Sri.P.Shyam Prasad

1

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl., JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL.

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT SHADNAGAR

Tuesday, the 27th day of November, 2018

PRESENT: SRI P.SHYAMPRASAD,

ADDL., JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

FAC Prl., JMFC., SHADNAGAR.

C.C.No.721 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur.

...Complainant

And

Lunavath Ram Kumar S/o L.Kishan, Age.27 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ:Driver of Verito Car bearing No.AP 29T5473 R/o 23 TRO Colony, Hyathnagar, Hyderabad.

… Accused.

* * *

This case is coming on 27-11-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri.P.Siddeshwar Goud and Sri.Vijaya Bhaskar Goud, Advocates for the accused and upon perusal of the 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

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304-A, 338 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 07-08-2015 at 11.00 a.m., the complainant Smt.Pathlavath

Neela came to police station and lodged a report, in which she stated 2 that on 06-08-2015 at about 7.30 p.m., while her husband Pathlavath

Kotiya proceeded to Inmulnarva from Kothur on his splendor plus motorcycle bearing No.AP22L9245 it was belongs to P.Babu, when he crossing NH 44 road near Kothur Y Junction meantime driver of Verito

Car No.AP 29 T 5473 its driver drove his car in rash and negligent manner with high speed while proceeded to Hyderabad side from

Kurnool and gave dashed to Motorcycle, resulting which occupant of motor cycle her husband received severe bleeding injuries on right leg and other parts, the incident witness by her villager Korra Ravi and shifted community health centre, Shadnagar for treatment, further informed the same to her on which she rushed to Community health centre, Shadnagar. Further better treatment shifter her husband

NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment he was died on 07-08-2015 at 8.50 a.m.,

As per the contents of the above petition, Lw.11 T.Bhaskar

Reddy, Head Constable has registered a case in Cr.No.223 of 2015 under Section 304-A of IPC and took up the investigation.

3. This case was taken on file U/Sec.304-A, 338 of IPC against accused and after appearance of the accused before this court, he furnished with copies of documents as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C and the accused is examined U/s. 251 Cr.P.C., explaining the substance of accusation appearing against the accused for the offence U/Sec.304- 3

A, 338 of IPC and when questioned the accused denied the offence and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution had examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-11 and closed the evidence.

5. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313, Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against the accused and when questioned, the accused denied the evidence and did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

6. Heard both sides.

7. Now the point that arises for consideration in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Sec.304-A, 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

8. Point: The prosecution examined Pws.1 to 11. Pw.1 is the complainant and wife of the deceased stated in her evidence that about 3 years back on one day her husband was coming to their village from Kothur on a motorcycle belonging to LW5 and at about 7.30 p.m. when he reached Kothur “Y” junction, one car came with high speed coming from Hyderabad and dashed her husband due to which he sustained injuries on right leg. This incident was witnessed 4 by LW3 Ravi and he informed the same to her. Initially her husband was shifted to Government hospital, Shadnagar for treatment and he shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment where he died.

Pw.2 is the mother of the deceased stated in her evidence that about 3 years back on one day her son was coming to their village from Kothur on a motorcycle belonging to LW5 and at about 7.30 p.m. When he reached Kothur “y” junction, one car came with high speed coming from Hyderabad and dashed her son due to which he sustained injuries on right leg. Initially her son was shifted to

Government hospital, Shadnagar for treatment and from there shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment where he died.

Pw.3 is the owner of motorcycle deposed that he does not know facts of the case, Pw.5 is the eyewitness not supported the case of prosecution stating that he came to about accident through phone and they were turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pw.4 and Pw.7 are the panch for inquest and crime details form were also not supported the case of prosecution. Pw.4 stated that except inquest panchanama no other panchanama was conducted in his presence and Pw.7 stated that police never conducted scene of offence panchanama, they only admitted their signatures on inquest panchanama and crime details form.

