Smt. P. SreeDevi

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

Warangal, PDJ Court Complex · Warangal · Telangana

Smt. P. SreeDevi, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, is posted at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana, India. 386 court orders on record since 2011. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, DVC, MC cases.

386

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/100392/2009 Acquitted

P.S.Mills Colony vs Mettupalli@ Jeripothula Narsaiah

27 Jun 2012

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

Dated: 27 th day of June, 2012.

Present: Smt. P. SREEDEVI, LL.B., LL.M., I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate.

Calendar Case No.392 of 2009

Between:

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Mills colony.…......Complainant.

AND

A1 – Mettupalli @ Jerripothula Narsaiah, A2 – Mettupalli @ Jerripothula Mariamma, A4 – Gadadasu Satish. A5 – B. Sudhakar

(case against A5 is abated on 26-6-12)…......Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri. B. Nixon Paul, Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills colony has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.252 /2009, for the offence punishable u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467, 506 IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The defacto complainant by name G. Swamy (LW.1) and A1 are natural brothers and the LW.1 was taken in adoption by J. Rajaiah when the LW.1 was three years old. The father of A1 was M. Dudaiah. A2 is the wife of A1. The LW.1 after adoption started residing with J. Rajaiah and continued as his son till the death of J. Rajaiah. His father purchased house property bearing no.11-4-228 situated at Christian colony. After death of J. Rajaiah and his wife, the LW.1 inherited the above said house as an absolute and legitimate owner. But the A1 with an illegal intention in order to grab the said house property, obtained caste certificate impersonating himself as J. Narsaiah, s/o. Late Rajaiah instead of M. Narsaiah, s/o. Dudaiah and representing himself as absolute owner of the above said house property gifted the same in the name of A2 by a Registered gift deed. A4 & A5 attested the said gift deed. The A1 along with A2, A4 & A5 misrepresented the officials and obtained false documents relating to his identity in order to prove himself as J. Narsaiah instead of M. Narsaiah and grabbed the above said house property and cheated the Lw.1 and other official concerned. On 17-8-09 the police mills colony has received the complaint of LW.1 referred by the court. On receipt of the complaint, a case in Cr.No.252 /2009, u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 2 420, 417, 467, 506 IPC was registered and investigated into. During investigation, G. Sudhakar (LW.10) examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted Crime Details Form (CDF) in the presence of mediators. On a requisition Lws.5 to 7 issued certificates that earlier certificates were issued by them. On 24-10-09 the accused A1, A2 & A5 and on 6-10-09 the A4 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. As A3 was absconding separate charge sheet was filed against A3. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On receiving of charge sheet the cognizance of the offence u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467, 506 IPC is taken on file against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused who are on bail, after receiving of summons, all the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. and upon considering the matter on record the charge for the offence u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467, 506 IPC, is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P19.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining all the incriminating evidence against the accused, for which they denied the same and reported that no defence on their behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused

for the offence u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467, 506 IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

10.To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to establish that A1, A2 & A4 by using all false documents grabbed the house property from LW.1 and by registering the said property in the name of A2 cheated LW.1. The available evidence on record is the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P19.

11.The prosecution case is that the PW.1/ complainant and A1 are natural brothers and the PW.1 was taken in adoption by J. Rajaiah when the complainant was three years old. The father of A1 was M. Dudaiah. A2 is the wife of A1. The PW.1 after adoption started residing with J. Rajaiah and continued as his son till the 3 death of J. Rajaiah. His father purchased house property bearing no.11-4-228 situated at Christian colony. After death of J. Rajaiah and his wife, the PW.1 inherited the above said house as an absolute and legitimate owner. But the A1 with an illegal intention in order to grab the said house property obtained caste certificate impersonating himself as J. Narsaiah, s/o. Late Rajaiah instead of M. Narsaiah, s/o. Dudaiah and representing himself as absolute owner of the above said house property, gifted the same in the name of A2 by a Registered gift deed. A4 & A5 attested the said gift deed. The A1 along with A2, A4 & A5 misrepresented the officials and obtained false documents relating to his identity in order to prove himself as J. Narsaiah instead of M. Narsaiah and grabbed the above said house property and cheated the Pw.1 and other official concerned. On 17-8-09 the police mills colony has received the complaint of PW.1 referred by the court.

12.PW.1 deposed that he has retired from Govt. service as ASW and he was adopted by J. Rajaiah and persued his education as J. Swamy and all his school records and also college records having his name entered as J. Swamy s/o. J. Rajaiah. He has a house property at Christian colony, but do not remember its bearing no. He is only the legal heir to that properties and since the death of his parents i.e., j. Rajaiah and Buchamma. He is in absolute possession of the above said house property. But A1 who is his natural brother occupied the said house without having any rights and he gifted the said house in the name of A2 who is also claiming the house against PW.1. The accused filed civil suit against the sons of PW.1 claiming the said house in their name and the Ex.P1 is the Certified Copy of plaint filed by A1 & A2. Ex.P2 is the petition filed under order 36 rule 1 filed by A1 & A2 against PW.1 and other respondents, for which Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendants in OS.No.74 of 2010, which show that a civil case filed by A1 & A2 against son of PW.1 and PW.2 which is still pending. Ex.P5 is the true extract of the property tax assessment which is in the name of J. Rajaiah for H.No.11-4-228 and Ex.P6 is the miscellaneous bill showing J. Rajaiah as assesse of H.No.11-4-228. Ex.P7 is the certified copy of gift settlement deed executed by A1 in favour of A2. Exs.P8 to P13 are the education qualification certificates of PW.1 showing his name as J. Swamy s/o. J. Rajaiah. He further deposed that A1 and A2 have no right whatsoever on the house bearing No.11-4-228 and they are illegally occupied and thereby cheated him. Then he filed a private complaint Ex.P14 against A1, A2, A4 & A5.

13.In his cross-examination he admitted that the document confronted to him is a caste certificate issued by MRO, Geesugonda, warangal which is attached to Ex.P7 which was issued in the year 2003. He deposed that he did not sign on the complaint and he does not remember whether the complaint was filed before this court.

14.PW.2 is the natural brother of PW.1 & A1 His chief-examination elicited the 4 fact that A1 with an intention to grab the property of PW.1 situated at labour colony, forged the documents and gifted the said house property in the name of A2. And he came to know about the said fact through police. In his cross-examination he admitted that A1 is an illiterate person and he came to Warangal and settled 15 years back and he is residing at Christian colony.

15.PW.3 & PW.4 are also natural brothers of PW.1 & A1. They also reiterated the same facts as that of PW.2. PW.5 is the Tahsildar. He deposed that on 25-9-09 PS Mills colony requested him through a letter to verify the caste certificate of A1 issued by Tahsildar. Then he verified all the records and noticed that the caste certficate was issued in the name of A1 by T.Nova, MRO of Geesugonda mandal and he issued a letter to the SHO Mills colony which is marked as Ex..P5 In his cross-exmaination he admitted that the caste certificate issued which is attached to Ex.P7 is only issued after due enquiry.

16.PW.6 is Panchayati Secretary. He deposed that he received a letter from SHO Mills colony asking him to verify the house valusation certificate of A1 to know that who singed on Ex.P1, accordingly he verified the records and found that he only issued the house valuation certificates to A1, after veryfying the records on the oral request of owners. Then he issued a letter to the PS Mills colony as a reply about his verification. Ex.P6 is the letter issued by him. Stating that the house valuation certificate is issued in the name of M. Narsaiah, s/o. Dudaiah. In his cross- examination he deposed that on the oral request of persons he will issue the house valuation certificates after verifying the records, no photo of the owners will be affixed in the house-tax demand registers. The A1 only came to his office for the certificate.

17.PW.7 is the Tahsildar at Sangem mandal. He depsoed that he received a letter from SHO Mils colony requesting to verify that the white ration card which was issued in the name of M. Narsaiah, s/o. Dudaiah is whether genuine or not and who issued the said card. Accordingly, he verified the records and found that the ration card was issued in the name of A1 duly signed by Krishnaveni , Deputy Tahsildar and found that the white ration card issued by their office is genuine and he sent a reply letter Ex.P17 to the SHO Mills colony. In his cross-examination he admitted that there are mettupally families in their village, but he cannot say how many families are there. They do not obtain photographs for maintaining the records, for the persons in whose name the ration cards will be issued.

18.PW.8 is the panch witness to the CDF, who deposed that the police enquired him about the neighbours of A1 and conducted CDF in his presence which is marked as Ex.P18. He admitted that A1 is son of J. Rajaiah and since 25 years A1 along with his father and brother J. Swamy were staying in the said house.

