the delay.

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hoe’ble I-Additioeal Dist. & Sessioes Judge, Prakasam Distrint, Oegole. Copy to : The Superieteedeet of poline, Prakasam Distrint , Oegole.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: KANDUKUR

Preseet: Kum P.Poornima Devi, Additioeal Judinial Magistrate of First Class, Kaedukur.

Friday, this the 26th day of August, 2022.

Calender Case.No.511/2017

The State represeeted by Sub-Iespentor of Poline, Kaedukur towe Poline statioe.… Complainant.

Vs.

Kaedula Chieea Rao, S/o Ramamohae, aged about 38 years, Mala by naste, resideet of Yarraguetapalem, Kaedukur towe, Resideet of Saethapeta, beside Veterieary Hospital, Oegole.

… Accused.

* * *

This nase is nomieg oe 11.08.2022 for feal hearieg, ie the preseene of

Assistaet Publin Prosenutor for the State aed Sri U.Rajeedra Prasad,

Advonate for Annused aed after hearieg both sides, aed oe perusal of relevaet material oe renord, aed havieg stood over for noesideratioe till this date, this Court delivered the followieg:

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

1. The Sub-Iespentor of Poline, Kaedukur towe poline statioe fled nharge sheet agaiest Annused ie Crime No. 146 of 2017 of Kaedukur towe poline Statioe, for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal

Code with the followieg allegatioes:-

P.W.1 is livieg by doieg sweepieg works. Previously the annused is havieg ietimany with P.W.2 who is daughter-ie-law of P.W.1. Ie this regard, oe 22.09.2017 at about 09.00 p.m they were disnussieg about the matter with the elders P.W.4 aed P.W.5, at that time the annused name there aed pinked up quarrel with P.W.1 at Masjid neeter, Aeaedapuram road, abused her ie vulgar laeguage aed pulled her sari aed tore her janket aed also pushed her by tounhieg her nhest thereby outraged her modesty. Oe eotinieg the same, P.W.2 to P.W.5 rushed there aed resnued P.W.1 from the haeds of annused. Later, oe 23.09.2017 at about 06.00 p.m P.W.1 name to 4 the poline statioe aed lodged a report. Basieg oe that, P.W.6 registered a nase ie Crime No.146/2017 ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal Code aed took up ievestigatioe. Durieg whinh, P.W.6 visited the sneee of ofeene, examieed the same, prepared rough sketnh, examieed the witeesses aed renorded their statemeets. He arrested the annused oe 24.09.2017 at about 07.00 p.m aed seet him for judinial remaed. After nompletioe of ievestigatioe, L.W.7/T.Sriram, Sub-Iespentor of Poline, Kaedukur towe

Poline Statioe fled nharge sheet.

2. This nourt took nogeizaene of nase agaiest the Annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal Code oe dated:27.09.2017.

3. Oe appearaene of annused, nopies of donumeets were fureished to him as noetemplated ueder Sentioe 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Annused was examieed ueder sentioe 239 of Cr.P.C ie Telugu laeguage, for whinh he deeied the same. Oe noesiderieg the eetire renord aed oe hearieg both sides, a nharge for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal Code is framed agaiest Annused. The said nharge was read over aed explaieed to him ie Telugu, for whinh, he deeied the same aed nlaimed to be tried. Heene, the matter was posted for trial.

5.Durieg the nourse of trial, the prosenutioe has examieed Lws.1, 3, 2, 4, 5 aed 6 as PWs 1 to 6 respentively aed got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evideene of L.W.7/T.Sriram, Sub-Iespentor of Poline, Kaedukur towe P.S was givee up by the leareed Assistaet Publin Prosenutor. Annordiegly, prosenutioe side evideene was nlosed.

5

6.After nlosure of the prosenutioe evideene, Annused was examieed ueder sentioe 313 Cr.P.C., by examieieg the ienrimieatieg portioe of prosenutioe evideene ie questioe form, ie Telugu, for whinh he deeied aed reported eo defeene evideene.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now the poiet for determieatioe is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused for the ofence punishable under section 354 of Indian

Penal Code, beyond the reasonable doubt?

9. To substaetiate its nase, the prosenutioe has examieed P.Ws. 1 to 6 out of 7 listed witeesses aed got marked Exs. P1 to P5. Pw.1 is the Defanto-

Complaieaet. P.W.2 is the daughter-ie-law of P.W.1. P.W.3 is soe of the

P.W.1. P.W.4 aed P.W.5 are the iedepeedeet num dirent witeesses of the ienideet. P.W.6 is the Ievestigatioe Ofiner.

10. The staed of Annused is of total deeial.

11.The leareed Assistaet publin Prosenutor argued that the evideene of

Pws.1, 3 aed 4 supported by Ievestigatieg Ofiner (P.W.6) nlienhiegly establishes that Annused abused P.W.1 ie vulgar laeguage aed pulled her sari aed toreed her janket by tounhieg her nhest aed thereby outraged the modesty of P.W.1 aed therefore, Annused is liable for pueishmeet.

12.Oe the other haed, the leareed defeene nouesel argued that the evideene of Pws.1, 3 aed 4 is ienoesisteet ie several aspents aed ie exaggerated form. He further poieted out that the Ievestigatioe Ofiner did eot seize the material objent from the sneee of ofeene. Heene, Annused is eetitled for beeeft of doubt.

6

13.Ie view of these rival noeteetioes, the eetire evideene is perused.

14.POINT: -

Ie order to prove the guilt of the Annused for the ofeene pueishable ueder sentioe 354 of Iediae Peeal Code, the prosenutioe has to prove the followieg iegredieets:--

i)The annused persoe must have assaulted or used forne upoe vintim; ii)It must be ieteetioeal; iii)It must be without the noeseet of the vintim; iv)The annused persoe must have ieteeded to outrage her modesty or keew that her modesty would likely be outraged.

15.To establish the same, the prosenutioe has examieed Pws.1 to 6.

