Sri P.Sudhakar

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE. AT:

MALABUBNAGAR FAC JUDGE. FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MALABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 30" day of Deeember. 2014.

Present:- Sri P.Sudhakar.

Judge. Family (ourt.

Mahabub1agar.

S.C.No.32 of 2013 (Preliminarily Registered (Case No.35 of 2012 connmitted by the Judicial Magistrate ot

First Class. Nagarkurnool in CrNo.26 of 2012 of PS Gopalpet lor the oflence

USec.302. 120-B rw 34 IPC and 32))ofSC/STs (POA) Act. 1989) Sri S.K.M. Quadri. Prosccution. Public prosccutor. Mahabubnagar. 1.Boya (hennaiah s/o Pula Rangaiah. Age i5. (asle: Boya. Accused Oce. Cooli r'o Javanna Thirumalapur lg of Gopalpet mandal. 2.Puttapaka Maib00se s/o Balaiah. Age 28 vrs. Caste: lclugu. Oce. Agrl. ro Javana Thirumalapur vlg of Gopalpt inndal. 3Puutapaka Madaar s/o Balaiah. Age 25 yrs. Caste: Ielugu. (Oce. Agrl. r/o Javana Thirumalapur vlg of iopalpet mandal.

(Sri K. Prathap kuar. Advocate for aceuscd) 302 and 120-B rw 34 |PC nd 302 ru 34 |PC und 3(2%) of Oence under secetion SCSTs (POA) Act. 1989 Plcaded not gultv Plca of the aceuscd l'ound nol guilty. Finding

Senlence or order In the result. the Al lo A3 re not guills lo the ofiences u'302 und 120-B rw 34 IPC and sce. 3(2)V) of SC%s (PO,\) Act. 1989 and accordingly they are acquittcd u's 235 | CP. The bail bonds of the aceused shall stand cuncelled torthwii MO1 (o MO4 ordered to be destroved afier appel tinc is over.

This case is coming up for hearing belore mc nd upon perusing th.: ntlerial on record, upon hearing the arguments. and the matter having stood over for consideration. till this'dav the Court delivereu the following:

JLDGMENT

The Sub Divisional Police 0liccr. Wanaparthv has tiled tlhe charge sheel gansi the aceused for the offence punishable under sec. 30? |PCJ20-B rw 34 PC und 0? rtW 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/STs (POA) Act. 1989 agains1 the accused.

The gist of the prosceution case is that, A| and deceased Kurma:sh belonpcd te Javanna Tirmalupur vilage. !he deceasd developed illegal contaets witt: Padma son wite ofAl and eloped wih her. n tlat connection a caste panclavat v held. the cdciS decided und advised the deccased not to meet with ccih other. But Padn:a lett the illap. In that connection Al bore grudge on the dcccased. About tuO nonths back whil akin:

photograplhs for Adhar card in the village. Al with the help of A? and A3 decide climinate the deccased Kurmaiah. Then Al to A A3 found the deceascd procccding nearh

shop of Vangoor Ramchandraiah on 28-3-2012 at about 10-30 P.M. Al toA toi.

dragged the deceased to the c.c. road in front of house of Jinigavelly Ramulu. A and A3 held hands of the deccased tightly and Al inflictcd multiple stab injuries on the deceased and they Ned away on noticing. father of Kurmaiah i.c. PWI Chinna Balaiah and Pw: Ramchandraiah. The deccased suceumbed to injurics. On the complaint given by PWl. a case was registered. During the course of investigation Al confessed the offence. On receipt of postmortem report and wound certificate and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was laid for the offences under sec. 302 IPC120-B r/w 34 IPC and 302 rW 34 IPC and 3(2\) of SC/STs (POA) Act. 1989.

3 On appcarance of the accused. the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nagarkurnool has taken on file the case as PRC No.35 of 2012 under sections 302 IPC.120-B r/w 34 IPC and 302 r/w 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SCSTs (POA) Act. 1989 against Al to A3.

4 On appearance of accuscd. on observing all the necessary formalities. the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions and hence they have committed the case to this Court vide commiltal order

dated 19-2-2013.

5. This Court has taken on ile the case as S.C.No.32 of 2013 and ordered issuance of summon to accused.

6 On appcarance of the accused and hearing both the Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel. the charge for the offence under sec. 302 IPC,120-B r/w 34 IPC and 302 rv 34 |PC and 3(2)(v) of SC/STs (POA) Act. 1989 against Al to A3 were framed. read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. o prove the case of the proseeution. the prosccution has examined PWs I to 12 got marked Exs.PI to P.)2. Ex.Dl and D2 are marked. MO to M04 are marked.

8 PWI A. Chinna Balaiah. complainant/ather of the deceased. PW? . Ranchandraiah. eye witness. PW3 Y. Balaiah and PW4 G. Ramesh. circumstantial witnesses. PWS J. Balakrishna. circunstantial witness. PW6 P. Mukkula Maheswaram,

mediator for confession of accused. PW7 Raghottam. Tahsildar. Gopalpet. PW8 K.

Veeraswamy. llead C'onstable 118 of PS Gopalpet. PW9 V. Nagaiah. Mcdiator fo inquest. PW10 Dr. Sridevi. Medical Officer. Wanaparthy. PWI1 B. Sriniv as Reddy. Investigation officer.

Ex.Pl is the complaint. Ex.P? is the confession and recovery panchanuma. I'.P3

is caste certificate. lx.P4 is the First Information Report. Ex.P5 is the seene of offenee

3

Bnchanama. Ix.P6 Is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P7 is the PME report. I:x.P8 is the ain20intment order. Ix.P9 Photographs |5|. Ex.Pl0 bunch of photographs. Ex.Pl I is the

FSL report. Ex.P12 is the wound certiticate.