19.PW.9 is the Investigating officer. He deposed in his cross-examination that he did not receive any complaint from PW.1 and he does not remember whether any cases or pending against A1, A2, A4 & A5. He admitted that he did not examine any other person except the person cited in Ex.P14 as witnesses, He did not examine any neighbour of PW.1 to know whether PW1 was given for adoption to J. Rajaiah and PW,1 did not state to him that since how many years PW.1 is residing in the house bearing No.11-4-228. He did not enquire with the neighbors of the said house as per Ex.P7. He did not enquire with the neighbours of the house No.5-80 at Sangem village. He denied the fact that PW.2 to 4 are having family disputes with A1 & A2 and wantedly deposed in the favour of PW.1.

20.The learned APPO argued that the prosecution by producing cogent and reliable evidence brought the guilt of A1, A2, A4 & A5 on record and the documentary evidence which are very crucial in this case were also furnished before the Hon'ble court, which clearly established that all the accused by creating all false documents with an ill-intention, A1 gifted the house in the name of A2 over which both A1 & A2 do not have any right. Pws.2 to 4 being the own brothers of A1 they did not support A1 and they deposed the genuine facts and elicited the truth behind this case, proving the guilt of A1, A2, A4 & A5. In support of prosecution the learned APPO referred a citation reported in -

AIR 1960, Andhra Pradesh 441 (V47 C144), wherein it was held that the accused by his representation that he is K. Ramarao the Graduate had induced the Public service commission to select him and the cheating by personation has been made out. As a consequence there of damage or harm would follow to the statutory body suffering in its reputation. No special proof of damage or loss need be insisted upon. In this case where there is fradulent inducement by the accused to select him by mentioning false details in his application to the Public Servic commission the ingredients of sec.415 IPC are fully found.

21.Another citation reported in - 2007(1) ALD (Crl.) 74 (A.P.), wherein it was held that the petitioner knowing fully well his correct date of birth mis-represented to the Union Service commission that the date of birth is a different one with an intention to defraud the service commission and make them to grant permission to sit for the examination despite the fact that he was not eligible to sit for the examination as per his original date of birth and thereby the ingredients of sec.420 IPC were attracted and the revision petition is dismissed.

22.The learned APPO further argued that A1 is having registered his name in the voters list at Sangem mandal showing his name as M. Narsaiah, s/o. Dudaiah, H.No.5-8 and also having the valuation certificate in the same name. Further having a household card with the same name and filed Photostat copies of the same and he by cheating the officials obtained caste certificate and gifted the house No.11-4-228 in the name of A2 though he does not have any right. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused may 6 be punished.

23.The Learned counsel for the accuse argued that the accused did not commit any offence and they are falsely implicated in the present case. The PW.1 himself representing as the legal heir of the house bearing no.11-4-228 then why he was not impleaded as one of the defendants in Ex.P3, which is written statement filed by the defendants in OS. 74 of 2010. A civil suit is already pending about the claiming rights over the said house by A1 against the sons of PW.1 and PW.2 . The A1 also did not cite PW.1 as one of the defendants which establishes that A1 & PW.1 were residing in the said house having no disputes between them. The evidence of PW.8 is establishes that fact that the A1 & PW.1 are residing in the above said house since 25 years. He further argued that if a person resides in any house for a period of 20 years without any interruption in whatever manner, he gets adverse possession even against the owner of the said house. In the present case it was clearly elicited that A1 was residing in the said house since 25 years and he is the absolute possessor of the said house and his act of executing the gift deed in the favour of A2 does not amount to cheating.

24.He further argued that all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses to the prosecution and the caste certificate issued by MRO is the genuine one showing the name of A1 as J. Narsaiah, s/o. J. Rajaiah. Hence, no offence is committed by the all the accused herein and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In his support he referred a citation reported in - 2010 AIR SCW 405 between Md. Ibrahim and others vS. State of Bihar and another, in which it was held that there is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorized or empowered by the owner to execute the deed on owners behalf.

25.In the present case the A1 bonafidely believed that the property actually belongs to him and executed the gift deed and the gift deed is not a forged document. Hence, no offence u/s.420 or forgery are established by the prosecution.

26.Another citation reported in - (2010) 2 Suprement Court cases (Crl.) 649 between Ramesh Dutt and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, wherein it was held that only because the appellants are said to have transferred a portion of the property without having complete ownership over it by itself does not satisfy the ingredients of forgery.

27.By referring to the above citations the learned counsel for accused argued that no ingredients of secs.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467 & 506 IPC made out against all the accused and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the 7 offence u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467 & 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they may be acquitted.

28.On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence it is noticed that there is no dispute with the fact that A1 and Pw1 to PW4 are natural brothers. PW1 to PW4 are senior citizens, they all are aged about above 70 years except the PW4. The evidence of PW2 to PW4 does not elicit all the facts as narrated by the prosecution, they deposed that PW1 was adopted by J.Rajaiah . But the point to be noted is that the PW1 when he was 3years old he was given in adoption to J. Rajaiah , it means the adoption took place much earlier to the Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, coming in to force. His adoption found to be legal one as per Hindu law. The ExP8 to Exp13 are the education qualification certificates of PW1 which established the fact that he was adopted by late J. Rajaiah.

29.The Pw2 to Pw4 deposed that the A1 with deceitful intention occupied the house of PW1 at Cristian colony, Warangal and created all false documents. But the prosecution failed to elicit the clear facts of the case from those witnesses. It is admitted that all of them are senior citizens and unable to speak out the exact details of the facts. But there are contradictions in their evidence such as the period of the A1 residing in the house bearing no. 11-4-228 whether for 15 years or 2years. The evidence of PW8 clearly established that the A1 and PW1 are residing in the above said house since 25 years. The PW1 also deposed that the A1 residing in the said house. The prosecution failed to explain the reason for PW1 keeping silent till filing of civil suit by the A1 against the sons of PW1 and PW2 and why the PW1 was not impleaded as one of the defendants in the said civil suit. The ExP14 filed only after the A1 filed the civil case. Hence this court has reasonably presume that A1 and PW1 both lived together in the said house.

30.Further the PW1 who is above 70 years old but he was able to depose about the facts of the present case. In his cross examination he disclosed that he did not sign on ExP14, which is completely going against the entire prosecution case. Pw1 is the defacto complainant deposing that he did not sign on the ExP14, elevates the defect in the prosecution case. The prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses except the other family members of PW1 and A1 to get clarification about the adoption of PW1 and residence of A1. The investigating agency did not examine any neighbour of the house bearing no.11-4-228 or house no.5-80 at Sangem, village.

31.It is significant to note that the PW5, who is Tahasildar authenticated that the caste certificate issued to the A1 is genuine after verification of the records. Then the question of obtaining the caste certificate by A1 by using deceitful means does not arise. PW6 and PW7 who issued the house valuation certificate and ration card respectively, deposed that they issued them after thorough enquiry, but it is not 8 clarified with whom they enquired, whether they enquired with the neighbours of the residence of A1 at Cristian colony or not. Further the Photostat copy of caste certificate and voters identity card of A1 and A2 respectively, attached to ExP7 show the name of A1 as J. Narsaiah and his residence address as 11-4-228. This creates a doubt in the mind of the court about the genuineness of the prosecution case.

32.It was the prosecution contention that the A1 is native of Sangem village, but that does not debar him from having a house at Warangal. When all the prosecution witnesses deposed that the A1 is resident of Cristian colony, then this court has every reason to believe that A1 along with PW1 resided in the house no.11-4-228. Further when there is civil case pending about the title over the house no.11-4-228, it is too early to decide that the A1 cheated Pw1 by transferring the said house in the name of A2 through a gift deed. Further it is not clarified by the prosecution that whether the Pw1 is the only legal heir of the said house. No document to the effect that the PW1 is the absolute owner of the said house is filed by the prosecution. The most important point to be noted that the prosecution has failed to explain whether the late J. Rajaiah has died intestate or after executing0 the will. So it is difficult to believe the version of the prosecution that the PW1 is the only legal heir and when a civil case is pending on the dispute of the title over the above said property, this court does not find any guilty intention of all the accused herein for the acts done by them as alleged by the prosecution. Hence the prosecution failed prove the guilt of the A1, A2 and A4 for the offences u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467 & 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

33.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon careful scrutiny on the entire material available on record, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to produce evidence with regard to the guilt of all the accused in the present case as the prosecution witnesses deposed contradictory evidence with regard to the material particulars of the present case and the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they are found not guilty for the offence u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467 & 506 IPC and they may be acquitted.

34.In the result, the accused A1, A2 & A4 are found not guilty for the offences u/s.120-B, 406, 416, 420, 417, 467 & 506 IPC and they are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of June, 2012).