Amoeg them, Pw.1 is the defanto nomplaieaet-num-vintim. The evideene of

Pw.1 goes to show that at about 5 years bank the annused was havieg ietimany with P.W.2 aed both were eloped, later both P.W.2 aed annused name to the Village, thee she was proneedieg to the houses of naste elders with a view to plane the matter before them, oe the way whee she reanhed masjid, ie meaewhile annused name there naught hold her sari aed toreed aed also naught hold her blouse by tounhieg her nhest aed toreed aed further beat her aed naused paie iejuries, ie meaewhile P.W.3, P.W.4 aed

P.W.5 name there aed resnued her, oe the very eext day she weet to the poline statioe aed lodged a nomplaiet ie., Ex.P1.

16.Pw.2, the daughter-ie-law of P.W.1 deposed that she does eot keow the nase of prosenutioe aed eo ienideet was onnurred ie her preseet at aey poiet of time aed the poline did eot examiee her. As sunh she tureed hostile to the prosenutioe nase. Though the leareed Assistaet Publin

Prosenutor nross-examieed the P.W.2, but eothieg was elinited from her mouth exnept markieg of Ex.P2 ie., her 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet.

7

17.Pw.3, the soe of P.W.1 deposed that oe 22.09.2017 at about 09.00 p.m the village elders nalled the P.W.2 at Ramalayam temple, the P.W.1 was nomieg to the Ramalayam temple , oe the way the annused obstrunted P.W.1 aed toreed her blouse aed also dragged her sari aed further beat oe her stomanh with his leg aed naused paie iejuries, thereafter oe the very eext day P.W.1 weet to the poline statioe aed lodged a nomplaiet.

18.P.W.4 deposed that oe 22.09.2017 at about 09.00 p.m the P.W.1 aed

P.W.3 were nomieg to the meetieg whinh was noedunted by naste elders, ie meaewhile annused obstrunted the P.W.1 aed P.W.3 aed pulled to the P.W.1 by planieg his haeds oe the nhest of P.W.1 aed also toreed her blouse aed further beat P.W.1 oe her stomanh, thereafter he rushed to the spot aed resnued P.W.1.

19.P.W.5 deposed that 3 years bank aroued 09.00 p.m he observed that a galata was goieg oe ie betweee P.W.1 aed annused, exnept that he does eot keow the nase of prosenutioe. As he did eot support the prosenutioe versioe, the leareed Assistaet Publin Prosenutor denlared him as hostile aed nross-examieed him. Exnept markieg of Ex.P3 ie., 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.3, eothieg was elinited ie favour of prosenutioe nase.

20.The evideene of Pw.6, the thee Head Coestable of Kaedukur towe

Poline Statioe goes to show that oe 23.09.2017 at 06.00 p.m, P.W.1 name to the poline statioe aed preseeted a report ie., Ex.P1, basieg oe whinh he registered a nase ie Crime No.146/2017 for the ofeene ueder sentioe 354 of

Iediae Peeal Code aed issued First Ieformatioe Report ie., Ex.P4. His evideene further shows that he renorded the statemeets of PW.2 to PW.5, observed the sneee of ofeene whinh is situated at Pothurajumitta aed 8 prepared rough sketnh of the sneee ie., Ex.P5. His evideene also shows that hearrested Annused oe 24.09.2017 aed produned him before the nourt for judinial remaed, thereafter he haeded over the C.D fle to L.W.7/T.Sriram,

Sub-Iespentor of Poline, Kaedukur towe P.S, who ie ture nompleted ievestigatioe aed fled nharge sheet.

21.It is the oee of the noeteetioe of the annused that the Ievestigatieg

Ofiner did eot examiee aey iedepeedeet witeess aed so, the evideene of

Pws.1, 3 aed 4 who are related aed ieterested witeesses naeeot be relied upoe. Per noetra, the leareed Assistaet Publin Prosenutor argued that the evideene of aey witeess naeeot be disnarded oe the mere groued of relatioe aed ieterestedeess. Though, there is eo dispute with regard to the said prieniple of law, it is the bouedee duty of the nourt to snrutieize the evideene of sunh related witeesses with utmost nare aed nautioe. If sunh evideene is foued to be free of iefrmities, exaggeratioes aed embellishmeets aed proves the very geeesis of onnurreene of ienideet, it nae be safely relied upoe evee without norroboratioe of iedepeedeet evideene.

22.Now it has to be seee whether the evideene of Pws.1, 3 aed 4 is nredible aed trustworthy. As poieted out by the leareed nouesel for the annused, the P.W.1 failed to give the date of alleged ienideet. Further, the evideene of Pws.3 aed 4 who are soe aed relative of PW.1 is ienoesisteet ie respent of overt ants of the annused. Annordieg to PW.2, the annused toreed the blouse of P.W.1 by dragged her sari aed further beat oe her stomanh with leg. The evideene of Pw.1 is sileet about the said overt ant of Annused ie., beat oe her stomanh with his leg. As per the evideene of P.W.1 aed

P.W.3, she was aloee nomieg to the plane where the naste elders were noedunted meetieg the ienideet was onnurred, but the evideene of P.W.4 9 shows that he was preseet at Pothrajumitta where the naste elders were noeduntieg meetieg, the P.W.1 aed P.W.3 were nomieg to the meetieg, oe the way the at masjid neeter the annused obstrunted the P.W.1 aed outraged her modesty, thereafter he name to the spot aed resnued P.W.1. It shows that the P.W.4 is eot the dirent witeess to the alleged ienideet.

Moreover, the P.W.2 aed P.W.4 failed to depose about motive of the preseet nase. So, the evideene of Pws.2 aed 4 naeeot be givee munh weight.