5

Pw.6 is the investigation officer stated in his evidence that he received complaint from PW1, basing on that he registered a case in

Crime No.223/2015 U/Sec.304-A IPC and issued Ex.P6 First

Information Report. On 07-08-2015 he proceeded to NIMS hospital,

Hyderabad and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased Kotaiah in the presence of Lws.6 and 7 and obtained the signatures of the mediators. He shifted the deadbody to Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad and he gave requisition to duty doctor to conduct Post Mortem Examination of the deceased. On the same day at 4.00 pm he visited the scene of offence and along with Lws.6 and 7 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence. Ex.P7 is crime details form. he handed over the CD file to LW.12 for further investigation. He can identify the signatures of Lws12 and 13. On 13-08-2015 LW12 arrested the accused and produced before this Honb'le Court for judicial remand. He gave requisition to MVI to inspect the crime vehicle. He collected PME report, MVI report and wound certificate of LW4 and handed over the

CD file to LW13 for further investigation, who has filed the charge sheet in this case.

Pw.8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deadbody of deceased stated in her evidence that on 07-08-2015 at 8.59 a.m., as per her opinion the cause of death is hameraging shock as a result of injury to right lower limb and head. She issued Ex.P8 PME report.

Such injuries are possible in road accident.

6

Pw.9 is the doctor who treated the injured Lw.4 Raju he stated in his evidence that on 06-08-2015 he examined Lw.4 Raju who had sustained injuries in road accident and found thee injuries which are grievous in nature and are possible in RTA. He issued Ex.P9 Medico

Legal certificate.

Pw.10 is the investigation officer also stated in his evidence that on 13-08-2015 he arrest the accused and given requisition to Motor

Vehicle Inspector to inspect the crime vehicle.

Pw.11 is the investigation officer stated in his evidence that he received CD file from Pw.10 verified the investigation done by Pw.6 and Pw.10 and found same to be on proper lines. After completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC.

10. On perusal of the record the persecution examined Pws.1 to 11. The evidence of Pws.1 to 5 and 7 who are the material witness have not supported the case of prosecution. Except the death of the deceased, which took place due to accident with crime vehicle, nothing could be elicited to support the prosecution case. They neither gave descriptive particulars of the accused nor could they identify the accused in crime. When there is no evidence is forthcoming from the case of prosecution due to paucity of evidence, no credence can be placed to Exs.P1 to P11. Since material witnesses were turned hostile by the learned APP. So it appears that there 7 is no incriminating material appearing against the accused and he is entitled for acquittal for the offence under Section 304-A and 338 of IPC.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/Sec.304-A, 338 of IPC accordingly he is acquitted Under Sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months U/s 437 (a) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on system, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 27th day of November, 2018.

Addl., Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1 Pathlavath Neelamma None Pw.2 Pathlavath Ambi Pw.3 Pathlavath Babu Pw.4 S.Kotiya Pw.5 Ravi Pw.6 T.Bhaskar Reddy, A.S.I of Police Pw.7 P.Yadagiri Pw.8 Dr.Parvathi Pw.9 Dr.M.Satyam Yadav Pw.10 L.Yadaiah, A.S I of Police Pw.11 P.Pochaiah, S.I of Police 8

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

Ex.P-1 Report -Nil- Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P-3 Inquest panchanama Ex.P-4 Signature of Pw.4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 Ex.P-6 First Information Report Ex.P-7 Crime Details Form Ex.P-8 Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P-9 Medical Certificate of Lw.4 Ex.P-10 Motor Vehicle Inspector Report Ex.P-11 Signature of Pw.7 on Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Shadnagar.

Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD:

L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI.P.SHYAM PRASAD

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 9 th DAY OF MAY, 2022

Original Suit No. 1147 of 2021

BETWEEN: Smt. Barrenka Sharadha, W/o B. Kerishnaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o: 2-3-125, Plot No.36/B, Road No.8, Co-operative Bank Colony, Nagole, R.R. District. …Plaintiff

AND

1. K. Sathi Reddy, S/o K. Yellaiah, Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. K. Goverdhan Reddy, S/o Sathi Reddy, Age: 39 years, Occ: Corporater, (Both R/o: H.No.40-41, NBR Colony, Meerpet Village, Balanagar Mandal, R.R. District. ) …Defendants

Claim:This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

B. Satyanarayana, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for Plaintiff, this court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff herein through her counsel against the defendant Nos.1 and 2, praying this Court, to grant of Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendants and their men and agents from interfering the plaintiff lawful suit scheduled property, as prayed for.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff herein is the sole and absolute owner and peaceful possessor of east part of house

Page 2 of 5

bearing No.11-115/A, on plot bearing No.85, in survey No.119/3, admeasuring 125 square yards or 104.51 square meters, situated at

Meerpet village and Gram Panchayat Balapur Mandal (Previously

Saroornagar Mandal), R.R. District having purchased the same from Smt. P.