I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: PW.1 – G. Swamy, - NONE - PW.2 – M. Mogili, PW.3 – M. Komuraiah, PW.4 – M. Chandraiah, PW.5 – D. Narsaiah, PW.6 – Md. Yousufuddin, PW.7 – Md. Safiuddin, PW.8 – J. Yakaiah, PW.9 – G. Sudhakar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1 – CC. Of plaint in OS.No.74/2010 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge's court, Warangal. Ex.P2 – CC. Of petition u/s.39 R (1) r/w 151 CPC in IA.nO.64/10 in OS.No.74/10. Ex.P3 – CC. Of W.S. Filed by R2 in IA.No.64/10. Ex.P4 – CC of counter affidavit filed by R2 in IA.No.64/10. Ex.P5 – True extract of property tax assessment receipt dt:11-3-11. Ex.P6 – Miscellaneous bill. Ex.P7 – CC. Of gift settlement deed executed by A1. Ex.P8 – Original conduct certificate issued by Govt. High School Matwada, warangal. Ex.P9 – Primary school certificate issued by Head Master. Ex.P10 – Study certificate issued by Govt. High school, Matwada. Ex.P11 – Provisional certificate. Ex.P12 – Transfer certificate. Ex.P13 – B.Ed. Certificate issued by Osmania Vice Chancellor. Ex.P14 – complaint. Ex.P15 – letter issued by PW.5 to SHO Mills colony. Ex.P16 – letter issued by PW.6 to SHO Mills colony. Ex.P17 – letter issued by MRO, dt:11-9-09. Ex.P18 – Crime Details Form. Ex.P19 – First Information report.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - NIL -

I- ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

CC/100054/2010 Acquitted

P.S.Inthezargunj vs Boinapally Srinivasa Rao

26 Jun 2012

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

Dated: 26 th day of June, 2012.

Present: Smt. P. SREEDEVI, LL.B., LL.M., I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate.

Calendar Case No.54 of 2010

Between: The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Inthezargunj. …......Complainant.

AND

A1 – B. Srinivsa Rao,

A2 – Lingampally Veera Raghava Rao. …......Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. T. Shyam Sunder Rao, Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Inthezargunj, has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.80/ 2009, for the offence punishable u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act, against accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: The SI of PS Inthezargunj received credible information on 13-4-09 that on 11- 4-09 in Patel roadways transport 105 gunny bags were received which were not unreleased by any person till 13-4-09, then K. Devender Reddy (LW.10) went to the Patel road ways and enquired with the Office incharge P. Bujjaiah Naidu (LW.3), then he disclosed that his transport company received 105 gunny bags containing cricket kits and no person came till that date to unreleased the cricket kits. Then LW.10 secured the presence of Ch. Mogili & K. Manohar (LW.6 & 7) and recovered those 105 gunny bags containing 840 cricket kits which was transported by Priya sports industries, Meerut, through their Patel road ways of Meerut branch addressing to Patel road ways, Warangal. Basing on the invoices sent to the transport company 440 kits were delivered in the name of Anuradha Engineering Works and other 400 kits were delivered on the name of Raja Raj Laxmi Electric Engineering Works. The LW.3 disclosed that the Priya sports had informed him that the persons who belong to the above said two shops will arrive and they will take the delivery of those cricket kits, but till that date no body claimed the same. The LW.10 recovered those cricket kits in the presence of LWs. 6 & 7 and prepared the recovery panchanama attested by both the panchas. Thereafter he brought those cricket kits to the station and he registered a sumoto case vide cr.no.80/2009 u/s.410(i)(a) & 102 Cr.P.C. During the investigation the LW.10 examined LWs.1 to 4 and recorded their 2 statements, and conducted CDF in the presence of LWs.6 & 7. He also examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 5. On 7-5-09 the LW.10 arrested A1 & A2 and conducted interrogation in the presence of Lws.8 & 9 and produced before the court for judicial remand. It is the contention of the Investigating agency that both A1 & A2 are the active members of Telugudesam Party and residence of Warangal and to get success in their election for the their contesting candidates they want to attract the youth by distributing cricket kits and thereby the youth may support their party and with regard to the same they have purchased the cricket kits from Priya sports company, Meerut. But the police as seized the cricket kits from the transport company they could not released the same and after arresting the A1 & A2 basing on their confession, the police has booked a case against both A1 & A2 for the offences u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC and sec.133 of RP Act. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3.On receiving of charge sheet the cognizance of the offence u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act is taken on file against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused who is on bail, after receiving of summons, all the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and upon considering the matter on record the substance of accusation for the offence u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act framed, is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 6 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and MO.1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining all the incriminating evidence against the accused, for which he denied the same and reported that no defence on his behalf. Exs.D1 to D6 were got marked on behalf of defence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of

accused beyond reasonable doubt?

10. To bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to establish that both A1 & A2 have attempted to distribute cricket kits for their election campaign which is an offence u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC and sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act. The available evidence is the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P18.

11.It is the case of the prosecution that both A1 & A2 had purchased 840 cricket kits from Priya Sport Company, Merut, Uttar Pradesh and the same were transported from the patel road branch of Merut to be delivered through the branch of Patel road ways, Warangal. Both A1 & A2 had purchased those cricket kits in order to distribute them among the youth in the Warangal for the purpose of their election campaign in order to get success to the Telugu Desam Party as both are the members of the said party.

12.PW.1 is the office incharge of Patel Roadways Transport Company His chief- examination is reflecting the contents of complaint filed by SI of PS Inthezargunj. He received sale invoices, goods consignment notes pertaining to the purchase of cricket kits. Exs.P1 to P4 are showing the name of the consignee as Raja Raj laxmi Electric Engineering works, Warangal. Exs.P5 to P10 are showing the name of the consignee as Aradhana Engineering Works, Warangal. The sale invoice shows in the name of Priya sports, Merut and the two cricket kits were marked as MO.1 which were kept in the custody of police as sample and the photographs of the cricket kits also marked as Ex.P11. In his cross-examination he admitted that the Ex.P11 photographs were taken at the time when A1 and one Sampath Rao were taking the interim custody of those cricket kits. He further admitted that they received the cricket kits on 4-4-09. He was confronted with the invoice bills of Priya sports and they were marked as Ex.D1 to D3 in which the buyers name is M/s.Aradhana Engineering Company, under bridge road, Warangal. And as per Ex.P6, P8 and P10 the buyers name is Anuradha Engineering Company and in Ex.D1 to D3 the buyers name was corrected by striking off Anuradha and writing as Aradhana. He further admitted that due to the incorrect mention of the buyers name on the invoice the A1 & Sampath Rao went to Merut for the correction of the name of the buyer in the invoices. Meanwhile the police seized the cricket kits. He also admitted that in Ex.D4 to D6 the buyer name was Rajarajeswari Electrical & Engineering Works and as Exs.P2 to P4 the buyer name is Raga Raj Laxmi Electric Engineering Works. He further admitted that A1 & Sampath Rao usually buy the cricket kits at Meerut and they will sell the same in Warangal in their shops, but he does not know whether the said cricket kits brought for the purpose of election or not.

13.PW.2 is the panch witness to the CDF and CD form was marked as Ex.P12. His evidence proves that the police has seized the cricket kits and PW.5 is also another panch witness who supported the prosecution version. The recovery panchanama of the cricket kits from the patel road ways Warangal, on 13-4-09 was marked as Ex.P15. The fact that the police recovered the 840 cricket kits from the above said transport company is established, but the guilt of A1 & A2 is not established.

14.PWs.3 & 4 were alleged to be panch witnesses to the confession and recovery panchanama, but they did not support the prosecution by denying the suggestion that 4 the A1 & A2 confessed commission of the offence in the present case in their presence and their signatures on the confession panchanama were marked as Ex.P13 & P14.

15.Pw.6 is the investigating officer in the present case. His chief-examination is reflecting the investigation done by him, but in his cross-examination he admitted that he has seized the MO.1 and all other cricket kits under suspicious circumstances. He admitted that he did not found any pamphlets of any political party or any other material relating to election. He does not know whether A1 & one Sampath Rao after correcting their names in the invoice bills in Priya sports they got the property from the court.