23. Oely available evideene is the P.W.6 who is eoee other thae the

Ievestigatioe Ofiner. He nategorinally deposed about registerieg the nase basieg oe the report of P.W.1 aed noeduntieg of ievestigatioe. Exnept that, he does eot keow aeythieg what happeeed ie betweee the annused aed

P.W.1. Moreover, the P.W.6 failed to seize the toreed blouse from the sneee of ofeene. It is fatal of the prosenutioe nase. Further, the P.W.4 deposed ie his nross-examieatioe that at the time of noeduntieg paenhayat oee Kaede Raja, Akka Subbarao, Samala Malakoedaiah aed Balli

Veekateswarlu were preseet aloeg with P.W.4 aed P.W.5. Ie this regard, the P.W.6 failed examiee them aed also eot showe as witeesses ie the nharge sheet. Moreover, the nrunial witeesses ie., P.W.2 aed P.W.5 nompletely tureed hostile aed eot supported to the prosenutioe nase.

Without aey ienrimieatieg evideene agaiest the annused, it is uesafe to noevint the annused. Heene, annused is eetitled to the beeeft of doubt.

24.For the foregoieg reasoes, the nourt is of the view that the evideene of

Pws.1, 3 aed 4 whinh is ienoesisteet ie material aspents, is eot sufinieet to prove the very geeesis of onnurreene of alleged ienideet. Thus, the nourt feds eo noevienieg aed satisfantory evideene to hold that Annused outraged the modesty of PW.1. Annordiegly, poiet is aeswered agaiest the prosenutioe.

10

25.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofence

punishable under section 354 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore,

Accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C for the said

ofence and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of accused and their

sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per

section 437-A of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced.

Typed to my dintatioe by the Typist, norrented aed proeouened by me ie Opee Court, this the 26 th day of August, 2022.

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1: A.Atnhamma -NONE – P.W.2: S.Ramadevi P.W.3: S.Narasiega Rao P.W.4: K.Srieivasulu P.W.5: K.Malyadri P.W.6: Sk.Mohammad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.2: 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.2. Ex.P.3: 161(3) Cr.P.C statemeet of P.W.5. Ex.P.4: First Ieformatioe Report. Ex.P.5: Rough sketnh of the sneee.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil.

A.J.F.C.M, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR

CALENDAR IN C.C.No.333/2019

1.Date of offence10.04.2019

2.Date of Report or complaint11.04.2019

3.Date of taken on file30.05.2019 Date of apprehension ofU/S 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the A1 and 4. accusedA2 Date of commencement of

5.02.04.2024 trial

6.Date of close of trial26.06.2024 02.07.2024

7.Date of Sentence or Order

State represented by the Sub Inspector of

8.ComplainantPolice, Ulavapadu Police Station

1. Danyasi Madhu, S/o. Kondaiah, Aged about 27 years, R/o. SC Colony, Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal.

9.Description of accused 2.Danyasi Srinivasulu, S/o. Subba Rayudu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. SC Colony, Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal.

Under section 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal

10.Section of Law Code

Pleaded not guilty.

11.Plea of Accused

Found not guilty.

12.Finding of Court

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 received vide CPR No. 96/2019 shall be disposed according to law.

2

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks : This case was taken on file on 30.05.2019. On appearance of Accused, case copies of documents were furnished to them as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 22.03.2024 the Accused were examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C and matter was adjourned for trial. Later, on behalf of the prosecution Pw.1 and Pw.2 were examined and Exs.P1 and P2 and MO.1 were marked. On 01.07.2024 Accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C and they stated reported no defence evidence on their behalf and heard arguments on both sides. On 02.07.2024 Judgment was pronounced in open court.

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR .

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KANDUKUR

Present: Smt. P. Poornima Devi Prl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC:Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur. Tuesday this the 02nd day of July, 2024.

Calender Case.No. 333/2019

Between: State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ulavapadu Police Station.

.... Complainant.

AND

1. Danyasi Madhu, S/o. Kondaiah, Aged about 27 years, R/o. SC Colony, Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal.

2.Danyasi Srinivasulu, S/o. Subba Rayudu, Aged about 38 years, R/o. SC Colony, Chakicherla Village, Ulavapadu Mandal.

.... Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 02.07.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Ch. Hari Krishna, learned counsel on behalf of Accused, and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulavapadu Police Station has filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2 in Cr.No.81/2019 for the offences punishable Under Sections 171(E), 188 of

Indian Penal Code.nnnnnnnnn

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case:

On 10.04.2019 in the night at about 21.36 hours while PW1 was on duty of flying squad in view of general election, then received a phone call from MPDO, Ulavapadu and learnt that in Chakicherla village some persons were distributing cash to voters thereby bribing the voters the information was received from District Joint Collector. On that 4 immediately PW1 along with Police persons/LW.2/G. Balaji PC-1061 and LW3/ P. Gopi HG- 451 rushed to Chakicherla village and there and while checking at SC colony then at about 10.50 hours two person were coming by a bike, then stopped them and checked , then found

Rs.36,500/- cash at the pillion rider. On that it is confirmed that both were going to distribute money to voters for bribing and thereby they also violated the Model code of conduct. Then

PW1 seized the cash from their possession and then brought both of them and seized cash to police station and handed over and also lodged a report for necessary action.

Basing on the report of complainant, PW2 registered the case in

Cr.No.81/2019 under section 171(E), 188 IPC of Ulavapadu Police Station on 11.04.2019 at 00.30 hours, submitted the copies of First Information Report to all officers concerned and took up investigation into. During the course of investigation the PW2 examined the witnesses PW1, LW.2/G. Balaji PC-1061 and LW3/ P. Gopi HG-451, recorded their detailed statements in case diary part-II. In this case the prima facie is made out against the accused

Al & A2 under section 171(E), 188 IPC. Later PW2 secured the copies of Aadhar cards of accused. Thereafter served notices under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to the accused with conditions to appear before the Honorable court when ever their presence is required. On 12.04.2019 the LW5/B. Sri Kanth Sub- Inspector of Police took up further investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by PW2 and found it is on correct lines. After completion of investigation LW.5/ B. Sri Kanth Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

3.Cognizance:

After perusal of charge sheet and other connected documents, this case was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable under section 171-E, 188 of Indian

Penal Code, Section.