Lalitha, W/o P. Nagaiah vide registered sale deed document No.3529/2021,

dated 17-03-2021 registered before office of the Sub Registrar, L.B.Nagar,

originally the above survey No.119/3, situated at Meerpet village,

Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District belongs to Kesari Yellaiah, S/o Kesari

Venkataiah and subsequently, he converted the land into house plots and obtained a layout from Gram Panchayat, Meerpet village on his name. After the death of Kesari Yellaiah, his three sons namely (1) Kesari Anji Reddy, (2) Kesari Sathi Reddy and (3) Kesari Narayana reddy have become legal heirs and successors to the above estate.

The plaintiff further stated that all the legal heirs of Kesari Yellaiah including their major and minor sons executed a registered

G.P.A.No.164/90/Bk.IV, dated 16-03-1990, registered before Sub-Registrar,

Hyderabad in favour of A. Mohan Rao and another authorized them to sell the piece and parcel of land bearing plot No.85, in survey No.119/3, admeasuring 250 square yards, situated at Meerpet village, Saroornagar

Revenue Mandal, R.R. District in the above said layout. In pursuance of above G.P.A No.164/90/Bk.IV, dated 16-03-1990 A. Mohan Rao and another executed a sale deed bearing document No.4173 of 1992 dated 03-04-1992, registered before Sub Registrar, East Hyderabad and sold above piece and parcel of land bearing plot No.85, in survey No.119/3, admeasuring 250 square yeards, situated at Meerpet Village, Saroornagar Revenue Mandal,

R.R. District in favour of Smt. P. lalitha, W/o P. Nagaiah who is the vendor of the plaintiff herein.

Page 3 of 5

Further the plaintiff stated that the vendor of the plaintiff- Smt. P.

Lalitha, W/o P. Nagaiah approached and obtained permission to construct a house in the above plot No.85 and the office of the Gram Panchayat

Meerpet, Saroornagar Mandal vide proceedings No.158/1999 dated 22-11- 1999 accorded permission to contract the house and collected the necessary charges vide receipt No.096 dated 22-11-1999. Under R.T.I act the brother- in-law of plaintiff obtained information whether above plot No.85 will comes under Urban land Ceiling Act and the office of the Collector, The Tahsildhar

ULC Wing, R.R. District issued proceedings No.A4/RTI/250/2018 dated 20- 03-2018 informed that the above plot No.85 is not comes under the provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976. The plaintiff also obtained land use information from H.M.D.A, Hyderabad and they also issued information vide letter No.019656/LU/P5/H.M.D.A/29012019 dated 31-01-2019 stating that survey No.119/3 is partly residential zone and partly water body open space zone and 60 meters wide road is passing through the survey number. The defendants have no manner of right or interest of what so ever nature in and over the suit schedule property, who are third party to the schedule property and who are neighbors having plots in the same survey number and belongs to the same locality maintaining the anti-social elements gang and their main theme is to occupy illegally other plots and extract money. The defendants along with their henchmen on 23-7-2021 at 11-00 AM, tried to interfere and tried to remove the boundary stone of suit schedule property from the lawful possession of the plaintiff and at the same time the plaintiff resisted same with the help of her neighbors and well wishers. Again the defendant came on 16-08-2021 at 4-00 pm to the suit schedule premises with big gang and abused the plaintiff in filthy language which cannot express on the paper and also tried to interfere and tried to remove the boundary stone of the suit property, but again it was resisted by

Page 4 of 5

her neighbors and well wishers. The defendants are no way connected and concerned with the suit property and not having any right or title over the property while leaving the suit schedule property openly declared that they will come soon with more men and dispossess the plaintiff in order to grab the property inspite of giving police complaint. Hence the suit.

3.Notices given to defendant Nos.1 and 2, they served with notices and

Sri K. Narsing Raoji filed Vakalat for defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 23-9-2021, but failed to appear before this Court, subsequently, not filed written statement, as such this Court forfeited the filing of the written statement and made defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as ex- parte.

4.Ex parte chief evidence affidavit evidence of plaintiff as PW1 filed and

Ex.A1 to A12 documents are marked. Plaintiff evidence closed.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled

to grant Permanent Injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2, as

prayed for?