10. Ix.DI is some portion of 161 CP.C. statement of PW1. Ix.D2 is some portion

of l61 CrP.C. statement of Pw2. MO1 knile. MO2 blood staincd shirt. MO3 blood

strained banian. MO4 blood staincd lungi.

11. Aier conmpletion of evidence. the accused were examincd Us 313 (rPC. explaining the incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution evidence. Ihe

accused denicd the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

Tleard both Public Proseeutor and defence counsel. Perused the evidence placed

On record.

Now. the points that arise for determination as under: 13.

1| Whether the death of the deceased Kurmaiah is homicide or suicide?

2/ Whether the deceased had illicit intimacy with Padma wife ofAl and in that connection Al Ilhatched a plan witlh the aSSistance of A2 and A3 stabbed Al near tlhe shop off PW2 Ramchandraialh and caused his death and thereby whether the prosecution has proved guilt of the accusedl for the charges uñs 302 1PC,1 20-B rhe 34 IPC and 302 rw 34 IPC nd 3(2) () of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt? J4. Point NO. 1: The learned Public Prosccutor has argued that. the deccased Kurmaiah had illicit intimacy with Padma second wife of Al and they clopcd and in that connection panchavat was held. even then said Padma lefi Al and thereby AL bore grudge against the deceased and hatched a plan to kill him and took assistance of A2 and a and that Al haS Stabbed the deceased while A2 and A3 caught hold of tlhe deceIsed. It was witnessed by father of deceased by name Chinna Balaiah PWI and also Pl2 Ramchandraiah. The prosccution by examining PWI to PWIl and marking ExPI to Ex.PI2 and MOI to MO4. has wel! established guilt of the aceused tor the charges leveled avainst the accused. There may be some minor omissions here and there but they will not cut root of the prosecution case. Ultinmately he has prayed tor conviction of

iCCUsed No. l to 3 for all the charges leveled against themn.

The leurned detence counsel contended that except PWs l and other wilnesses

ure not the material wilnesses and that the evidence of PWs 1 o ó is in consistent ith several diserepuncies and contradietions and that PWI has not specilically stated the weapon used by Al and on which part of Al slabbed his son and there are nnlerial omissions nd that his evidence is not supported hy other witnesses. PW? slated that he has not actually seen stabbing of the deccased by the aceused. PWs 3 lo 5 are hearsu witnesses. PW6 is panch witness lor the alleged contession of AL. PWs 7 to | are oflicials witnesses. The cvidence plCed by the prosecution is not sufticent to warrant corviction against the accused for uny of the charpes leveled ainst then. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused as the cvidence of PWI. PL lack of corroboration and also with material omissions and contradictions like tx b1.

Ex.D2 and discrepancies here and there. Ile has also submiued wrillen arguments

relevant portion of such arguments will be considered herein under. I ltimatel he has praycd for acquittal of the accused.

Official witnesses:

16

PW7 Raghotham the then Tahsildar. Gopalpet issued caste cerificate of PWl and

the accused. Ex.P3 is the caste certificate. As per ExP3 PWl and deccased belonged to Schedule caste and accused belonged to Bova caste of Backward Community. PM 7 is not cross examined on this aspect.

PW8 K. Veeraswamy. Retired ASI of Police. Gopalpet has deposcd that hc has

received ExPl written complaint from PW1 on 29-3-2012 at 6-00 A.M. and that he has registered the same as in Cr.No.26/2014 Ex.P4 is the First Information Repor. lle sent the register FJ.R. to all tlhe concerned. He handed over the case dairy lo the D) Superintendent of Police, Wanaparthy. Ile denied the suggestion that their police station received the information in the night itself. and that l:x.P] complaint was lodged subsequently in the noon time. but he registered the case as if he received the same at 6 00 A.M. itself. In this regard the advocate for accused brought to the notice of the court about points elicited from PWs 1 and 2. Both PWs I and 2 stated that the police came lo the hospital in the mid night on the date of the incident and tlhey have intormed about the incident of killing the deccascd by the accuscd. According to PWI in his eross the complaint was dratied in his house at about 8-30 a.m. on the neNI date of incident i.c 29 3-2012. They went to the police station and lodged Fx.Pl at noon time. The police cue to the hospital within one hour on their reaching to the hospital. In the night itself thev informed the police about the incident thereby such suggestions were put forhlo PW8 with regard to discrepancics for lodging Ex.P1. This aspect will be considered while sCrutinizing the evidence ofPWI.

Pw9 Vangoor Nagaiah deposed about his presence and presence of LW12 P. Utharaiah at the time of preparation of crime details form and rough sketch for the scene of offence. Ex.P5 is the scene of offence panchanama conducted by the police dated 29 3-2012at 7-00 a.m. and also held inquest panchanma in thcir presence over the dead body of the deceased Kurmaiah. Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama on 29-3-2012 at Gov. Ilospital. Wanaparthy. PW9 has identified his signatures and 1.W12 on Ex.P5 and Ix.P6. Ile was cross examincd on various aspects but nothing worthwhile is elicited to discredit his testimony. Thereby I believe his version afier participation in preparaion of Ix. P5 and I:x.P6. PWIO Dr. S. Sridevi in her evidence stated that she is doing pr ate practice at Pebbair previously she worked as Civil Ass!. Sureon. Govt. Area llospital. Wanaparthy. on 29-3-2012 on the requisition of police. Wanaparthy in Cr.No.26 of 2012 she

Ltnducied autopsy Over the dead bodv of decceased Arkela China Kurmaiah and tound be lollowing anti mortem stab injuries:

| Stab injury over right thigh.