5

4.Compliance of Procedural Requirements:

On appearance of accused, copies furnished to the Accused u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused examined Under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure code. The substance of accusation read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which, he denied the offences punishable under section 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code.

6.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LW1/ MV

Ramanamma, Panchayat Development Officer and LW.4/K. Handumantha Rao

Head Constable as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and got marked Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 and M.O.1. The prosecution has given up LW.2/ G. Balaji Police

Constable, LW3/ P. Gopi Police Constable and LW5/ B. Srikanth Sub-Inspector of Police, so the prosecution evidence was closed and the case was posted for

Sec.313 of Cr.P.C examination.

7.U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C examination:

After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. The substance of incriminating evidence appeared in the prosecution witness is read over and explained to the Accused in Telugu, for which he denied the same as false and reported for defense evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides.

9.Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.188, 171(E) of Indian Penal Code?

2. To what relief ?

6

10.POINT:

The case of prosecution that the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ulavapadu P.S filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 10.04.2019 at about 10.50 hours, PW1, got the information about distribution of cash to voters thereby bribing the voters the information was received from District Joint collector. On that immediately PW1 along with Police persons/LW.2/G. Balaji

PC-1061 and LW3/ P. Gopi HG-451 rushed to Chakicherla village and there and while checking at SC colony then at about 10.50 hours two person were coming by a bike, then stopped them and checked , then found Rs.36,500/- cash at the pillion rider. On that it is confirmed that both were going to distribute money to voters for bribing and thereby they also violated the Model code of conduct. On 11.04.2019 at about 00.30 hours, PW2 registered the police proceedings as a case in Cr.NO.81/2019, under sections 188, 171(E) of

IPC. PW2 served notice to the A1 and A2 under section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation LW5/ B. SriKanth Sub Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2.

11. The evidence of PW.1 deposed that on 10.04.2019 at about 09.30 PM on the duty of flying squad in view of general election, then she received a phone call from her MPDO, Ulavapdu that in Chakicherla village some persons were distributing cash to voters and the information was received from district joint collector. Then immediately herself along with LW.2/G. Balaji PC-1061 and

LW3/ P. Gopi HG-451 went to Chakicherla village and there and while checking 7 at SC colony then at about 10.50 AM two person were coming by a bike, then they stopped them and found Rs. 36,500/-. Then she seized cash. PW1 handed over the A1 and A2 along with seized cash to the police. Then she gave a report to the Ulavapadu Police. In her cross examination of PW1, when they went to the scene of offence by their vehicle but she cannot say the registration number of the the vehicle. She cannot say the LW2/ G. Balaji and

LW3/P. Gopi PC numbers. She cannot say the registration number of her vehicle in which they proceed to the scene of offence. She cannot say the denomination of the seized amount. Then she drafted police proceedings at the scene of offence during dark hours without any independent witnesses. At the time of incident there are no people were gathered. In Ex.P1 she stated that the said seized amount as to distribute the amount to voter during the general elections. She did not enquire the A1 and A2 about the source of said seized cash. As per the evidence of PW1 shows that the prosecution fails to established proper reason that A1 and A2 are distribute cash to voters for bribing and she did not enquire A1 and A2 about the seized amount.

12. The evidence of PW2 deposed that on 10.04.2019 at about 00.30 hours while he was present at Ulavapadu Police Station. He received complaint from

PW.1 and same is marked as Ex.P1. Basing on Ex.P1, he registered a case in

Cr. No. 81/2019 under sections 171(E), 188 IPC and issued First Information

Report. Ex.P.2 is original First Information Report. He submitted the original

First Information Report to Hon'ble Court and copies to all the concerned officers. PW.1 handed over the Cash of Rs. 36,500/- and same is handed over 8 to the Hon'ble Court under CPR No. 96/2019 and same is marked as M.0.1. He

Secure the presence of PW.1, LW.2/G. Balaji PC-1061 and LW3/ P. Gopi HG- 451 and recorded the statements under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Then he serve the 41-A Cr.P.C notices to the A1 and A2. Then he handed over the CD file to LW.5/ B. Srikanth Sub-Inspector of Police, LW.5/ B. Srikanth Sub-

Inspector of Police verified PW2 investigation to be in correct-lines. After completion of investigation LW.5/ B. Srikanth Sub-Inspector of Police filed charge sheet against the A1 and A2. Witness identified the signature of LW.5/

B. Srikanth Sub-Inspector of Police.

13. The PW2 in his cross examination stated that he received information about the distribution of amount by A1 and A2 to votes by PW1 except that he was not an eye witness to the present case. But he did not saw the distribution of amount to the presence. He did not examined the any independent witness at the scene of offence place. The scene of offence is a residential area. He can not say the denomination of the said seized amount and he did not prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence place.

14.On summing up of the evidence the evidence of PW.1 is the defacto complainant and she drafted the police proceedings without any independent witness and PW.2 was not eye witness to the present case. So, to convict the accused basing on the sole evidence of PW.1 would violate the basic principle of law which is that the accused should be convicted only when the offense is 9 proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 also do not prove the guilt of the accused.

15. The cross examination of P.W.2 further shows that P.W.2 is the complainant besides the investigating agency which is very much admitted by the investigating officer further deposed that he does not know whether the same is bad under law. Counsel for defence who submitted a decision reported in :-

“2000(2) ALD (Crl.) 147 (AP)

Maddu Lakshmana Rao VS State of A.P.,”

Next

Where in the observation of their lordships of Hon'ble High Court of A.P held that when the complainant who presented report himself acted as Investigating Officer in a criminal case is bad under law.

On perusal of the above referred citation shows the observation of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh VS State of Rajasthan. It was held as an Investigating Officer in a criminal case against the accused.

Similarly another decision reported in :-

Xavier VS State of Kerala, 1998 Crl.L.J.3182, the Hon'ble High court of Kerala held that the complainant being a police officer cannot be an investigating officer and it has been observed that it is an incurable infirmity.