POINT:-

7.Perused the contents of chief affidavit of plaintiff as PW1, she is the sole and absolute owner and peaceful possessor of East part of H.No.11- 115/A on plot bearing No.85 in survey No.119/3 admeasuring 125 square yards situated at Meerpet village, purchased the same from one Smt.

Lalitha, W/o P. Nagesh under Ex.A1 and filed other documents, Ex.A2 to

A12, in support by her ownership.

Since the defendant Nos.1 and 2 though served with notices, and also filed Vakalat on their behalf but failed to file written statement to contest the matter, and both defendant Nos.1 and 2 made ex -parte.

Page 5 of 5

Ex.A1 to A12 clearly proves the ownership of plaintiff of suit schedule property.

This Court also granted ad-interim Injunction against defendant Nos,1 and 2 vide IA. No.228/2021 on 26-8-2021, the same is continuing.

In the result the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 and 2, restraining them, their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, as prayed for.

Typed directly on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open

Court on this the 9 th day of May, 2022.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1: B. Sharadha-Ex parte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of sale deed document No.3529/2021

dated 17-03-2021.

Ex.A2: Layout (xerox copy)

Ex.A3: Certified copy of GPA NO.164/1990 dated 16-03-1990.

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of sale deed No.4173/1992 dated 03-04-1992.

Ex.A5: House permission copy along with plan and receipt issued Panchayat Meerpet dated 22-11-1999.

Ex.A6: Letter from ULC (C&R) Act dated 20-03-2018.

Ex.A7: LRS permission from HMDA dated 5-12-2019.

Ex.A8: Letter from H.M.D.A dated 31-01-2019.

Ex.A9:Encumbrance certificate issued by SRO, L.B.Nagar dated 18-8-2021.

Ex.A10 :Copy of complaint to SHO, Meerpet police station dated 21-06-2021 along with photostat copy of Acknowledgment. Ex.A11 :Xerox property Tax receipt dated 01-04-2005 issued by G.P. Meerpet.

Ex.A12 :Original property Tax demand dated 01-07-2021 for the 2021-2022.

For the Defendants: - Ex parte –

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDG

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

Page 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: VI ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CUM VI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD:

L.B.NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI.P.SHYAM PRASAD

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM

VI ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT L.B. NAGAR

DATED: ON THIS THE 9 th DAY OF MAY, 2022

Original Suit No. 426 of 2021

BETWEEN:

Manakondoor Venkateshwarloo, S/o M. Laxmikantham, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o: 30-6475/12, Plot No.93, N.B.H.Colony, Near Jain Mandir, Chandragiri Colony, R.K.Puram Post, Hyderabad. Presently R/o: H.No.3-22, Malthummeda Village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Nizamabad District. …Plaintiff AND

1. Karedla Mallareddy, S/o not known, Age: 68 years, Occ: Retd. Employee / Business, R/o: Satyanarayanapuram, Nr.Shivalayam, Parvathapur Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

2. Budige Ramadas, S/o not known, Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2/100/3, Parvathapur Village, Medipally Masndal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

3. Chilumula Jagadishwar Reddy, S/o not known, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.2-65, Gandhinagar, Parvathapur Village, Medipally Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. …Defendants

Claim:This suit is filed for Perpetual Injunction.

This suit coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.

V. Narsimlu, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are set exparte and upon hearing the counsel for Plaintiff, this court delivered the following:

Page 2 of 5

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff herein through his counsel against the defendant Nos.1 to 3, praying this Court for grant of Perpetual Injunction, restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 3, and their henchmen, workmen, servants etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled property, as prayed for.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the plaintiff herein is the absolute owner, possessor and title holder of suit schedule property, originally the agriculture land bearing survey No.21 to an extent of Ac.15-03 guntas belongs to one Budhram Singh, later after the death of Budhram

Singh, his three sons namely (1) Ram Chander Singh, (2) Deepchand

Singh, (3) Phool Chand Singh, became the only legal heirs and successor of the properties of late Budhram Singh, thereafter on 16-9-1982 the above said three person altogether had executed a General Power of Attorney infavour of Shaik Meera vide document No.120 of 1982 on the file of SRO

Uppal. Later, on 20-9-1982 the above said Ram Chander Singh, Deepchand

Singh and Phool Chand Singh along with therir GPA holder namely Shaik

Meera had sold away the land bearing survey No.21 to an extent of acres 1- 20 guntas (out of Ac.15-03 gts.) situated at Parvathapur Village, R.R>