16.The learned counsel for the accused argued that A1 & A2 did not commit any offence. The A1 runs a business of selling sports items in the name of Anuradha Engineering Works and Sampath Rao is another person who runs the business under the name of Rarajeshwari Electrical & Engineering Works. Both of them for their business transactions had purchased cricket kits from Priya sports, Meerut out of their natural course of business and on the invoice bills and on consignment notes as their names were wrongly mentioned as Aradhana Engineering Works, Raja Raj Laxmi Electric Engineering Works, they could not get released those cricket kits in time and the delay is caused in getting correction of the names on the invoice bills which clearly established by Ex.D1 to D6 and A2 is no way concerned in the present case. Both PWs.2 & 3 who are the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and the evidence of PW.1 which is eliciting the fact that due to incorrect names in the invoice bills all the case has been developed and both A1 & A2 did not commit any offence and the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused, hence they may be acquitted.

17.On the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution case it is noticed that prosecution has levelled charges against A1 & A2 for the offences u/s.171-e, 188 r/w 511 IPC and sec.133 of Peoples Representation Act. For a better understanding of the same a reading of those sections are given below:

171-B. Bribery:- (1) Whoever-

(i) gives a gratification to any person with the object of including him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right; or

(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of bribery; Provided that a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence under this section.

(2)A person who offers, or agrees to give, or offers or attempts to procure a gratification shall be deemed to give a gratification.

(3)A person who obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who accepts a gratification as a motive for doing what he does not intend to do, or 5 as a reward for doing what he has not done shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.

Punishment is defined u/s.171-E.

188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant:- Whoever, knowing that by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction; shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance, or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully, employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot, or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Explanation:- It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as is likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.

133. Penalty for illegal hiring or procuring of conveyance at elections:- If any person is guilty of any such corrupt practice as is specified in clause (5) of Section 123 at or in connection with an election, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months and with fine.

18.In the present case it is noticed that A1 is the owner of the shop by name M/s. Aradhana Engineering Co. and one Sampath Rao is the owner of Rajarajeshwari Electrical & Engineering Works. As per the evidence of PW.1, the A1 & Sampath Rao used to buy cricket kits from Priya Sports for their business transactions, as per the Exs.D1 to D6 the fact that they purchased the cricket kits from Priya Sports, but whether they have purchased for the purpose of distributing them to the public for election purpose is not established. It is the version of the accused that the invoice bills were drawn on incorrect names of their respective shops due to which the releasing of cricket kits from Patel road ways Transport company is delayed. The prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that they have purchased those cricket kits for election purpose. As per the evidence of Pws.1, 2 & 5 no election material was seized at the time of recovery at Patel road ways company. Further, the material witnesses PW.3 & 4 did not support the prosecution that both A1 & A2 confessed their guilt in their presence. Hence, the prosecution is failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

19.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon careful scrutiny on the entire material available on record, this court is of the considered view that it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecution witnesses. Further the Ex.D1 to D6 creates a doubt in the 6 mind of the court about the guilt of the accused in the present case leading to the presumption of innocence in favour of both the accused. Hence, the accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offences u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act and they may be acquitted.

20. In the result the accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.188, 171-E r/w 511 IPC, sec.133 of Representation of Peoples Act IPC, and they are acquitted u/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be stand cancelled. The two cricket kits which were marked as MO.1, out of them one cricket kit to the A1 herein and the other cricket kit to M. Sampath Rao who is the petitioner in

Crl.Mp.No.1048/2010, shall be returned to them after expiry of appeal time.

The cash surety deposited vide Crl.Mp.No.1163/2010 for an amount of Rs.1,49,600/- which was kept in FDR to A1 and another cash surety deposited vide

Crl.Mp.No.1162/10 by M. Sampath rao, s/o. Venkat Rao for an amount of Rs.1,36,000/-

which was kept in FDR to him, shall be returned to them after expiry of appeal time. (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 26th day of June, 2012).

I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: PW.1 – P. Bujjaiah Naidu. - NONE - PW.2 – Ch. Mogili. PW.3 – J. Mahipal reddy, PW.4 – P. Nagaraju. PW.5 – K. Manohar. PW.6 – K. Devender Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – goods consignment note. Exs.D1 to D6 – Invoice bills. Ex.P2 – sale invoice. Ex.P3 – goods consignment note. Ex.P4 – sale invoice. Ex.P5 – G.C. note. Ex.P6 – sale invoice. Ex.P7 – G.C. note. Ex.P8 – sale invoice. Ex.P9 – G.C. note. Ex.P10 – sale invoice. Ex.P11 – (8) photos along with CD. Ex.P12 – Crime Details Form. Ex.P13 – signature of PW.3 on confession panchanama. Ex.P14 – signature of PW.4 on confession & recovery panchanama. Ex.P15 – recovery panchanama. Ex.P16 – complaint. Ex.P17 – First Information report. Ex.P18 – confession panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: MO.1 – two cricket kits.

I- ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

CC/100248/2010 Acquitted

P.S.Athmakur vs Mannem Anantha Reddy

28 Jun 2012

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, WARANGAL.

Dated: 28 th day of June, 2012.

Present: Smt. P. SREEDEVI, LL.B., LL.M., I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate.

Calendar Case No.248 of 2010

Between:

The State of A.P. through Sub-Inspector of Police,

PS Athmakur.…......Complainant.

AND

Mannem Anantha Reddy.…......Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri. B. Raja Malla Reddy, Advocate for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Athmakur has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.6/2010, for the offence punishable u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC against the accused.

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 7-1-2010 at about 19.30 hrs near rice mill at the outskirts of Gudeppad village, the accused the driver of the tipper bearing No.AP0.2T.3474 drove the tipper in a rash manner with high speed came in wrong side and dashed the auto bearing No.AP.36.T/R.0659 in opposite direction, which has driven by O. Shankar (LW.7). As a result of which the deceased and A. Balaji, A. Sammakka w/o. Sammaiah, A. Sammakka w/o. Balaji, A. Raj Kumar, A. Rakesh Kumar (Lws.1 to 5) respectively who were travelling in the auto have sustained injuries, later the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 8-1-10 at 10.00 hrs while undergoing treatment in MGM hospital, Warangal. On receipt of the complaint, a case in Cr.No.6/2010, u/s.304-A, 337 IPC was registered and investigated into. During investigation, L. Deva Singh (LW.16) examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drafted Crime Details Form (CDF) in the presence of mediators, got photographed the deceased, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses, gave requisitions in the MGM hospital for wound certificates of the injured Lws.2 & 3. Subsequently, N. Chandra Bhanu (LW.17) took up further investigation. LW.13 treated the injured Lws.2 & 3 and opined that LW.2 sustained simple injury and Lw.3 sustained grievous and simple injuries. LW.14 conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and opined in PME report that the cause of death of deceased was 2 due to head injury. LW.15 inspected the crime vehicle and opined that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. On 12-1-10 at 10.30 hrs LW.8 made the accused surrendered and on his confession, LW.17 arrested the accused and verified the driving license and vehicular documents of crime vehicle and found it valid, and sent the accused for judicial remand. After completion of investigation police filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On receiving of charge sheet the cognizance of the offence u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC is taken on file against the accused.

4.On appearance of accused who are on bail, after receiving of summons, all the copies of documents were furnished to the accused as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused were examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and upon considering the matter on record the substance of accusation for the offence u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC, is read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.In order to bring the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

8.Heard both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is: Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused

for the offence u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.304-A, 338 and 337 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused drove the lorry rashly and negligently and caused the accident to the auto and due to which the passengers in the auto sustained injuries and one Ajmeera Sammaiah died in the accident. The available evidence on record is the oral evidence of PW1 to PW13 and Exs.P1 to P12.

11. It is the case of the prosecution that on 7-1-2010, at about 7:30 pm the deceased A. Sammaiah and PW1 to PW5 were travelling in an auto bearing no. 36T/R 0659, in which PW5 was driving the auto. When the auto reached the outskirts 3 of Gudeppad village, a tipper lorry bearing no.AP0.2T.3474 came in the opposite direction, the driver drove the lorry in a rash manner with high speed and dashed against the auto, due to which the accident caused. The auto was fell down and the passengers in the auto were sustained injuries, out of them one A. Sammaiah was succumbed to injuries on the next day.

12.The PW1 is the wife of the deceased, she identified the accused as the driver of the lorry on the date of incident, who drove the lorry in high speed and in negligent manner. She deposed in her cross examination after the accident the police arrested the driver of the tipper and took him to P.S. and the front portion of the lorry dashed to their auto and the auto was completely damaged. PW2 is brother of the deceased. He lodged the report ExP1. He deposed that he cannot identify the driver of the crime vehicle. He admitted that six persons were travelling in the auto at the time of incident and one person was sitting by the side of the driver of auto and remaining persons were sitting on the backside of auto. The ExP1 was scribed by the police and obtained the signature of PW2 at the scene of offence.