The Apex court in the above referred citation observed that the complainant normally is expected to seek material in support of his complaint. If he himself is the Investigating Officer, the entire concept of independent and unbiased investigation would be jeopardized. This factual difference does not make any difference to the broad principle that the complaint should not be the investigating officer in a case registered by the police.

10

So in view of the above observation the analogy that was laid by the Hon’ble Apex court when applied to the present case on hand, P.W.2 is not at all competent to investigate the case being a complainant in this case. Apart from the above discussion and in absence of any evidence which is Independent to corroborate the evidence of the investigating officer to prove the accusation against the accused that they were distributing money to voters for bribing and there by committed the offence punishable under sections 188, 171(E) of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

16.Hence, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 present enough to held the accused guilty of alleged offence. In view of the above discussion prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person, for the offence under sections 188, 171(E) of IPC for violating the election code in force and causing and influence on the voters by distributing many of them.

18. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 171-E, 188 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 received vide CPR No.

96/2019 shall be disposed according to law.

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

in the open court, on this the 02 nd day of July, 2024.

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC: ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR .

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution :FOR DEFENCE: - PW.1: M.V RamanammaNone PW.2: K. Hanumatha Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex. P1: Complainant Ex.P2: First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: -NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS: M.O.1 Cash of Rs. 36,500/-

Sd/- P. Poornima Devi

PJCJ, KANDUKUR

FAC:AJFCM, KANDUKUR

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: KANDUKUR

CALANDER IN C.C.No.538/2017.

1.Date of ofence01.09.2017

2.Date of Report or complaint02.09.2017

3.Date of taken on fle16.10.2017 Date of apprehension of

4.-- accused

5.Date of release on bail-- Date of commencement of

6.23.02.2022 trial

7.Date of close of trial06.02.2023

8.Date of Sentence or Order06.04.2023. State Sub-Inspector of Police,

9.Complainant Kondapi P.S Bandi Konda Reddy, S/o Narasa Reddy @ Narasanna, aged about 45

10.Description of accused years, Reddy by caste, resident of Jallapalem Village, Kondapi Mandal.

11.Section of LawU/s. 354, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC.

12.Plea of AccusedPleaded not guilty.

13.Finding of CourtFound not guilty.

14. Sentence or Order :

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofences punishable under sections 354, 509, 23 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore,

Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr. P. C for the said ofences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is produced, hence no order is passed.

15. Explanation for delay and Remarks:

This case was taken on fle on 16.10.2017. On 25.04.2018 copies furnished to the accused. On 22.09.2021 accused was examined u/s.239

Cr.P.C. Charges U/secs.354, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu in question form, for which, he denied the same and claimed to be tried. On behalf of prosecution, PW.1 to PW.7 are examined, Ex.P1 to P4 are marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, on 15.03.2023 the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. Arguments heard on 06.04.2023 and

Judgment pronounced in open court. Hence, the delay.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

Copy submitted to : The Hon’ble I-Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

2

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: KANDUKUR

Present: Sri N.Nikhil Reddy

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kandukur.

Thursday, this the 06th day of April, 2023.

Calender Case.No. 538/2017

The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi P.S.… Complainant.

Vs.

Bandi Konda Reddy, S/o Narasa Reddy @ Narasanna, Aged about 45 years, Reddy by caste, resident of Jallapalem Village, Kondapi Mandal.… Accused.

* * *

This matter is coming on 06.04.2023 for fnal hearing, in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Ch.Nagendra Sarma,

Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides, and on perusal of relevant material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi police station fled charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 81 of 2017 of Kondapi police Station, for the ofences punishable under sections 354, 323, 506, 509 of Indian Penal

Code with the following allegations:-

On 01.09.2017 at about 09.00 p.m P.W.1 was standing infront of buddy bunk of P.W.5. In meanwhile, the accused came there and abused P.W.2 who is husband of P.W.1 as “NAKODAKALLARA NEEKU NADIPI VADIKI

MUDINDHIRA” so saying beat him below the chin. Thereafter, P.W.1 asked the accused about beating her husband, for which the accused replied that

MUSUKONI POVE. Then the P.W.1 questioned the accused about abusing, to which the accused kept his hands on P.W.1’s chest with intent to outrage her modesty and pushed her. On seeing this, P.W.3 questioned the accused as to why push ladies, the accused beat P.W.3 and P.W.1 and also threatened

P.W.1 as “ENDHE VELTHUNAVU NEE ANTHU CHUSTHANU, OSE LANJA 3

DHANA PARIGETTUTHUNNAVU”. Later P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the police station and lodged a report. Basing on that, P.W.7 registered a case in

Crime No.81/2017 for the ofences under sections 354, 323, 506, 509 of IPC and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of ofence, prepared rough sketch of scene, examined those witnesses and recorded their statements. As per the orders of Hon’ble VII Addl.District & Sessions

Judge, Ongole vide Crl.M.P.No.637/2017 dated:06.10.2017, the accused

surrendered before this Court and obtained bail. After completion of investigation, L.W.8/A.chandra Sekhar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondapi P.S fled charge sheet.

2. This Court took cognizance of case against the accused for the ofences punishable under sections 354, 509, 323, 506 of IPC.

3. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to

Accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4. Accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C in Telugu language, for which he denied the same. On considering the entire record and on hearing both sides, charges for the ofences punishable under sections 354, 509, 323 and 506 of IPC against Accused were framed. The said charges were read over and explained to the accused, in Telugu language, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Hence, matter was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined LWs.1 to 7 as

P.w.1 to P.W.7 respectively and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of the

L.W.8/A.Chandra Sekhar.

4

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments on behalf of the prosecution and Accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

Accused for the ofences punishable under section 354, 509,

323 and 506 of IPC, beyond the reasonable doubt?