District (Now Medchal-Malkajgiri District) to Sree Ramana Cooperative

Housing Society Limited registered No.T.B.246, represented by its President -V.V.K.S.Sarma and Secretary-M. Satyanarayana, after receiving full sale consideration had executed a registered sale deed vide document

No.4244/1982 on the file of SRO Uppal. Later the said Sree Ramana Co- operative Housing Society Ltd., registered No. T.B.246, represented by its

President-V.V.K.S. Sarma and Secretary-M. Satyanarayana had demarcated the agriculture land into plots and sold away the plot No.F/468 admeasuring

Page 3 of 5

360 square yards situated Parvathapur village, Ghatkesar Mandal (now

Medipally Mandal), R.R. District to one M. Bharati, W/o M. Gopala Krishna for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1800/- and after receiving full sale consideration had executed the registered sale deed document No.4983/82,

dated 17-11-1982 on the file of SRO Uppal.

The plaintiff further stated that again in the year 2016 the said M.

Bharati for her personal and family necessities had offered to sell away the above said property id., Plot No.F/468 for a valid sale consideration of

Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs only) and the said offer was agreed and accepted by the plaintiff for the said sale consideration and the said M.

Bharati had executed a registered sale deed document No.8616/2016 dated 22-9-2016 on the file of SRO Ghatkesar in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the said property which is addressed as suit schedule property herein. Initially the original owners namely Ram Chander Singh,

Deepchand Singh and Phool Chand Singh were in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and later the said Sree Ramana

Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., registered No.T.B.246 is in possession and after the said M. Bharati is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Lastly, the plaintiff had purchased and is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants are not having any manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit land but they unnecessarily trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in order to encroach the plot of the plaintiff, came over the plot bearing Plot No.F/468 in survey No.21 admeasuring 360.00 square yards. On 5-03-2021 when the plaintiff went to his plot ie., suit schedule property, surprised to see that in the plot of the plaintiff the defendants illegally trying to encroach in his respective plot. While leaving the suit property, the defendants and their henchmen uttered that they will

Page 4 of 5

come again and dispossess the plaintiff at any cost in near future. The plaintiff apprehends that unless the defendants and their men are restrained by way of perpetual injunction, there are every possibility of dispossession of plaintiff illegally and thereby the plaintiff will be subjected to heavy and irreparable loss which cannot be compensate by way of any means. Hence the suit.

3.Summons sent to the defendant Nos. 1 to 3, though they served with the summons, but failed to appear before this Court to contest the suit.

Hence, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 made set ex- parte.

4.Chief affidavit evidence of plaintiff as PW1 filed and Ex.A1 to A6 documents are marked. Plaintiff evidence closed.

5.Heard the plaintiff counsel and the learned counsel for plaintiff also filed written arguments.

6.Now the point for consideration is whether the plaintiff is entitled

for Perpetual Injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 3, as prayed for?

POINT:-

7.Perused the contents of chief affidavit of plaintiff as PW1 and the documents filed by him, i.e., Ex.A1 to A6, as per Ex.A4, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of suit scheduled property, purchased from Smt. M.

Bharathi.

This Court already granted ad-interim injunction against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 vide IA.No.98/21 on 22-03-2021, in the said IA.

No.98/21, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 not filed any counter, they made set ex- parte.

Since, in the main suit, defendant Nos.1 to 3 though served summons, but failed to appear before this Court and to contest the suit.

Page 5 of 5

So the documents filed by the plaintiff i.e., Ex.A1 to A6 clearly goes to show that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of suit scheduled property.

In the result the suit is decreed by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant No.s 1 to 3 and their servants workmen, henchmen from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit scheduled property, with costs.

Typed directly on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW1 : Manakondoor Venkateshwarloo -Ex parte-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of registered GPA bearing document No.120/1982

dated 16-09-1982 along with translation copy.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of registered sale deed vide document No.4244/1982

dated 20-09-1982.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.4983/1982 dated 17-11-1982.

Ex.A4: Certified Copy of sale deed bearing document No.8616/2016 dated 22-9-2016.

Ex.A5: Certified copy of market value certificate dated 4-03-2021.

Ex.A6: Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate for the period from 01-10- 2007 to 03-03-2021 pertaining to Plot No.F/468, survey No.21.