2| Injury on left thigh.

3] Injury l0 over wrist joint. H| Injury over breast below the nipplc. 5] Injury 0ver right hand neck elbow joint and three small cutting Inear clboW joint. 6] Injury below right ear. 7| Injury below right car 8| Injuries over back leti side 9| Injury back centre.

10| injury back right side

11| Injury over scalp region. 12| Injury below right shoulder 13)On opening the bodv she found injuries over vital parts on heart 14| Cut injury over back of the lever 15| Injury upper pole of spleen back side. l6| Cut injury over right kidney and left kidney. She issucd Ex.P7 posmortem report. Cause of death of the deceased due to multiple stab injuries and severe losSs of blood. No cross examination is bone on PWT0. Dy. Superintendent of Police. Wanaparthy PW| B. Srinivas Reddy the then deposed that on 29-3-2012 he has received appointment letter under IEx.P8. Then he along with staff visited Jayanna Thirmalapur SC colony road. where PWI Chinna Balaiah identified the scene of offence and it is located in front of the house of J. Ramulu and then he secured the presence of two mediators LW12Uttraraiah and PW'9 \agaiah and prepared 1Ex.P$ crime details form. He collected blood stained carth nd coptrolled carth under Ex.P5 and got the scene of offence photographed through LW|0- Mandda Ramulu. lEx P9 is bunch of photographs (5| in number. PW8 Veera swam lleud constable informed him on phone that Al surrendered before Gopalpet Poliee Stution. He has instructed to provide panch witness to record the confession through lahsildar and accordingly in the presence of PW6 and 1W15 Laxmaiah recorded the confession ol 1 which is nmarked as l:,.P2 and MOs I to 4 are seized. Al show injuries on right hand middle finger and ring inger. Al w as sent to the ioxt. Area llospital. Wanaparthy. The portion of his evidence with regard to confession of Al will also be considered at the time of serutinizing tlhe evidence of PW6 punch tor conlession. PWl advised PW9 and 1.W2 l0 go lo Area llospital trom the scene ot oftene. by the time he rcached the hospital at 9-50 A.M. both of then1 reachd there. Ile examined PWI. PW2 1.W3 Nagamma. PW3. PW4 T.W6 Rajeslh and reeorded their statement and he held inquest F'x. P6 in their presnee. IHe got the deccased photograpled. Ex.P10 |3| numbers of photographs, lle sent requisition to the Doetor PW0 0 con duet the postnortem and on completion ol' postnortenm. the dead body was handed on er te hís 2nc relatives, On 29-3-2012 Vijavabhasker constable apprehended A2. A2 on inlerr enrd contessed to have committed the offence along with Al nd A3. He sent the nm objeets to FSL. He has collected SL rport Ex.PT in which it is opined that blood stais

lound on the cloths of Al and MO1 knife and they are all of B Blood group. A3

surrendered before the court on 2-4-2012. On completion of investigation. on reeipt ot PIE repot. FSL report he laid the clharge sheet. B\ mistake wound certificate ot 1 issued bv the Doctor was not produced before the court and it is in the ile. By tiling petition it is reccived and marked as Ex.P12 wound certificate of Al. The doctor ho issue l:x.P12 is not nmaterial in this ase. In his eross he stated that PWI stated betore him as in IxDI. lle denied suggesion that they got information on the night itself that the deceased was killed b unidentified persons and that the case was registered vwith anti time and that they have lalscly inplicated Al to A3 and that he has not conducted investigation on proper me and that Al was not sent to the Doctor for examination and that Ex.PI2 issuwd by thc doctor is fabricated one. In the requisition it is kept as blank at 2 in Ex.PI2. Ile also denied suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence and that Ex.P5 was no prepared by him at the scene of offence and that PW8 has not informed the same evn he Was surrendered and that Al confessed anything in the manner in Ex.P2 in the presence of panch witnesses and that MOs 1 to 4 vere not recovered from Al under :N.P2. Al| these suggestions were putlorth at the relevant portion with regard to contession of AI

before PW6 will be discussed hereunder at the time of serutinizing his evidence along

with the evidence of PWI1. The evidence of official winesses PW7 (o PWTT will be taken into consideration in the event of evidence of material witnesses is consistent and cogent in accordance with the prosecution case. Therefore the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 is to be scrutinized carefully in coming to conclusien as to whether the prosecution has proved the charges leveled ugainst the accused.

Evidence of hear say wilnesses: 17. PW3 Y. IBalaiah stated that at about one and half years back at 10-30 p.m. he

heard hue and cry of PWs I and 2. On hearing the same himself and I W3 V. Nagma

"rUshed to th place where they found deceased Kunaiah with injuries and struggling to life. PWI informed them that the accused stabbed the deceased. At that tinme the aceuscd were runing lrom that place. PW4 G. Ramesh deposed that on 28-3-2012 the deccased came to the village along with his wite. lHe met the deceased ncar SCST Weltare C'ommunily Hall of their village at 8-30 p.m. The deceased intormed him that Al t0 A3 following him. In the meantime one Ramulu came there and asked them whv they are there though it is night time and asked them to go houses. There was a panclhavat in the village that the decased is having illicit intimacy with thc wile of Al namely Padna. In that panclhay at il xas held the deccased has to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000- but Al refused to reevie the suid annount. The panchayat was held one month prior to the death of' the deveased. iier the 7 nchayat the deceascd along with his wife went to Illyderabad for their livelihood. IN o midnight he heard some cries. he came out of the house and bv that time the deccased was taken to the hospital. In the morning he went to the hospital and enquired lather of

he deceased i.e. PWI who informed him that the accuesed killed the deceased.