9. It is the allegation of the prosecution that 01.09.2017 at 09.00 p.m, at

Jallapalem Village of Kondapi Mandal, accused voluntarily caused hurt to

P.W.1 to P.W.3 with hands, that intending to insult the modesty of P.W.1 abused her in vulgar language and pushed her aside by placing hands on

P.W.1’s chest and that the accused also committed criminal intimidation by threatening P.W.1 and P.W.2 with dire consequences and therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the charges leveled against him.

10.To substantiate the same, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 7 and got marked Exs. P1 to P4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant cum victim.

P.W.2 and P.W.3 are also victims. P.W.4 to P.W.6 are said to be the direct witnesses. P.W.7 is the investigation oficer.

11.The stand of Accused is of the total denial.

12.POINT: -

P.W.1 deposed that on 01.09.2017 around 10.00 p.m her husband P.W.2 went to the shop of L.W.6/Y.Yedukondalu, in meanwhile accused came there and abused her husband that “NAA KODAKALLARA MEEKU MUDINDHI” and also beat her husband on his chin, immediately her husband came to the house and informed her, then she along with PW.3 came to the accused and asked about the incident, the accused replied that “NUV EMINA C.M

VA NEEKU CHEPPADANIKI” and pushed her, she fell down on the ground, 5 thereafter P.W.3 asked the accused about pushing of P.W.1, to which the accused beat P.w.3 on chin, in meanwhile she acrossed her hands but her bangles are broken. Then she along with P.W.3 try to leave the place, in meanwhile the accused abused them in flthy language as “LANJADHANA

EKKADIKI PARIGEDUTHUNNA, NEE ANTHU CHUSTANU”. The incident occurred at night hours so that there is no transport available from her village to Police Station, hence she went to the police station on the next day and lodged a complaint.

13.P.W.2 deposed that on 01.09.2017 at about 09.00 a.m he went to the bunk which is adjacent to the YSR statue, in meanwhile accused get down from the tractor and came to him and stated that “Rendava Kotaiah ni ninnu champuthanu meeru em chestatu”, then he came to his house and informed the same to his wife (P.W.1). Then P.W.1 came to the spot and questioned the accused, the accused stated that “Nuvvu emaina C.M vaa” and pushed her through her chest, in meanwhile P.W.3 also present at the spot, the accused also scolded that “lanjadhana ekkadiki nuvvu poyidhi”, due to feat

P.W.1 left the place. On the same day, she went to the police station, but S.I of Police not available, hence on the very next day she lodged a report.

14.P.W.3 deposed that on 01.09.2017 at about 10.00 p.m P.W.2 went to the bunk which was situated neat YSR statue of Jallapalem Village, in meanwhile the accused came there and beat P.W.2 and threatened him as “NEEKU NADIPAINAKI MUDINDHIRA”. Thereafter P.W.2 came to the house and informed the same to P.W.1. Then P.W.1 secured her and came to the house of accused and questioned the accused about beating P.W.2, the accused stated that “Ninnu Kuda Kodathanu” and pushed P.W.1 by placing his hands on her chest and abused that “Nuvvu Emaina C.M and P.M vaa” and pushed her. As a result, the P.W.1 fell down on the road. She observed that the bangles of P.W.1 were broken. Then the accused abused her and

P.W.1 as “ADAVALLA MEEDA CHEYI CHESUKUNTAVA”.

6

In the cross of P.W.3, she deposed that accused made a representation

before the Government regarding misuse of funds by P.W.1 to P.W.3 at Veera

Brahmendra Swamy Temple , due to which the said temple is taken over b y

Government. So there are temple disputes between accused and P.W.1 to

P.W.3.

15.P.W.4 deposed that on 01.09.2017 around 09.00 p.m he was present at bunk which was situated at Jallapalem, he observed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 and accused are picked up galata, the accused pushed P.W.2, then P.W.2 left the place and narrated to the P.W.1. The P.W.1 came to the scene of ofence and asked the accused, for which the accused stated that “NEDITHE EM

CHESTAVU” and pushed her by placing hands on her chest.

P.W.4 is the eye witness to the incident. P.W.4 deposed that on 01.09.2017 at around 09.00 p.m, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and accused picked up a galata. But as per the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and charge sheet only

P.W.2 and accused picked up galata at the bunk. So the deposition of the

P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not corroborating with the deposition of P.W.4 who is a eye witness.

16.P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are direct witnesses to the incident deposed in one voice that they do not know the case of prosecution and they are not the eye witnesses. Police did not examine them. As such both P.W.5 and P.W.6 turned hostile to the prosecution case.

17.The P.W.7 who is none other than the investigation oficer. His evidence shows about receiving of complaint from P.W.1 and registration of

First Information Report. His evidence further shows about his investigation i.e., examination of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch of scene, examination of witnesses, recording of their statements and fnally fling of charge sheet by L.W.8/A.Chandra Sekhar, Sub-Inspector of Police.

7

In the cross of P.W.7, he deposed that there is a bus from Jallapalem to

Kondepi at 04.00 a.m. He also deposed that prior to this incident the temple was taken over by Endowment Department. He also deposed that he did not enquire about the misappropriation of funds of the Jallapalem

Temple by P.W.1 to P.W3. He clearly deposed he did not enquire deeply in this case.

18.On summing up the evidence, the P.W.1 in her chief that due to incident being occurred night hours and as there is no transport facility she went to the Police Station next day and lodged complaint. But as per the chief examination of P.W.2, he deposed that they went to the Police Station same day but as Sub-Inspector of Police was not available they lodged complaint next day. The P.W.3 admitted in her deposition that the accused made a representation to Government regarding misappropriation of funds by P.W.1 to P.W.3 in the Veera Brahmendra Swamy Temple where P.W.2 was a priest. She also admitted due to representation of the accused, the

Government had taken control of the said Temple. So it is true that there are temple issues between P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the accused. Even the P.W.7 who is the Investigation Oficer also admitted that there are temple issues between the accused and P.W.1 to P.W.3 but he did not investigate about it perfectly. The chief examination of P.W.4 is not corroborating with the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.3. The P.W.4 who is the eye witness deposed that

P.W.1 to P.W.3 picked up galata but the depositions of P.W.1 to P.W.3 explains that accused picked up galata only with P.W.2 frst. So these depositions are not corroborating. The P.W.7 who is the Investigation Oficer clearly admitted in his cross that he did not enquire deeply in this case. The P.W.7 also deposed he did not enquire about the temple issues between the P.W.1 to P.W.3 and accused.