13.The PW3 is the wife of PW2, she identified the accused as the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident. But she admitted in the cross examination that it was dark at the time of the accident. The PW4 is injured person, and the son of the deceased and PW1. He also identified the driver of the crime vehicle. He deposed in his cross examination that the back side of the tipper hit the auto and he came to know about the name of the accused through the police as Anantha Reddy. PW5 is the driver of the auto in which all the injured and deceased travelled. He deposed in his cross-examination that his auto capacity is three seats. And he does not have driving license. The police has taken the driver and also the crime vehicle to the P.S. and he cannot say which part of the crime vehicle has dashed to the auto. And a cleaner was there in the crime lorry.

14.The PW6 is the Photographer and the photos were marked as Ex.P2. PW7 is the owner of the crime vehicle, he deposed in his chief-examination that he has given the lorry to the crushing work and he does not know who is the driver of the lorry at the time of the accident. He did not support the prosecution case. Hence he was examined by the learned APP, but nothing was elicited incriminating against the accused. The PW8 is the panch witness to the CDF, which is marked as ExP4. PW9 is the panch witness to the inquest panchanama which is marked as Ex.P5. PW10 was the doctor who treated the injured and issued medical certificates which are marked as Ex.P6 to ExP9. She deposed in her cross examination that if any injury is of the age of 3 hours she can say it as fresh injury and if the injury is examined by the doctor after 6 hours, she can say it as within 24 hours. The injuries sustained by the injured in this case were caused 6 hours prior to her examination and she mentioned in Exs.P5 and P7 as the injuries are within 24 hours. PW11 is the investigating officer 4 in his cross examination he admitted that as per ExP1 the driver of the crime vehicle is A. Sammaiah. The another auto involved in the accident was not inspected by the MVI. He can not say which portion of auto was damaged in the accident.

15.PW.12 is the Doctor who conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased, the PME report is marked as Ex.P11 and he opined that the death of the deceased caused within 24 hrs prior to his examination. PW.13 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who issued Ex.P12.

16.The learned counsel for the accused argued that a false case has been filed against the accused who is having a driving license in order to get compensation for the injured persons in the auto. In Ex.P1 the auto number was corrected and the Ex.P1 is not clear in which direction the lorry was proceeding. There is a delay of one day in lodging Ex.P1 and the same was reached to the Magistrate for endorsement on 12-1-2010. The PME report also dated with seven days delay. In the entire prosecution case, no where the descriptive particulars of accused were mentioned. The driver of the auto in whose vehicle all the injured persons travelled does not have a license and the auto was not examined by MVI. The accused was not arrested by the police and as per the charge sheet he surrendered before the police, but all the prosecution witnesses deposed contradictory evidence with regard to identification of the accused and his arrest. The police did not conduct TIP which is also fatal to the prosecution case. The accused did not commit any offence which was clearly established in this case. Hence the prosecution has totally failed to prove the guilt of the accused in this case. Therefore, the accused may be acquitted. He has referred the following citations which are reported in - (i) L.C.2009 (10) A.P. 345 in between Lingala Lasmaiah @ Laxmaiah - Appellant Vs. State of A.P. - Respondent, wherein it was held that – Turning to the case on hand the investigation commenced much earlier to lodging of the FIR by PW.1 and therefore the FIR in this case which is marked as Ex.P6 is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. and the same cannot be treated as FIR in the eye of law. Further registering the FIR much latter to the commencement of investigation given any amount of scope for introducing a concocted and distorted version.

(ii) L.C. 2009 (10) A.P. 320 in between Piginarayi Ranga Rao - Appellant Vs. The state of A.P. - Respondent, wherein it was held that – In the absence of a test identification parade, it is difficult to believe that the accused is the person who committed offence especially when the eye witnesses of the accident had no prior acquaintance with the accused and had only flecting glimpses of him

before he fled away from the accident site.

(iii) 2003 (2) ALD (Crl.) 256 (AP) in between K. Nageswara Rao Vs. State of A.P., wherein it was held that the prosecution must prove that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Merely because the accused was driver of the lorry, it cannot be presumed that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. There cannot be any presumption that just because the accident took place, the accused drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. Unless the prosecution is able to prove that the accused was the driver of the lorry 5 at the time of the accident and that he drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner conviction cannot be based for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. Unless the prosecution is able to prove the rash and negligent driving, conviction cannot be based.

17.On the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, it is noticed that the some of the witnesses identified the accused and some of them did not. They deposed that the police arrested the accused at the scene of offence. But as per the charge sheet he was surrendered before the police which is completely contradicting to the prosecution case. Further the owner of the crime lorry did not support prosecution case. The investigating agency did not send the auto which was also involved in that accident with the crime lorry. The MVI report also very formal and important point to be noted is neither the Ex.P1 nor the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of all the witnesses did not reveal the descriptive particulars of the driver of the crime vehicle which creates a doubt about the prosecution case. Further the rashness and negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The accused cannot be found guilty unless and until it is established that the rash and negligent act of the accused is the direct and proximate cause for the death of the deceased in the accident. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

18.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and upon careful scrutiny on the entire material available on record, this court is of the considered view that it is unsafe to convict the accused basing on the contradicting evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. Hence, the accused is found not guilty and he may be acquitted.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s.304-A, 337, 338 IPC and he is acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. (Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of June, 2012).

I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: PW.1 – A. Sammakka, - NONE - PW.2 – A. Balaji, PW.3 – A. Sammakka, w/o. Balaji. PW.4 – A. Raj Kumar, PW.5 – O. Shankar, PW.6 – J. Bixapathi, PW.7 – N. Ram Reddy, PW.8 – M. Srinivas Reddy, PW.9 – A. Ojna, 6

PW.10 – Dr. Kalpana Durga, PW.11 – L. Devasingh, PW.12 – Dr. K. V. Ramana Murthy, PW.13 – Md. Ghouse Pasha.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – complaint.- NIL - Ex.P2 – (8) photographs & (4) negatives, Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7, Ex.P4 – Crime Details Form. Ex.P5 – Inquest report. Ex.P6 – Medical certificate of PW.3. Ex.P7 – Radiologist report of PW.3. Ex.P8 – Medical certificate of PW.1. Ex.P9 – Radiologist report of PW.1. Ex.P10 – First Information report. Ex,P11 – PME report. Ex.P12 – MVI report.

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL.

I- ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

CC/100211/2011 Acquitted

P.S.Inthezargunj vs Vallam @ Pendyala Ramesh

24 Mar 2014

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

Monday, this the 24 th day of March, 2014.

Present: P. SREEDEVI, I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

Calender Case No.211 of 2011

Between: The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police,

P.S. Inthezargunj. ……..Complainant.

AND

A1 – Vallam @ Pendyala Ramesh, A2 – Sola Shekar,

A3 – Ityala Sanjeeva. ..….. Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri. Ch. Chidambarnath, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, PS Inthezargunj filed charge sheet in Cr.No.58 /2011 for the offence u/s.447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC, against the accused.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: That on 29-3-2011 at 14.00 hrs, the de facto complainant / LW.1 (V. Sammaiah), lodged a Telugu written report before SDPO, Warangal stating that they belongs to Schedule Caste community and residents of Deshaipet and Enumamula villages. Since 50 years they are using the land in Sy.No.17 of Deshaipet village for burial ground and constructing of Tombs of their elders. On 24-3-11 in the mid night A1 to A3 who are doing real estate business and others demolished the Tombs with bulldozer, due to which some bones belongs to their elders were came out from the Tombs. In this regard the above said persons defiled the place of burial ground and insulted their religion rites. Hence, requested for necessary action. As such the kind SDPO, Warangal has forwarded the above report to PS Inthezargunj with instructions to registere a case for taking necessary action.

On receipt of the above report, LW.8 (S.M. Ali) registered a case in Cr.No.58/2011, u/s.447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and investigated into. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW.1, visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 5 (P. Amarnath, S. Yella Swamy, D. Babu and P. Shobhan Babu respectively), secured the presence of mediators Lws.6 & 7 (B. Narender & V. Suryanarayana) and drafted Crime Details Form and obtained photographs of the scene. On 2-6-11, he arrested the accused A1 to A3 who were surrendered before him and released on Anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of AP, Hyderabad. The guilt was proved against A1 to A3 only, but not on others as mentioned in FIR as per the statements of Lws.2 to 5. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused.

4. After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken cognizance against accused for the offence u/s.447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC.

5. On appearance of accused, all the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. and are examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC , substance of accusation is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4.

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining all incriminating material against them, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/s. 447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10. To prove the guilt of the accuse, the prosecution has to 3 establish that the A1 to A3 illegally trespassed sinto the graveyard land of PWs.1 to 6 and caused damage to their property and destroyed graves of their forefathers and caused damage to place of worship with an intent to insult the religion of PWs.1 to 6, with the knowledge that the feelings of PWs.1 to 6 are likely to be wounded. To substantiate its case the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P4.