PW5J. Balakrishna stated that about one vear back while he was running an auto while returning to his village from Mahabubnagar at about 10-00 P.M. he reached his vilage and procecding in front of the shop of pW2. he found several persons near the house of Jenigavally Ramulu. he found the dececased with injuries. Thev requested him to 1ake the deccasced in his auto to Wanaparhy. Accordingly thev carricd the deccased into his auto PWs 1 o 3 and LW3 accompanicd the deceased. After crossing Appaipally village. 108 Ambulance came there. The deccased was shifted to the hospital in the ambulance. Thereafter he returned to his house. He did not whisper any word with regard to involvement of the accused in the case on hand. PWs 3 and 4 are hcarsav witnesseS. Thev said that PWI informed to them that the accuscd killed the deccased Kurmaiah. PW4 did not speak about presence of the accused at the place of incident. Whercas PW3 slated that the accused was running awav from the place of incident. In his cross he stated that bv the time he reached the place of incident PWs I and 2 were alone there. PW2 is

before the house of Al where the injured was lying. He has not seen the accUscd persons

while running from the house of Ramulu. The evidence of PW3 and PW4 is with regard to sccing the accuscd running away is contrary to cach other. Therefore the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 will be taken into consideration, where the evidence of material wilnesses PWs 1 and 2 is consistent, The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is directl with regard lo involvement of the accused for causing death of the deccased Kurmaiah. PW6 is panch for confession ofAl and seizure ofMOs I to 4 under Ex.P3. The evidence of PWs 1.2.6 and 11 is to be scrutinized carefully in coming lo conclusion that how for the proseeution succeeded to prove the guilt of the accused.

18 PW6 P. Maheshwaram. Village Revenue Officer. Mannanur village deposed that as per the direcions of Mandal Revenue Officer. Gopalpet he attended the police station. Gopalpet on 29-3-2012. One Uppalamoni ILaxmaialh. Village Revenue Oficer. Gopalpet also cam to the police station at about 8-15 a.m. Al was in the premises of Gopalpt police station. On the directions of D.S.P. himsel and 1.WI5 Laxmaiah enquired A1. Then Al admitted that he along with A2 and A3 have murdered the deccasd Kurmaiah on 28-3-2012. Ile also produced a knife from his waist and said with that knif he has stabbed the deceased. The police have scizcd the blood stained knife and elths under a cover of panchanama. MOI is knife. MO2 is blood staincd shirt. MO3 is blood stained bunian MO4 is blood stained lungi. ILx.P2 is the contession cum recovery panchanaa of A1. In his cross he admitted that there will be a job chart for V.ROs. signing in the panchanama and acting as panchayaldars is not part of their job. According to Plo he was informed by the MR.O. directed him to be present belore the D.S.P. 0 acl a punchayatdar as a person killed the deccased is in the poliee station itsclf. lle asked the DSP about the A1 who killed the deceased and the D.S.P. has shown hin the A

i

According to the prosccution Al was subscquently surrendered in the police station there is no such evidence and that it is not known as lo hou the V.R.0. would have g the knowledge that AI was in the police station. Even betore the alleged confession th. MR.O, would have informed the V.R.0. that Al has killed the deceased and he is in thx police station. Thus there is absolutely no value to the alleged contession of A! and th:at he cannot be termed as independent witness. PWO further n his cross stated that AI has not given the descriptive particulars of A2 and A3. lle cannot say that he persons present

in the court hall are the persons whose names were given by Al. Ile has not asked A1

since hovw long he was in the police station. He denied suggestion that no panchanuma was conducied in his presence. but he signed in Ex. P2 panchanama since he is V R.0. of ihe village and the M.R.O. ncver asked them to act as panchayatdar's. He denied the suggestion that A l never confessed before them and that the police never seized \10s 1 to 4.

According to PWI Ex.Pl was scribed after 8-30 a.n. on the nest dav in the village. Il was seribed by Harish son of PW2. At noon time they went to the police stalion and gave Ex.Pl complaint. In the present case the alleged confession was recorded at about 8-15 a.m. The alleged confession of Al was recorded before PW6 is not trustworthy as Ex.PI was presented at 6-00 a.m. on 29-3-2012. According lo PW8. whereas PWI stated that it was preparcd at 8-30 a.m. and presented to the police ll 12 noon. Hence the prosecution cannot rely upon such confession of PW6 as spoken to bv him.

PWI Chinna Balaiah father of the deceased deposed that about | ½ vears back 20. one day during night time he went to the shop ofLW2 V. Ramchandraiah to purchase the recharge card and Zandu balm. Al to A3 were sitting on the pail of the shop of LW2. lis deceased son came to him in search of him. A2 and A3 caught hold of his son and AI stabbed his son. dragged him to certain distance or lo fcat. Ile raised hue and erv. LW2 cane there. LW3 V. Nagamma and LW4 Balaiah also came there. His son was struggling for ife. They took his deccased son to Govt. Hospital. Wanaparthy. On examination the doctor declared that his son dead. He gave Ex.Pl complaint to the polive on 29-3-2012. As per Ex.Pl. Al to A3 forcibly dragged the deccased Kurmaiah upto to thc c.c. road in Iront of house of J. Ramulu. A2 and A3 caught hold of the deceased and Al stabbed with á khife on his life side of chest. twice on back side of right car. back side of the head and all over the bodv. Whereas PWI did not whisper any such overt acts except sayng that Al stabbed the deceased. The weapon used by accused also is not deposcd bi PWT Ihere is no proper explanation by the prosecution on this aspect. The wcapon used by \| IS not spoken to by PWI for causing such overt acts as averred in E.PI. PW| did not state any single overt act attributed to the deccased by AL. Except PT there is no eye witncss to the case on hand.