For the Defendants: - Ex parte –

VI ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDG

CYBERABAD :L.B.NAGAR

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT SHADNAGAR

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2020

Present: Sri. P.Shyam Prasad, Addl. Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class. Shadnagar.

C C No.333 of 2017

Between:

The State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Shadnagar. …Complainant

And

A1. Yempati Buchappa S/o Late Veerappa, Age: 58 yrs., Occ.: Business, R/o H.No.10-120, Main road, Shadnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2.Yempati Sairam S/o Buchapa, Age: 25 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.10-120, Main road, Shadnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A3. Dandugula Kumar @ Mani Kumar S/o Balaiah, Age: 27 years, Occ: Supervisor, R/o H.No.20-101, Srinivasa colony, Farooqnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A4. Guggila Rakesh @ Bablu S/o Bhaskar, Age: 22 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.6-59, Ramnagar colony, Chatanpally village of Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A5. Athina Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar S/o Chennaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.4-99, Rasamallaguda H/o Nagulapally village of Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A6. Pasula Mallesh S/o Lingamaiah, Age: 24 years, Occ: painting work, R/o H.No.20-141, Srinivasa colony, Farooqnagar village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

…Accused.

***

This case is coming before me on 28-10-2020 for hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri Sridhar, Advocate for the A1 to A6 and having stood over for determination this day the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Shadnagar, filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offence u/s. 509, 506 IPC in Cr.No. 249 of 2017.

2

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Y.Suhasini had disputes with her paternal uncle A1.Y.Buchappa regarding house, mill and they used to quarrel frequently for property and the civil cases are pending before the court for consideration and keeping the grudges in mind on 11-05-2017 night at about 24.00 hours in the absence of family member of Lw1/Y.Suhasini, A1/Y.Buchappa entered her house and took away the kirana articles and damaged the same and again on 12- 05-2017 morning hours at about 09.00 hours A1/Buchappa, A2/Y.Sairam,

A3/D.Kumar @ Mani Kumar, A3/Dandugula Kumar @ Mani Kumar, A4/G.Rakesh @ Bablu, A5/Athina Sandeep @ Sandeep Kumar and A6/P.Mallesh are abused Lw1 in filthy language and photographed and videographed the same and threatened with dire consequences.

Basing on the complaint by LW.1 Y.Suhasini, Lw8.Rakshitha K.Murthy, IPC (Probationer), Ps.Shadnagar registered case in Cr.No. 249/17 u/s. 509, 506 IPC and entrusted to Lw9/M.Dasu, SI for further investigation, during his investigation Lw9 examined and recorded the statements of Lw1/Y.Suhasini and Lw2/Y.Shankar and visited scene of offence at main road, Shadnagar and examined and recorded the statements of Lw3/Y.Vishwanath, Lw4/N.Santosh and Lw5/P.Anjaneyulu and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in crime detail form in the presence of Lw6/C.Raju and Lww7/K.Srinivas Chary. After completion of investigation the LW.9 M.Dasu SI of police filed charge sheet u/sec. 509, 506 IPC against A1 to A6.

2.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance against the A1 to A6 for the offence u/s.509, 506 IPC.

3.Onappearance of the A1 to A6 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

3

4.A1 to A6 are examined u/s 251 Cr.P.C., for the offence u/s.509, 506 IPC against A.1 to A6, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 to A6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the trial prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 4 and marked Ex.P1 to P3 and closed the prosecution evidence.

6.The A1 to A6 are examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses and says no defence.

7.Heard both sides.

The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the offence u/sec.509, 506 IPC against the A1 to A6 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point:

8. Perused the evidence of Pws 1 to 4, Pw1 is the defacto complainant and victim , Pw2 brother of Pw1,Pw3 is the another brother of PW1, Pw4 is the investigation officer.

According to the evidence of PW1 she deposed that on 11-05-2017 at about 10.30P.M she closed the shop and went to the house and next day morning she opened the shop and noticed that the Mirchi machinery was damaged some of items in Kirana shop are stolen. She further deposed that about 5 to 10 minutes A1 and A2 and other persons went to her shop threatened her with dire consequences for withdrawing the case pending before Shadnagar court and they abused her in filthy language then she gave Ex.P1 complaint. In the cross examination she deposed that there is another partition suit vide OS.No.10/2015 is pending before Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Shadnagar filed by A1/Buchappa and she denied the other

suggestions. PWs 2 and 3 brothers of Pw1 deposed similar facts as deposed by Pw1 4 and in the cross examination also they admitted about the pending civil suit filed by

A1 and they denied other suggestions.