19.The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of Accused for the ofences punishable under section 354, 509, 323 and 506 of Indian Penal 8

Code, beyond the reasonable doubt. Accordingly, point is answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the ofences

punishable under sections 354, 509, 23 and 506 of Indian Penal

Code. Therefore, Accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr. P.

C for the said ofences and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of

Accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six

months as per section 437(A) of Cr.P.C. In this case, no property is

produced, hence no order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6 th day of April, 2023.

ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED.

For Prosecution : For Defence :

P.W.1: G.Krishna Kumari -NONE – P.W.2: G.Brahmaiah P.W.3: B.Audhi Lakshmi P.W.4: B.Rendava Kotaiah P.W.5:B.Yedukondalu P.W.6: Y.Yedukondalu P.W.7:N.Madhava Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P.1: Report of P.w.1. Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.5 recorded under section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3: First Information Report dated 25.3.2009. Ex.P.4: Rough sketch of scene.

FOR DEFENCE: - -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil –

A.J.F.C.M, KANDUKUR.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE ::

KANDUKUR

PRESENT : Kum P.Poornima Devi,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kandukur

Thursday, this the 6th day of April, 2023.

ORIGINAL SUIT No.322/2016

Appanaboina Venkata Rao, S/o Venkateswarlu,Hindu, aged about 49 years,Driver in APSRTC Kandukur Depot, r/o Singarabotlapalem Village, Ponnalur Mandal, Prakasam District.… Plaintif.

Vs.

1.Appanaboina Narayana, S/o Chinna Venkata Subbaiah, aged about 70 years, cultivation, 2.Appanaboina Venkata Seshaiah, S/o Narayana, aged about 51 years, cultivation,

Both are r/o Singarabotlapalem Village, Ponnalur Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants.

The suit is coming before me on 29.03.2023 for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Nagendra Sarma, Advocate for the Plaintif and Sri

P.Krishnaiah, Advocate for defendants , and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:-

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

01. The suit is fled by the plaintif for specifc performance of contract of sale dated:25.07.1979 directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed in terms of agreement in favour of plaintif in respect of schedule properties and also for permanent injunction against the defendants, their men and followers from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

The suit schedule property is the ancestral property. The 1st defendant is the none other than the junior paternal uncle of the Plaintif.

The grand father of plaintif equally partitioned the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs father and 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st 2 defendant. The father of plaintif purchased an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in

Survey No.237/1B from the 1st defendant. After demise of the father of plaintif, the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, without any interference from any corner. The revenue authorities recognized the title and possession of the plaintif and issued pattadar and title deed passbooks vide Khata No.367. The plaintif has been cultivating the suit schedule property since 36 years, by raising crops like tobacco and jamoil plants. The defendants have no right or title or possession over the suit schedule property. Since one week, the defendants have been campaigning in the village that they will cut down the Jamoil trees and dispossess the plaintif from the suit schedule property. The defendants have support of the present ruling political party. The plaintif being weak person is unable to resist the highhanded acts of the defendants without aid and help of the court. Hence, the plaint.

3.The 1st defendant fled written statement which was adopted by the 2nd defendant by denying the contentions of the plaintif in his afidavit and took the following contentions:

The 1st defendant never sold the suit schedule property and never executed any agreement of sale said to be executed in the year 1979 in favour of the father of Plaintif. The copy of agreement of sale fled by the plaintif discloses that it is related to Survey No.237/2, but not to the suit schedule property. The pattadar passbook fled by the plaintif also shows that it is a tampered record. In fact, the plaintif is having land to an extent of Ac.1.57 cents in Survey No.237/1B. The defendants have got right over the land to an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in Survey No.237/1A. Neither the father of plaintif nor the plaintif gave notice to the defendants by demanding to execute regular registered sale deed in respect of the alleged agreement of sale, since 37 years. The plaintif forged the said document with the help of his kith and kin. There is no prima facie case and balance 3 of convenience is in favour of the defendants. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4.Basing upon the pleadings and documents, the following issues were settled on 28.03.2022:

1. Whether the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of flinn of this suit?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled seekinn the permanent injunction?

3. To what relief?

5.During enquiry, the plaintif got examined himself as Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. He also examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 on his behalf.

6.The 2nd defendant got examined himself as Dw.1 and got marked

Exs.B1 to B3. They also got examined the D.W.3 on their behalf. As per memo fled by the counsel for defendants, the evidence of D.W.2 was closed on 13.10.2022.

7.Heard both sides.

8.ISSUE No.1: -

As per the plaint averments, it is the contention of the plaintif that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property, which was partitioned by his grandfather, his father and his paternal uncle ie., 1st defendant and subsequently, the father of the plaintif purchased an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in the suit survey number from the 1st defendant and since then, his father and after demise of his father, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is his further contention that the defendants who have no manner of right or title over the suit schedule property are trying to cut the Jamoil trees raised by the plaintif and giving out in the village that they will dispossess the plaintif from the suit schedule property.

4

9.Since the plaintif approached the court for grant of relief of permanent injunction, it is his initial burden to establish that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of fling the suit. To prove the same, the plaintif got examined himself as

Pw.1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. He also got examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 on his behalf.

10.Ex.A1 and Ex.A2are Pattadar pass book and title deed pass book of the plaintif respectively. It discloses that the plaintif is owner and possessor of an extent of Ac.2.32 cents in Survey No.237/1B of Muppalla

Village. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, initially the extent of the land in the said survey number was shown as

Ac.1.57 cents and later, it was altered as Ac.2.32 cents. The plaintif relied upon Exs.A1 and A2/Pattadar passbook and title deed passbook stands in his name to prove his possession over the suit schedule property.