21. PW2 Ramchandraiah resident of Javanna Thirmalapur stated that on 28-3-2012 at about |0-00 P.M. AT to A3 were silting in front o'his sho) and at that time PWI came to f shop to purchase recharge card and Zandu balam. Al to.A3 were siting on the pail ot e shop. In the meanwhile the deceascd came near to shop. three accuscd dragged the deceascd towards the house of Ramulu. immediately he tried to follow them. but due to nin lo his leg and as he came Irom his shop. he reached to the particular place where the deceased was lying on the road with injuries atter few minutes. Accused nersons were MImine from that place. The witness volunteers that he has not scen actual stabbin hv the accused. He observed the stabbing injuries on the left side of the chest. back side and under the right sidc car. The deccased was strugpling for lite. They raised hue and ery. Meanwhile I\W3 Nagamma and 1W4 Y. Balaialh came there. Thev took the deceascd to

Wanapartlhy area hospital in the auto.

22. PWI in his cross stated that exCept Al to A3 no other persons were present ncar the shop of PW2. There are residential louses around the shop of PW2. The residents ol ncarby houses have closed their doos at that time. Witlhi: 5 minutes after h1s rvaching the shop of PW2 his deceased son came there. It goes to show that the alleged incident took place at 10-30 P.M. nobody was present at tlhe kirana shop of PWI. The imnates o! nearby houses were already closcd their houses. I is not clicited by the prosceution es to why kirana shop of PW2 opened even by 10-30 P.M. in the village like Javanna Tirmalapur. PWI in his further eross admitted that himsel!. PW2. PW3 and another took his deceased son to the hospital. Wanaparthy. Till morning they were in the hospital. The police came to the hospital within one hour of their reaching to the hospial. The olice slation is just by the side of the hospital. They rwached the hospital within one and halt' hour of incident. In the night itsclf they intormed the police about the incident. It goes to show that the police have got knowledge about the incident in the night ilsel! and that they came to the pBace in the night itscli. The poliee have nol registered he case in the night and waited till next day and gave scope to PWI and his relat1ves to give due deliberaions and then lodge the complaint. PWI further admitted that one llarish of their village dralied Ex.Pl complaint. at about 8-30 a.. they returned to their house and in their house Ex.Pl conplaint was dralted. They went to the police stution in noon time and lodgcd Ex.Pl complaint.

Whercas lPW2 in his crOss stated that he has not seen the aetual stabbing by the 23 aceused and that the exeise officials raided his shop and that he was also arrested by the police. By the time he came out from the shop atter the incident PWl was alone present there. Ilimself. PWI and PW3 took the deceascd to the hospital. which is about 7 Ms from their house. Within 10 minutes they reaclhed the hospital. Ile was in the hoshitul upto 5-30 to 6-0 am. lle came back to ihe village. Witlin half an hour he cathe back to the hospital. In the night itscit they intommed the police ubout the incident and atso ahout death of the deceased. A! about 12-00 mid night the polic came o the hospial Aecording to PW2 in the carly hours the coniplaint was drated in the village, his Sy Ilarish draticd the complaint in his house. His reiatites and relatives ot PW) iiudine him were present at the time of drating the complaint. Al about 5-o) a.nm hes ltt is

gi

10 house aficr drafing the complaint. Since there was pain to his leg. he has nÍt tisit,l police station. The police examincd him between 7 and 8-00 a.Im. in the arca hospi Wanaparhy. At that time the dead body was in he hospital itself. According to Py PWl presented the complaint at 6-00 a.m. and that Al has nade alleged contession at N. 15 am. as per the ev idence of PW6 and PWIl but whereas PWI stated that at about 8.30 a.m. they returned to the house after drafted the complaint bv one Harish and the police have got knowledge on 28-3-2012. Apart Irom that PWI in his chief did not state through which wcapon his Son was stabbed and on which part he was stabbed cxcept dep0sing that his son was stabbed. he did not say anything. lle did not whisper anv overt act in the manner as mentioned in Ex.Pl complaint. It g0es to show that the evidence of PWI is

having material omissions and contradiction like Ex.Pl.

24. According to PW2 all the relatives of PWs 1 and 2 stavcd in the house and afier due deliberations Ex.Pl complaint was lodged. PWI stated that he was examined by the police at about 7 or 8 a.m. PW1l stated that he was in the village during that time. later went to the police station and recorded his confession at about 8-15 p.m. under Ex.P2 thereafier he visited the hospital and recorded the statements of others. Theretore recording of statement of PW at 7 or 8 a.m. docs not arise. Il gives scopc that the Statement was also created one.

According to PWs I and 2 the police in fact reached the hospital in the midnight itself and PWI clearly stated that he has narrated the incident to the police but PW? stated that he has not narrated the incident lo the police. IT PVW2 would have uot knowledge about the incident he would have narrated to the police about the incident even during midnight to the police when the police came to the hospital. As alreudy stated above that PW3 stated that he has not seen the incident by the time he went there he found the accused at the spot. Further admitted that he has not seen the accused person while running from the house of Ramulu and PWI told him that the ICCUsed stabbed the deceased and ran awav. The evidence of PW4 is also not helptul for the prosecution, He stated that he has seen the accused at night at |0-00 p.m. but in his erOSN he stat¢d that he has not stated the said fact to the police in his statement. Theretore the evidence of PWs3 and 4 is hearsay and that their evidence is not of much signilicance to the case on hand. On going through the entire evidence on record onlv eve witness to ihe incident is PWI but his evidence is with several discrepancies and material omissions in the manner as aforesuid.