11. Pw.1 is the de facto complainant. He deposed in his chief-examination that since two decades his forefathers used to cremate the dead bodies of their caste people in the open place situated at Enumamula outskirts in Sy.No.17 and it is being used as grave yard by their caste people till today. On 24-3-11 during midnight A1 to A3 trespassed into the said graveyard and demolished the graves with the help of bulldozers and leveled the graveyard. He came to know about the incident through villagers. When he went to the scene of offence he found that all the graves were demolished and bones and skulls were came out. Then he went to police station and lodged the report (Ex.P1). In his cross-examination he admitted that the land in Sy.No.17 is not owned by him personally and one G. Gattaiah was the pattedar of the said land. He did not handover any documents of the graveyard to the police to show that the above land belongs to their caste people. He was not eye witness to the incident. The Ex.P1 was lodged on 28-3-11 and same was shown as received on 29-3-11. He has given a written complaint to PS Inthezargunj on 26- 3-11. There are no records pertaining to the above said land maintained by Gram panchayat to show that it is a grave yard.

12. PWs.2 to 4 deposed in their chief-examination as deposed PW.1 and there are no specific facts elicited in their chief- examination different from the chief-examination of PW.1. Hence, their evidence need not be discussed. The PW.2 and PW.4 deposed in their cross-examination that they are not the eye witnesses to the incident and some villagers informed them about the same. But PW.3 deposed in his cross-examination that he is the eye witness to the incident and the accused claimed the land and informed him that they are responsible for demolition of the structures in the grave yard. He admitted that he accompanied the PW.1 to the police station. But the Ex.P1 does not reflect that PW.3 was present and witnessed the incident at the scene of offence. PW.5 is the panch witness to the crime details form (Ex.P2). In his cross-examination he 4 admitted that he also belongs to the caste of PWs.1 to 4. His family also used to cremate the dead bodies in the same graveyard and he is also interested in the said graveyard.

13. PW.6 is the VRO of Deshaipet village. His evidence is also similar to that of PW.1. His evidence elicited that he is not the eye witness to the incident and he did not hear any sounds of bulldozer from the scene on the date of incident. He does not know who is the owner of the land in Sy.No.17. He also belongs to the caste of Pws.1 to 5. PW.7 is the Investigating Officer. He has issued First Information Report (Ex.P3) after receiving of Ex.P1 and drawn the Crime Details Form (Ex.P2) and he has got photographs (Ex.P4) of the scene. In his cross-examination he admitted that he does not know whether the land in Sy.No.17 is a Government land or patta land. He did not collect any revenue record either from the revenue department or from Gram Panchayat to show that the disputed land is a Graveyard. PW.1 did not file any report prior to receiving of Ex.P1. The adjacent land of scene of offence are agricultural lands and he did not examine the neighbors of the scene. He did not ascertain with the Patvari (or) V.A.O. about the ownership of the said land.

14. The Learned APP argued that the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and all the witnesses supported the prosecution case. The Ex.P4 photographs also corroborating with the oral evidence of the prosecution, clinchingly establishing the guilt of the A1 to A3 in the present case. Hence, the accused may be punished. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the accused argued that it is a false case filed by the prosecution against A1 to A3 under the influence of Pws.1 to 6. There are material contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 with regard the presence of eye witness at the scene. The police did not examine any neighbor of the scene of offence. They also failed to collect the revenue records pertaining to the above land. He further argued that the prosecution has utterly failed in establishing that the graveyard is situated in the land of Sy.No.17 of Deshaipet or not. No Gram Panchayat records were filed

before this court to support the contention of Pws.1 to 6 that their

caste men dead bodies were being burried in graveyard and land in Sy.No.17 is being used as graveyard by Pws.1 to 6 and their caste men. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The accused may be acquitted.

15. On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record and after hearing to both sides, it is pertinent to note that the Pws. 1 to 6 are belong to one and same caste and they are interested in the disputed land as per the prosecution version. To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s.447 IPC, the complainant must establish that he is in the possession of the land in which the accused illegally trespassed into. In the present case except the oral evidence elicited that Pws.1 to 6 having interest over the said land, no documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in support of their oral evidence. In cases of like this nature which is material and crucial to produce the documents pertaining to the land to establish the possession over the disputed land. But the prosecution did not file any documents pertaining to the land in Sy.No.17 to prove the possession over the said land. It is not clear that the land in Sy.No.17 is being used as graveyard by the caste people of Pws.1 to 6 including themselves. No authority concerned such as VRO or VAO or any other Official was examined by the Prosecution so as to prove the allegation that Pws.1 to 6 and their caste men are using the land in Sy.No.17 as grave yard.

16. Be that as it may, Pws.1 to 6 deposed in their evidence that they are eye witnesses to the scene in their chief-examinations, but contradicting to their version, PW.3 deposed in his cross- examination that he was the eye witness to the incident. No where it is elicited how the Pws.1 to 6 came to know about the alleged incident of demolishing the structures of cremations at grave yard. However if for a moment the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 presumed to be trustworthy, their own evidence consisting of contradictions in their cross- examinations elicited that none of them heard voices of bulldozers from the scene of offence on the date of incident, this creates a doubt about the prosecution case. Further there is a delay of lodging of Ex.P1 from the alleged date of incident. The explanation given by PW.1 in his cross-examination is not supported by the Investigating Officer, who deposed that he has not received any complaint prior to receiving of Ex.P1, hence the delay for lodging Ex.P1 is not sufficiently explained by prosecution. Further more as per the Crime Details Form, the neighbors of the scene as shown in the sketch of Ex.P2 were not examined by the Police and the Police did not cite them as witnesses in the prosecution case. Except the Pws.1 to 6 who are found to be interested as discussed earlier, the prosecution did not 6 make any attempts to secure the independent witnesses other than Pws.1 to 6.

17. It is significant to note that in order to prove the offence u/s.447, 427 IPC documentary evidence is a material one in order to corroborate with the oral evidence. But absence of documentary evidence and contradictions in the prosecution evidence are fatal to the prosecution case. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the offence u/s.447, 427, 295 & 297 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

18. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s.447, 427, 295, 297 r/w 34 IPC and are acquitted u/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled subject to provisions u/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of March, 2014)

(Copy to prosecution and accused).

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 – V. Sammaiah, - NONE- PW.2 – P. Amarnath, PW.3 – S. Yellaswamy, PW.4 – D. Babu, PW.5 – B. Narender, PW.6 – P. Shobhan Babu PW.7 – S.M. Ali.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – report by PW.1. - NIL - Ex.P2 – Crime Details Form. Ex.P3 - First information report. Ex.P4 – (5) photographs along with CD.

MATERIAL OBJECTS :- Nil.

I.ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

CC/100244/2011 Acquitted

P.S.Mills Colony vs Naliganti Vijay @ Vidyasagar

12 Mar 2014

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

WARANGAL.

Wednesday, this the 12 th day of March, 2014.

Present: P. SREEDEVI, I-Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Warangal.

Calender Case No.244 of 2011

Between: The State of A.P. through Inspector of Police,

P.S. Mills colony. ……..Complainant.

AND

A1 – Naliganti Vijay @ Vidyasagar,

A2 – Naliganti Sucharitha. ..….. Accused.

This case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor, and of Sri. V. Surender, Counsel for accused and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this date, and this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mills colony filed charge sheet in Cr.No.155 /2011 for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC, against A1 & A2.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: That on 15-7-11 at 18.00 hrs, the de facto complainant and injured/ LW.1 (N. Manemma), lodged a written report before PS stating that the accused are husband and wife and residents of West Fort, Warangal. The accused are habituated to quarrel with the locality people and filing petitions in the Police station. On 14-7-11 at 17.30 hrs the complainant along with her husband/ Lw.2 (N. Yesobu) returning to home from Chaman, on the way the A1 and A2 unnecessarily raised quarrel with LWs.1 & 2 abused them in filthy language and beat the complainant with stick on her head and caused bleeding injury. The same was witnessed by LWs.3 to 5 (N. Vasantha, N. Mariya and K. Srinivas respectively) and rescued Lws.1 & 2. Hence, requested for necessary action. On receipt of the above report, LW.11 (Md. Sadiq Ali) registered 2 a case in Cr.No.152/2011, u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC, issued FIR and investigated into. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, referred the injured/LW.1 to MGM hospital for treatment and wound certificate, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators Lws.6 & 7(B. Sudhakar & B. Karthik) and drafted Crime Details Form, also examined and recorded the statements of Lws.3 to 5. LW.10 (Dr. Naveen Kumar) issued wound certificate of LW.1. On 18-7-11 the A1 & A2 were arrested and the stick was seized under a cover of panchanama

before the mediators Lws.8 & 9 (B. Chander & B. Chandramouli) and

the accused were produced for judicial remand. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against accused.