Pw4 investigation officer deposed in his chief as per his investigation and in the cross he admitted that there are corrections in Ex.P1 and also admitted that he did not seized cell phones and videos and photographs. He further says Pw1 gave complaint before him on 16-05-2017 he denied the suggestions.

I have carefully gone through the evidence of Pws 1 to 4, Pws 1 to 3 are the sister and bothers, admittedly there is a civil case pending before Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Shadnagar vide OS.No.10 of 2015 with regard to the partition of the

house filed by A1. According to the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 the alleged incident took place in the night of 12-05-2017 there is no incriminating material seized by investigation officer nor there is no direct evidence to that effect. To prove the offence u/sec.509 IPC the prosecution has to prove whether the accused abused or uttered any unparlamentry words against Pw1 to modesty her and insult her, but there is no evidence on record to show that the accused uttered such filthy words against Pw1 to insult her modesty because a civil suit pending against the PWs 1 to 3 by A1 there is possibility of foisting this case by Pws 1 to 3. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are quite contradictory and discrepancy with regard to their 161 Cr.P.C statements and also shattered in the cross examination.

According to Pw1 she deposed that the alleged incident took place on 11-05- 2017 and the alleged complaint given by Pw1 before police on 16-05-2017, there is a four days delay in lodging complaint before Pw4 as admitted by him there was no explanation. Further the prosecution not examined independent witnesses and punch witnesses it is fatal to the prosecution.

So the court not satisfied with the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 and the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

In the result, the A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec.509, 506

IPC accordingly they are acquitted u.sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to

A6 shall remain in force for a period of Six(6) months u/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28 th day of October, 2020

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Shadnagar

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW1 Y.Suhasini

PW2 Y.Shankar

Pw3 Vishwanath

Pw4 M.Dasu

Defence: -None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex P1 is report.

Ex P2 is FIR.

Ex P3 is Crime detail form

Defence: - Nil-

Material Objects marked

-Nil-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Shadnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT SHADNAGAR

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2020

Present: Sri. P.Shyam Prasad, Addl. Judl.Magistrate of 1st Class. Shadnagar.

C C No. 515 of 2018

Between:

The State represented through Sub Inspector of police, Shadnagar.

…Complainant

And

A1. Kondamoni @ Goundla Ashok S/o Balakistaiah, Age: 32 yrs., Occ.: Agriculture, R/o Kamsanpally village of Farooqnagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

A2. A.Narsimulu @ NarsagudemNarsimulu S/o Narayana, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Narsappagudem village of Nandigama Mandal.

…Accused.

This case is coming before me on 24-09-2020 for hearing in the presence of learned APP, on behalf of prosecution and Sri V.Vijya Bhaskar, Advocate for the

A1 and A2 and having stood over for determination this day the court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Shadnagar, filed charge sheet against A1 and

A2 for the offence u/s. 379 IPC in Cr.No. 652 of 2016.

The case of the prosecution is that on 30-12-2016 at 1400 hours

Lw1/Venugopalaswamy lodged complaint stating that about 2 months back his bore motor was committed theft by some unknown persons from his agriculture 2 fields . Further he caused enquires about the theft and came to know that

Gundala Ashok/A1 and Narsagudem Narsimulu/A2 were committed theft of his bore motor etc and same is still at his house.

Basing on the complaint by LW.1 Y.Venugopala Swamy, Lw8.Rama

Krishna Inspector of police Shadnagar registered a case in Cr.No. 652/17 u/s.

379 IPC and entrusted to Lw9/J.Narayana Singh for further investigation, during his investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lw-1 at PS and he visited the scene of offence at outskirts of Kamsanpally village and secured the presence of Lw4/K.Jangaiah and Lw5/E.Anjaneyulu and drawn rough sketch in crime detail form. Further Lw9 examined and recorded the statements of

Lw2/B.Anjaiah and Lw3/Y.Anjaneyulu and apprehended A1 and A2 at bus stand Shadnagar and on interrogation of police in the presence of

Lw6/C.Laxmaiah and Lw7/A.Shankar and the A1 confessed about commission of offence and Lw9/Narayana Singh SI proceeded to the house of A1 along with mediators Lws 6 and 7 at Kamsanpally village and recovered the theft property from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama. After completion of investigation the LW.10 P.Vijay Bhaskar SI of police filed charge sheet u/sec. 379 IPC against A1 and A2.