26 According to PW8 at 7-00 the police Wanaparthy came to the police station. PWT Was in the police station when DSP caule to tlhe nolice station und rom the sene of offence they went to the scene of olfence. He hus not seen the acCUscd in the police slation and he has not furnished the information to the DSP about the aceuscd. It g0Cs to show that PWI was in the police station at 7 u.m, but PWI Ihas clcarly stated that he was in the village till n00n. PWIl deposed that he was inlored by PW? that Al was alread surrendered in the police station but PWIL in lis cross admitted that PW8 HHed

isited

NSable informed him on phone that Al surrendered betore the police station. He

Ospil

8. 8 seericd that A1 has not confessed anything in the manner in Ex.P2 in the preseICe of panch witnesses and that MOs 1 to 4 were recovered from Al under Ex.P2. By the time

reached there PWI was alrcady present at the scenc. By the time he reached the

hospital at 9 9-50 a.Im. PW9 and |W12 already rcached there. There he has examined PWI.

Pw2 W3 Nagamma. PW3. PW4 and IW6 Rajesh. He has received information oralls

a1 6-00 a.m. on 29-3-2012. He straight away went lo the scene of offence. Ile reached scene of offence by 7-0 a.m. PWI was already present at the scene bv the time he reached there. The above evidence of PW8 and PW|| is contradicting with each other about the arrest ofAl and about surrender of Al and about visit of PWl to the police station and village and about the examination of witnesses. The evidence of PW8 does not prove anything about involvement of the accused. Though the prosecution has much relicd upon the evidence of PW1. his evidence is not corroborating with the version of prosecution with regard to the alleged overt acts attributed to Al. in the manneY mention in Ex.PI and also alleged weapon used by Al in stabbing the deceascd. The evidence of PWs 1,2 and 6 and 11 is also inconsistent with several discrepancics and material omissions in the manner as aforesaid, apart from Ex.DI and Ex.D2 in the

evidence of PWI and PW2 respectively.

Therefore the prosccution did not explain the circumstances lo frame the charges 27. under sec. 120 B IPC for the criminal conspiracy among Al to A3. 1 here is no muclh evidence with regard to the alleged illegal intimacy by the deceased with Padma wife ot Al. She is also not examined in this case. It is unsafe to rely upon the inconsistent and solitarv eye witness of PWI in the absence of corroboration from other witnesses examined in this casc. In view of the aforesaid discussion the prosecution lailed to prove mrder of the deccased Kurmaiah in the hands of Al to A3 bevond all reasonable doub. Accordingly I hold that the death of deccased Kurnnaiah is homicide but the prosccution has not proved the offences under scc. 302 and 120-B r/w 34 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SCSTS (POA) Act. 1989 against the aceused.

28. In the result. the Al to A3 are found not guilty for the offences u/s 302 and i20

B r'w 34 IPC and see. 3(2Xv) of SC/STs (POA) Act. 1989 and accordingly the are

acquited u/s 235|1| CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled

forthwith. MOI to MO4 are ordered to be destroved atier appeal time is (over.

Dictated lo the Stenographer irade 1. transcribed by him. correceted und

pronounced by nne in the open (ourt. this the 3(0" day of December. 2014,

e, Fanily Court,

Mahabubnagar.

1AC Spl. Sessions Judge- Cum

VILADJ., Mahabubnag ar.

Appendix ofFvidence:

[Witnesses Cxamincd for

Irosceution

PWIA.Chinna Balaiah.

PW'T Rumchandraiah.

PW3Y Balaiah

PW4G. Ramesh. PWSJ. Balakrishna. PW6P. \Mukkula Maheswaram.

PW7 Raghottan. Tahsildar. Gopalpet.

PW8K. Veeraswam. llead Constable 118 of PS Gopalpe.

PW9T agaiah.

PWIODr. Sridevi, Medical Officer. Wanaparthy

PWTTB. Srinivas Reddy. Investigation officer.

Detence: None. Eshibits marked for

Prosccution:

Ex.Pl is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the confession and recovery panchanama. xP3 is caste certilicate. Ex.P4 is the First Information Report. IExP5 is the scene of offence panchanama. IxP6 is the inquest panchanama. EN.P7 is the PME report. Ex.P8 is the appointment order.

Ex.P9 Photographs | 5|.

Iix.Pl0 bunch of photographs. Tx.Pl is the FSI report. Ex.P12 is the wound certificate.

Detence:

IxDIis some portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PWI lExD2 is some portion of 161 CrP.C. slatement of Pw2.

Material Objects maked:

MOI knile M02 blo00d stained shirt. MO3 blo0d slrained bunian. \104 blood staincd lungi.

ludge, Iayílv Court.

Mah.kulud:jtr.

ACSpl. SUssions Judge-cum - VIL ADL. Mahabubnayar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II.ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, the 8th day of May, 2015.

Present: - Sri.P.Sudhakar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-

VIII. District and Sessions Judge,

FAC. II.Addl.District and Sessions Judge,

(FTC),Mahabubnagar.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 393 of 2014

In Preliminary Registered Case No.58/2014 committed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, in Crime No.70/2014 of Police

Station Nawabpet.