11.On coming to the oral evidence of Pw.1, it goes in accordance to the contents of the plaint. His evidence goes to show that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property, the 1st defendant is the none other than his junior paternal uncle, his grandfather equally partitioned the suit schedule property to his father and 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant, that his father purchased an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in

Survey No.237/1B from the 1st defendant, after demise of his father he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any interference from any corner, that the revenue authorities recognized the title and possession and issued pattadar and title deed passbooks vide

Khata No.367, he has been cultivating the suit schedule property since 36 years, by raising crops like tobacco and jamoil plants. His evidence further goes to show that the defendants have no right or title or possession over the suit schedule property, since one week, the defendants have been 5 campaigning in the village that they will cut down the Jamoil trees and dispossess him from the suit schedule property.

12.The evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.3 who are western side and northern side boundary holders of suit schedule property goes in the same lines as that of Pw.1. Though Pw.2 and Pw.3 supported in their respective chief examination, but they deposed in cross-examination that they do not know the contents of their chief afidavits.

13.On the other hand, the 2nd defendant himself got examined as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 and Ex.B2are public copies of 1B extract of the 1st plaintif dated:12.09.2016 and the 1st defendant

dated:18.12.2015 of Muppalla Village issued by Tahsildar, Ponnalur through

mee-seva respectively. Ex.B3is public copy of adangal for fasali 1426

dated:20.11.2016 related to Survey No.237/1A stands in the name of the 1st

defendant issued by Tahsildar, Ponnalur Mandal through mee-seva. Out of these documents, Ex.B1/1B extract of the plaintif discloses that the plaintif has land in an extent of Ac.1.57 cents only in the suit survey number.

Ex.B2/1B extract of the 1st defendant discloses that he has no property in the suit survey number, but he got land in an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in

Survey No.237/1A and some other properties at Muppalla Village.

Ex.B3/adangal copy also shows that the 1st defendant is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in Survey No.237/1A. Apparently,

Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 are not related to the suit schedule property. However, the contents of the entries in Ex.B1, which is a public copy clearly show that the plaintif is not in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property, but he is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of Ac.1.57 cents only in the suit survey number.

6

14.The evidence of Dw.1 (2nd defendant) goes to show that himself and his father never sold the suit schedule property and never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the father of Plaintif, that the plaintif is having land to an extent of Ac.1.57 cents in Survey No.237/1B, they got right over the land to an extent of Ac.0.82 cents in Survey No.237/1A, neither the father of plaintif nor the plaintif gave notice to them by demanding to execute regular registered sale deed in respect of the alleged agreement of sale, since 37 years, that the plaintif forged the said document with the help of his kith and kin.

15.In support of his contentions, the defendants also examined one

Ainampudi Sudhakar as Dw.3. His evidence corroborates the version of defendants in all material aspects.

16.It is the contention of the defendants that the agreement of sale said to be executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiffs father on 25.05.1979 is related to Survey No.237/2 but not the suit schedule property.

As seen from the plaint averments, the plaintif claimed that his father purchased an extent of Ac.0.74 cents from the 1st defendant out the entire extent of Ac.2.32 cents in the suit survey number, subsequent to partition, under an agreement of sale dated:25.05.1979. But the plaintiffs afidavit is completely silent about the mode of the said acquisition. He did not fle the original agreement of sale, under which he has been claiming right and possession over an extent of Ac.0.74 cents out of the suit schedule property.

Moreover, the plaintif who has been claiming that he is possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since 37 years, did not fle adangal or any other cultivation account to show his possession for such continuous period or at least for the period. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether the plaintif is in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule as 7 contended by him.So, the court is of the view that the plaintif has approached the court with false contentions and unclean hands.

17.Apart from this, the plaintif fled this suit for the relief of specifc performance of agreement of sale dated:25.05.1979 in respect of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction. If it is assumed that the agreement of sale is related to part of suit schedule property, it amounts to implied admission of the plaintif that the 1st defendant is true owner of an extent of Ac.0.74 cents in the suit survey number. Indisputably, the 1st defendant did not execute regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs father. If that is so, the said agreement of sale would not confer any right or title once such extent of Ac.0.74 cents to the plaintiffs father or plaintif . So, viewed from any angle, the court feels that the plaintif failed to establish his prima facie case as well as his possession over the entire suit schedule property, as on the date of fling this suit. Further the plaintif failed to establish his possession over the entire suit schedule property.

18.In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the plaintif failed to establish that he is in exclusive and lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Accordingly, Point

No.1 is answered against the plaintif.

19.ISSUE NOs. 2 and 3: -

In order to claim the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintif has to establish that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and the defendants are trying to obstruct his possession over the same.

20.As discussed in Issue No.1, the plaintif failed to establish his exclusive and lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of fling the suit. Hence, the court holds that the plaintif is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of 8 the suit schedule property against the defendants. Accordingly, these issues are answered against the plaintif.

21.In the result, the suit is dismissed, without costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 6 th day of April, 2023

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KANDUKUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintif : For Defendants :

PW.1 :A.Venkata RaoD.W.1: A.Venkat Seshaiah PW.2 :K.KotaiahD.W.2: N.Malyadri (Closed) PW.3 :K.Venu Gopal Reddy D.W.3:A.Sudhakar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintif :

Ex.A1: Original pattadar passbook issued by the MRO of Ponnalur in favour of plaintif dated:31.08.2019.

Ex.A2: Original title deed issued by the MRO of Ponnalur in favour of plaintif dated:31.08.2019.

For Defendants : -

Ex. B1: Certifed copy of 1B namuna stands in the name of plaintif relating to the Katha No.367 obtained through mee-seva.

Ex.B2: Certifed copy of 1B namuna stands in the name of plaintif obtained through mee-seva.

Ex.B3: Certifed copy of Pahani copy stands in the name of plaintif obtained through mee-seva.

PRL. J.C.J,KANDUKUR.

9