2.On the strength of such charge sheet, this case was taken cognizance against the A1 and A2 for the offence u/s. 379 IPC.

3.Onappearance of the A1 and A2 copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

4.A1 and A2 are examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C., and charge for the offence u/s.

379 IPC against A.1 and A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which A1 and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5.During the trial prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 7 and marked Ex.P1 to

P10 and closed the prosecution evidence.

6.The A1 and A2 are examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C, they denied the evidence of witnesses and says no defence.

7.Heard both sides.

The point for determination is whether the prosecution proved the offence u/sec.379 IPC against the A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt.

Point:

8. On perusal of record the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7 and ExP1 to

P10 are marked. The Pw1 is the complainant/victim, Pw2is eye witness, Pw3 is punch for scene, Pws4 and 5 are punch witnesses for confession and recovery of panchanama of the accused. Pws 6 and 7 are the investigation officers.

Pw1 deposed that in the year 2016 on one day he went to the agriculture filed and found missing of his bore motor and pipes, as some unknown offenders committed the theft of his bore motor and pipes, after two months he came to know through Anjaiah/Pw2 that A1 and A2 took his motor and pipes from his field and he asked them they replied that they did not committed the theft of his motor and his pipes from is agriculture field and went to police station and filed report. Pw2 another witness is deposed that about 2 years back on one day theft taken place in the fields of Gopala Swamy/Pw1 i.e., one motor bore, 6 pipes and 60 feet cable wire. The theft property kept in the house of Ashok/A1 and he saw the same. Pw3 punch witness for scene of offence is deposed that police never conducted panchanama in his presence. Ex.P2 is signature on panchanama. Pws 4 and 5 are punch for confession and recovery of property are deposed that 4 police never conducted panchanama in their presence. Ex.P3 and P4 are signatures of Pw4. Exs.P5 and P6 are signatures of Pw5 on panchanama and they turned hostile to the case of prosecution. During their cross examination nothing is elicited in favour of prosecution.

Pw6 investigation officer, he deposed about his investigation he arrested the accused on 07-02-2017 at 10.00 AM and he conducted confession recovery panchanama and seized the case property in the presence of Pws 4 and 5. On same day at 11.45 hours he conducted recovery panchanama at the house of A1 and recovered case property in the presence of same mediators. Another investigation officer Pw7 he deposed that after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

On perusal of evidence of Pw2 he deposed that he saw the theft property in the house of A1, the investigation officer also deposed about the recovered theft property from the house of A1 in the presence of mediators Pws 4 and 5, but Pws 4 and 5 turned hostile to the case of prosecution and their evidence not corroborated about recovery of case property to the evidence of investigation officer/Pw6. The recovery of case property from the possession of accused is doubtful, therefore the prosecution was not established its case against the A1 and A2. Thus the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence u.sec.379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec.379

IPC accordingly they are acquitted u.sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of Six(6) months u/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

5 the unmarked case property i.e., item nos.1 to 4 shall be returned to Gopala

Swamy (PW1) after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation to the typist, corrected and pronounced by me, on this the 24 th day of September, 2020

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Shadnagar

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution:

PW1 Gopala Swamy

PW2 Y.Anjaneyulu

Pw3 Jangaiah

Pw4 Laxmaiah

Pw5 A.Shankar

PW6 J.Narayana Singh, SI of police

Pw7 P.Vijay Bhaskar , SI of police

Defence: -None-

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution:

Ex P1 is report.

Ex P2 is signature of Pw3 on panchanama.

Ex P3 is signature of Pw4 on confession cum seizure panchanamma

Ex P4 is signature of Pw4 on seizure panchanama

Ex P5 is signature of Pw5 on confession cum seizure panchanamma

Ex P6 is signature of Pw6 on seizure panchanama

Ex P7 is FIR.

Ex P8 is crime detail form.

Ex P9 is the confession panchanama of A1.

Ex P10 is recovery panchanama of A1.

Defence: - Nil-

Material Objects marked

-Nil-

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Shadnagar.