Prosecution:-: Sri.G.K.Harshavardhan Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel:-: Sri. N.P.Venkatesh, Advocate (Defence) for accused.

Name and particulars of : A1: Kesireddy Anil, S/o. Pandaiah, age 28 Accusedyears, Occ: Private Employee, A2: Kesireddy Pandaiah, S/o. Pedda Ramaiah, age 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3: Smt. Kesireddy Laxmamma, W/o. Pandaiah, age 50 years, Occ: House wife.

All R/o. Karkonda village of Nawabpet Mandal. : Offence under section(s)304-B IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order: In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offence under Sec. 304-B

IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

MO. 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2

The above numbered Sessions Case coming on 4-05-2013 for final hearing before me, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made and delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubnagar filed Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC with the following allegations.

2.The gist of the prosecution case is that PW.1 K.Indira is mother of the deceased Smt Kesireddy Lavanya and native of Ipponibavi and working as made servant in SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar and residing at Yenugonda village. A1[A.Anil] is the husband of the deceased, A2 & A3[K.Pandaiah &

K.Laxmamma] are the parents of A1 and in-laws of deceased. About six months back the marriage of deceased Lavanya was performed with A1 by providing dowry cash of Rs.2,20,000/-, six tulas of gold and other house hold articles to A1. After marriage A1 and deceased Lavanya led happy marital life for some time. About three months back, A1 and deceased

Lavanya visited the house of PW.1 and A1 demanded Rs.2,00,000/-towards construction of new house at Mahabubnagar. Deceased Lavanya informed

PW.1 that A1 to A3 are harassing her both mentally and physically by demanding additional dowry. Then Pw.1 approached the elders and informed about the harassment in the hands of A1 to A3 and that elders held a panchayath pacified the matter and promised to pay the demanded

additional dowry within three months and sent back the deceased Lavanya to

Karkonda village along with A1 to A3. But the accused did not change their behaviour and continued the harassments on deceased Lavanya. Pw.1 mortgaged her daughter's gold and availed loan of Rs.50,000/- and gave to 3

A1 and sent her back to Karkonda village. Inspite of paying such amount, again on 10-6-2014 at about 7-00pm A1 and deceased Lavanya visited the house of PW.1 Indira and A1 beat the deceased Lavanya demanding

additional dowry. Again panchayath was conducted but in vain. On 11-6-

2014 PW.1 convinced the deceased Lavanya that she will pay the amount within few days and sent her to Karkonda village. On the same day they continued harassment of A1 to A3 but the deceased vexed with her life, poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze herself and that she sustained burn injuries and died on the spot. On complaint given by PW.1, a case under Sec.304-B IPC was registered. During course of investigation it is elicited that due to harassment in the hands A1 to A3 for additional dowry, the deceased Lavanya vexed on her life, poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze, thereby A1 to A3 committed an offence punishable under

Sec.304-B IPC against A1 to A3.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar, on filing of charge sheet against her, took the case into cognizance under

Section 304-B IPC and numbered the charge sheet as PRC No.58/2014.

After appearing of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents as required under Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard both sides committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar under

Section 209 Cr.P.C, as offence is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions. Mahabubnagar.

4. The Hon'ble Prl.Sessions Judge, numbered the same as S.C.393 of 2014 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4

5. On appearance of the accused before this Court and on hearing on the counsel on both sides, this court framed the charge under section 304-B IPC against the accused No.1 to 3, read over and explained to them in Telugu.

They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then this Court fixed trial schedule and conducted the trial.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material brought on record. Accused No.1 to 3 denied the said evidence. No defence evidence is proposed on behalf of the accused.

7.On behalf of the prosecution PW's1 to 14 were examined. Ex's.P1 to

P15 are marked. MO's1 & 2. No defence witnesses are examined on behalf of the accused.

8.Heard arguments of both sides,

9.Now the Point for determination is that :

Whether A1 to A3 harassed the deceased Lavanya demanding

additional dowry and for which vexed with their attitude Lavanya

committed suicide and that whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Sec.304-B IPC?

10.The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution by examining PW's.1 to 11 and marking Ex's.P1 to P15. MO's1 & 2 has well established the guilt of the accused for the charge under Sec.304-B IPC, some of the witnesses turned hostile but it will not cut the root of the prosecution case. Pw's.9, 12 to 14 supported the prosecution case. There may be some minor discrepancies here and there but they will cut the root of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Ultimately he has prayed for conviction of the accused for the charge under Sec.304-B IPC.

5

11. Whereas the learned defence counsel argued that PW's.1 to 8 did not support the prosecution case. PW.9, 12, 13, 14 on official witnesses but they are not material witnesses in this case. There is no sufficient evidence placed by the prosecution case to prove the guilt of the accused, it is unsafe to rely upon such inconsistent evidence in the absence of corroboration from the material witnesses PW's.1 to 8 and PW.10. Ultimately he has prayed for acquittal of the accused No.1 to 3.