4. After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken cognizance against accused for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC.

5. On appearance of accused, all the copies of documents were furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C. and are examined u/s.239 Cr.P.C. for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC, charge framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is : Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10. To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to establish that the A1 & A2 voluntarily caused injury to Pw.1 by using dangerous weapon in furtherance of common intention. To 3 substantiate its case the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO.1 were marked.

11. PW.1 is the injured and de facto complainant. She deposed in her chief-examination that at about 2 years back in the month of July on one day at about 12.30 pm when she was returning to her house from her daughter's house along with PW.2 and when they reached in front of house of A2, both A1 & A2 beat on her head due to which she sustained injuries. When PW.2 came to her rescue, they also beat him. PW.2 took her to MGM hospital and on the next day PW.1 lodged the report (Ex.P1). A1 & A2 beat them by keeping previous enmity in their mind and that on previous occasions also A1 & A2 used to abuse Pws.1 & 2 in filthy language. In her cross-examination, PW.1 deposed that both A1 & A2 are her relatives. She denied that she did not state before the police that she was returning from the house of PW.3 on the date of incident. There were talking terms between PW.1 and accused prior to the incident.

12. PW.2 is husband of PW.1. His chief-examination is similar to that of PW.1. Hence, it need not be specifically discussed. He deposed in his cross-examination that there no previous disputes between himself and the accused prior to the incident. He also denied that he did not state before police that the accused beat him and Pw.1 when they were returning from the house of PW.3.

13. PW.3 is the daughter of Pws.1 & 2. She deposed that on 14-7- 11 at about 5.30 pm when her parents were proceeding from her house to go to their house, A1 & A2 beat them and she came outside of her house and witnessed the incident. In her cross-examination she deposed that she was present at her house at the time of the incident and came outside while the incident taking place. She further deposed that when Pws.1 & 2 coming to her house, the incident took place and she did not accompany Pws.1 & 2 to the Police station.

14. PW.4 was cited as eye witness to the incident, he failed to support the prosecution case, as such he was examined by Learned APP u/s.154 of Indian Evidence Act and his statement to the police was marked as Ex.P2, but nothing incriminating is elicited from his evidence. PW.5 is panch witness to the Crime Details Form, he also failed to support the prosecution case and his signature was marked as ExP3 on Crime Details Form, dt:15-7-11. PW.6 was cited as panch 4 witness to the confession and recovery panchanama of A1. In his cross-examination he supported the version of prosecution and panchanama was marked as Ex.P4 and stick recovered from accused was marked as MO.1. But when he was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused, he turned his version and deposed that at the instance of the police he deposed in his chief-examination and he does not know the contents of Ex.P1.

15. PW.7 was cited as another eye witness, she deposed in her chief-examination that on 14-7-11 when she was at her shop in front of her shop A2 picked up a quarrel with PW.1 and PW.2, beat PW1 with stick and A1 also came there and he beat PW.2 and he present and witnessed the incident. In her cross-examination, she deposed that she does not know any previous disputes between PW.1 and accused. The alleged incident took place when Pw.1 is going from her house. She found the daughter and son of PW.1 at the scene. They did not interfere in the incident and when PW.1 received injury her daughter and son accompanied PW.1 to the hospital. PW.8 was cited as panch witness to the confession and recovery of A1, but he failed to support the prosecution case.

16. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer. After receiving of the Ex.P1 he registered FIR (Ex.P6) and as per his chief-examination, he examined Pws.1 & 2 and he referred PW.1 to MGM hospital and later he conducted Crime Details Form (Ex.P7) of the scene. On 18-7-11 he arrested A1 & A2 and recovered MO.1 from the possession of accused and after collecting Ex.P8 (medical certificate), Radilogist report (Ex.P9) from LW.10 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

17. In his cross-examination he admitted that Pws.1 & 2 stated

before him that they already went to MGM hospital for treatment, but

he denied the suggestion that on their own Pws.1 & 2 went to MGM hospital for treatment. The Learned APP argued that A1 & A2 are in habit of picking up quarrel with neighbors and in the same attitude they have picked up quarrel with Pws.1 & 2 who are age old persons and they beat PW.1 due to which the PW.1 sustained injuries. The prosecution witnesses deposed corroboratively in all material particulars leading to the guilt of A1 & A2 for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the prosecution has established the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and they may punished.

18. The Learned Counsel for the accused argued that it is a false case against A1 & A2 who are innocent persons. It was elicited that there were previous disputes between both the parties and PWs.3 & 7 were planted witnesses for the purpose of this case. Their presence is not revealed either in Ex.P1 or in the investigation of the police. Hence, their evidence is not reliable and remaining eye witnesses and panch witnesses not supported the prosecution case. Both Pws.1 & 2 deposed contradictory evidence to each other. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, they may be acquitted.

19. On the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and after hearing to both sides and after careful scrutiny of the entire material available on record, it is pertinent to note that the offence alleged against the accused is u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC. As per Ex.P1, when Pws.1 & 2 were going near Chaman, West Fort Warangal, A1 & A2 without any reason attacked PW.1 with stick and abused her in filthy language, due to which PW.1 sustained bleeding injury on her head. But Pws.1 & 2 deposed that when they were returning from their daughter's house i.e., PW.3, A1 & A2 came and attacked them at the house of A1 & A2 and Pw.3 saw while the incident taking place. Ex.P1 was silent about the presence of PW.3 while the incident taking place. Investigation of Police does not reveal how PW.3 and 7 were present at that time. As Pws.1 & 2 deposed before the court, these points were elicited. These are nothing but improvements in the prosecution case. Presence of eye witnesses at the scene of offence is a material fact which is omitted by PW.1 in her Ex.P1 and so also in her statement to the Police creating doubt about the prosecution case. Further it is observed that as per the evidence of PW.7, the son and daughter of Pws.1 & 2 are readily present at the scene of offence, but no interference of them at the scene of offence at the time of galata also adding suspicion over the prosecution case.

20. Be that as it may, eye witnesses, mediators for Crime Details Form and so also to the confession and recovery panchanama did not support the prosecution case. The remaining witnesses who deposed in favour of prosecution, their evidence consisting of several contradictions and omissions. Adding to this, the prosecution evidence is not clearly established; the details of the scene of offence and any previous enmity is existing between both the parties and the 6 guilty intention of the accused in attacking Pws.1 & 2. All the witnesses failed to depose when the incident took place either returning from the house of PW3 or while going to PW3's house, is not clearly elicited, which makes the prosecution case weak. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offecne u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly the point is answered.

21. In the result, the accused A1 & A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and are acquitted u/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled subject to provisions u/s.437-A Cr.P.C. Mo.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant, after transcription corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of March, 2014)

(Copy to prosecution and accused).

I- ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 – N. Manemma, - NONE- PW.2 – N. Yesobu, PW.3 – N. Vasantha, PW.4 – K. Srinivas, PW.5 – B. Sudhakar, PW.6 – B. Chander, PW.7 – N. Maria, PW.8 – B. Chandramouli, PW.9 – Md. Sadiq Ali.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: Ex.P1 – report by PW.1. - NIL - Ex.P2 – s.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P3 – signature of PW.5 on Ex.P7, Ex.P4 – confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P5 – signature of PW.8 on confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P6 - First information report. Ex.P7 – Crime Details form. Ex.P8 – medical certificate of PW.2. Ex.P9 – Radiologist report of PW.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS :- MO.1 – stick.

I.ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

WARANGAL.

Order Record 380 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/100206/2013	SHO Inthezar Gung vs Veerla Rajitha	25 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/100023/2013	SHO Athmakur vs Thipparapu Narender	24 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/100211/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Vallam @ Pendyala Ramesh	24 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/100154/2012	P.S.Athmakur vs Banothu Hussain	18 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/100244/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Naliganti Vijay @ Vidyasagar	12 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	Acquitted
CC/100307/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Vs1.G.Rajender	12 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100010/2012	Pogula Shailaja vs Pogula Vidyasagar	11 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100013/2012	Pusala Manjula @ Thipparthi Manjdula vs Thipparthi Yugender Rao	11 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100045/2014	S.I. of Police, PS Mills Colony vs Ponna Kiran Kumar-1	07 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100201/2013	SHO WPS Warangal Urban vs Sirapurapu Ravi Shankar	06 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100259/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Shingamshetti Rajaram	06 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100330/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Veldani Suresh	05 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100432/2012	S.I. of Police, Athmakur PS vs Thadipathi Bheema Rao	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100549/2012	WPS Warangal Urban vs Bodakunti Shashdher - 4 oth	04 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100252/2013	S.I. of police, Mills Colony PS vs Theegala Amar Goud	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100507/2010	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Chandragiri Vijay Babu	03 Mar 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100004/2012	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Sagarla Srinivas	25 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100014/2013	S.I. of Police, Mills Colony PS vs Pasunuti Veeralaxmi - 2 oth	25 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100237/2013	S.I. of Police, Athmakur PS vs Kommu Ravi	25 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100386/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Sagarla Srinivas	25 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100346/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Guduru Srinu	12 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100176/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Naini Pavani	07 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100232/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Gujjula Rakesh Reddy	07 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100166/2012	P.S.Athmakur vs Allam Narsingam	04 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100357/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Allam Narsingam	04 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100047/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Poshala Surender	03 Feb 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100011/2011	Kola@Adapa Vani vs Kola Komuraiah	28 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100039/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Kontham Yougender	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100266/2012	PS Athmakur vs Chakrapani - 1 oth	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100537/2012	S.I. of police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Vaddi Harishankar -6 oth	23 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100317/2012	S.I. of police, Mills Colony PS vs Md. Afzal @ Shareef @ Shareefuddin	21 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100070/2012	G.Shyamsunder vs Vangala Krishna	17 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100076/2013	S.I. of Police, PS Athmakur vs Sirimalla Rajkumar-2 oth	17 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100135/2011	P.S. ATMAKUR vs Kasagani Prabhakar	17 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100274/2013	SHO Athmakur vs Vangeti Cheralu	17 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100197/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Gujjeti Babu	07 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100429/2013	Vangari Renuka vs Vangari Balaraju	06 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100449/2012	wps warnagal urban vs Vsmd.Ezas	06 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100219/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Gaddameedi Suresh	03 Jan 2014	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100502/2012	S.I. of police,InthezargunjPS vs Chidirala Pradeep	31 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100349/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Kalakotla Raju	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100422/2010	Nalla Venkateshwarlu vs Gummalapudi Aruna Kumari	30 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100027/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Syed Yakub	20 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100058/2013	S.I. of Police, WPS, Warangal Urban vs Anumula Raju -3 oth	20 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100041/2013	S.I. of police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Maidam Santhosh kumar -2 oth	17 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100093/2013	S.I. of Police, Inthezargunj PS vs Singarapu Shyam Kumar- 1oth	16 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100096/2013	S.I. of Police, Inthezargunj vs Singarapu Shyam Kumar-1 oth	16 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100344/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Pamula Ramesh Varma	16 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100226/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Sadu Subhadra	12 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100060/2013	S.I. of Police, WPS Warangal Urban vs Ursula Mahende -2 othr	11 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100175/2013	WPS, Warangal vs Kuchana Punnamchander	04 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/248/2012	Natte Shirisha vs Natte Madhukar - 4 oth	03 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100142/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Kampelli Raju	03 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100214/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Bhudarapu Raju	03 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100434/2012	SHO. PS Mills Colony. vs Sarwa Suraj	03 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100009/2012	Ch.Sarala vs Ch.James	03 Dec 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100260/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Vs1.Akkella Suman	28 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100031/2011	Haleema Begum @ Haleema Sadia vs Syed Khalid Afzal	28 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100088/2011	P.S. ATMAKUR vs Bommagani Shyam Kumar	25 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100242/2012	S.I. of police, Mills Colony PS vs Ramagiri Anand Rao @ Vamshi	22 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100055/2012	P.S.Athmakur vs Oddepally Mogili	21 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100262/2012	ps mills colony vs Vskalani eashwar singh	21 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100320/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Vs1.Bandloju Rajaiah	21 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/101973/2007	P.S.Mills Colony vs Nooka Gurucharanam	20 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100527/2010	P.S.Mills Colony vs Tudam Rajaiah@Raju	19 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100587/2010	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Inugula Buchamma	19 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100233/2010	P.S.Inthezargun Crime vs Guthi Subash	13 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100258/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Macharla Prasad	13 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100394/2013	Dugyala sampath rao vs Guthi subash @ suresh	13 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100218/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Pakala Srikanth	12 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100170/2012	P.S.Athmakur vs Managani Poshalu	08 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100020/2012	Polepaka Sreelatha vs Polepaka Rajender - 4oth	08 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100119/2013	S.I. of police, Mills Colony PS vs Edla Kumar @ Kumaraswamy	07 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100210/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Mydam Naresh	07 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100504/2012	S.I. of Police, Mills Colony vs Edla Kumar @ Kumaraswamy	07 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100145/2012	P.S.Mills Colony crime vs Enagandula Suresh	06 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100162/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Gandrati Sreekanth	06 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/249/2012	Yelagandula Rajini vs Yelagandula Rajesh	05 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100325/2012	PS Athmakur vs Banala Laxmareddy	05 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100389/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Katkuri Thirupathamma	05 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100314/2009	Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd, vs Kothapet Gopiraj	04 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100083/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Vanam Sambamurthy	01 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100245/2011	P.S.Mills Colony vs Mididoddi Yakaiah @ Yeshob	01 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100464/2012	S.I. of police, Mills Colony PS vs Naliganti Veeraswamy	01 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100532/2012	S.I. of Police, Mills Colony vs S.K. Yakub -1 oth	01 Nov 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100067/2013	PS Mills colony vs S.K. Kareem	24 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100251/2009	Fullerton India Credit Co.Ltd., vs Syed.Rafiuddin	18 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100584/2012	S.I. of Police, PS Athmakur vs Mohd. Afzal-1 oth	18 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
DVC/100027/2012	Jakya Sulthana vs Mohammed Yousuf Khan-2 oth	11 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100008/2011	P.S.Mills Colony Crime vs Boda Suman	10 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100060/2012	P.S.Mills Colony vs Chamanthula Yadagiri	10 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100583/2010	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Gundu Sudha Rani	10 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100074/2013	S.I. of Police, Mills Colony vs Pulicheru Venkateshwarlu @ Venkatesh	08 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100484/2010	P.S. ATMAKUR vs Kotagiri Raju	08 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100070/2010	P.S. ATMAKUR vs Neredla Venkat Reddy	04 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100244/2012	WPS Warangal vs Annam Suresh	04 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100321/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Somanath Panda	04 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100110/2012	P.S.Athmakur vs Avunuri Raku	03 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100335/2011	P.S.Inthezargunj vs Thorne Ravi	01 Oct 2013	Order On Exgibit	—
CC/100129/2011	P.S.Athmakur vs Golkonda Shyamala@ Rajitha	30 Sep 2013	Order On Exgibit	—

Showing 100 of 380 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Mar 2014		16
Feb 2014		11
Jan 2014		13
Dec 2013		17
Nov 2013		29
Oct 2013		15
Sep 2013		21
Aug 2013		8
Jul 2013		17
Jun 2013		25
May 2013		16
Apr 2013		20

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. P. SreeDevi handled?

Smt. P. SreeDevi has handled 386 court orders since 2011 at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 10 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. P. SreeDevi hear?

Based on available records, Smt. P. SreeDevi primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt. P. SreeDevi currently posted?

Smt. P. SreeDevi is posted as I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex, Warangal, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt. P. SreeDevi available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt. P. SreeDevi are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. P. SreeDevi dispose cases?

Smt. P. SreeDevi disposes approximately 10 cases per month, based on 386 orders handled over their tenure at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt. P. SreeDevi serving?

Smt. P. SreeDevi has been serving at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex since 2011.

Case Types

CC 95%

DVC 5%

MC 0%

Posting History

Jan 2013 — Apr 2014

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 260 orders
Jan 2011 — Jul 2012

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal · 126 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 10

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. V.B. Nirmala Geethamba

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

405 orders

Smt M.padmaja

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,Warangal

0 orders

Smt J.Maithreyi

I Addl District and Sessions Judge, Warangal

0 orders

Smt. Kshama Deshpande

Spl. Sessions Judge of FTC for POCSO Cases, Warang...

14 orders

Smt. K. Pooja

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal

161 orders

Ms. Ritika Nandikonda

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judicial M...

64 orders

Ms. Boyidi Valli Venkata Chandraprasanna

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judicial...

0 orders

Ms. Elluturi Harika

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- III Addl. Judici...

135 orders

Smt. Raj Nidhi

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Trial...

191 orders

Sri A.Pradeep

Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Sessions Judge,...

331 orders

← View all judges at Warangal, PDJ Court Complex