12. The Evidence of hostile witnesses:-

PW.1 K.Indira is mother of the deceased, PW.2 K.Praveen Kumar is brother of the deceased. PW.3 Narayana, PW.4 Anand, Pw.5-Ravi are uncle of deceased and circumstantial witnesses. PW.6 Pedda Golla Parvathalu is village elder and circumstantial witness. Pw.7 M.Pedmamma is eye-witness to the occurrence. PW.8 K.Arunamma and PW.10 Kavali Venkataiah are other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They did not support the prosecution case. They admitted about the relationship of A1 with the deceased Lavanya as husband and wife. A2 and A3 are parents of A1. PW's.1 to 8 and 10 deposed that they do not know the reasons for the death of the deceased

Lavanya but they have compromised the matter. They did not know anything about this case. Police not examined them. However PW.1 has identified her signature on Ex.P1 complaint, dt.11-6-2014. Since Pw's.1 to 8 and 10 gave a go bye to the prosecution version, they were treated as hostile and cross-examination by Addl.Public Prosecutor. During their cross- examination nothing worthwhile is elicited except marking their portions of 161 Cr.P.C statements, Ex's.P2 to P8 and Ex.P11 respectively and by putting bald suggestions duly denied by them. The evidence of PW's.1 to 8 and 10 is no way helpful for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused.

6

13.PW.11 Shivaleela said to be panch witnesses denied her presence at the time of preparation of crime detail form. However she admitted her signatures on crime details form. Ex.P12 is signature portion of PW.11 on crime detail form, dt.11-6-2014. In her cross she denied the suggestion that she along with LW.11-Venkat reddy were present through out the proceedings covered under crime detail form.

14. The Evidence of official witnesses:

PW.9 N. Jyothi, Tahasildar Nawabpet deposed that on 12-6-2014 she received requisition from S.I of police, Nawabpet to conduct inquest over the dead body of deceased Lavanya. She held inquest over the said dead body in the presence of LW.11 Venkat Reddy and PW11 Shivaleela. Ex.P10 is inquest proceedings, dt.12-6-2014. She opined that deceased died due to harassment and ill treatment towards demanding additional dowry by the accused. She examined PW's 2 to 8, Lw.7 Narsimulu and LW.9 Venkataiah and recorded their statements.

15.PW.12 G.Vijaya Kumar, S.I of police, Nawabpet deposed that on 11-6-2014 he received complaint from PW.1 Indira and registered same as

F.I.R in Cr.No.70/14. Ex.P13 is complaint of PW.1, dt.11-6-2014. Ex.P14 is registered F.I.R. He submitted original F.I.R to Magistrate and copies to concerned. He examined PW.1 and recorded her statement Ex.P2.

16.PW.13 Dr.Anitha, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Govt. Hospital,

Mahabubnagar deposed that on 12-6-2014 she received a requisition from

Tahasildar, Nawabpet to conduct PME over the dead body of the deceased

Lavanya. On same day she commenced autopsy at 1.15pm and found the injuries: 1. Anti-mortem full thickness burns involving head and neck and face, 2. Anti-mortem full thickness burns involving anterior and posterior aspect chest and abdomen, 3. Anti-mortem burns involving both upper 7 limbs, 4.Anti-mortem burns involving both lower limbs, 5. Sub galeal contusion over frontal and partial region. Ex.P15 is PME report. She concluded at 3-00PM. The cause of death is due to 100% full thickness burns.

17.PW.14 B.Mallikarjun, the then D.S.P of Police deposed that he received express FIR from PW.12 on 11-6-2014. Then he took up investigation and that he visited the scene of offence on 12-6-2014 and there he prepared rough sketch and crime detail form in the presence of LW.11

Venkat reddy and PW.11 Shivaleela. Ex.P16 in Crime detail form. He seized MO's 1 & 2 under Ex.P16 in the presence of LW.11 and PW.11.

Meanwhile PW.9 Jyothi Tahasildar Nawabpet visited the scene of offence and held inquest over the dead body of deceased. There he examined PW's.1 to 6, LW.7 Narsimulu, PW.7, PW.8 and PW.10 and recorded their statements. PW's.1 to 8 and PW.10 stated before him as in Ex.P2 to P9 and

P11. Dead body was sent to Govt. Hospital for P.M.E. On 13-6-2014 he arrested A1 to A3 and sent them for remand. On completion of investigation and on receipt of Ex.P15 he laid charge sheet in this case. MO.1 is five liters plastic can, MO.2 is burnt cloth.

18.PW's.9, 12 to 14 are official witnesses. Their evidence will be taken into consideration when the evidence of all the material witnesses is consistent and co-gent and also in accordance with prosecution case, but as already stated above PW1's 1 to 8 and 10, 11 gave a go bye to the prosecution version. Therefore, it is unsafe is rely upon the evidence of official witnesses PW's9, 12 to 14. In the absence of any corroboration from the other material witnesses PW's 1 to 8 and PW.10, 11. Therefore, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and about their involvement in the death of deceased Lavanya. Accordingly, I hold that 8 the prosecution has not proved the charge under Sec.304-B IPC against the

Accused No.1 to 3.

19.In the result, accused No.1 to 3 are not found guilty for the offence under Sec. 304-B IPC and they are acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. MO. 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2015.

FAC. II.Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 K.Indira P.W.2 K.Praveen Kumar, P.W.3 Narayana P.W.4 Anand P.W.5 Ravi P.W.6 P.Parvathalu P.W.7 M.Padmamma PW.8 A.Arunamma PW.9 M.Jyothi PW.10 Kavali Venkataiah PW.11 Shivaleela, PW.12 G.Vijaya Kumar, PW.13 Dr.Anitha PW.14 B.Mallikarjun

For Defence:

--N o n e --

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Signature portion on Complaint by Pw.1, Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.1, Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.2, Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.3, Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.4, Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.5, Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.6 9

Ex.P8 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.7 Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.8, Ex.P10 is Inquest report by PW.9, Ex.P11 A portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.10, Ex.P12 is Signature portion on crime detail form by PW.11, Ex.P13 Complaint by PW.12, Ex.P14 F.I.R by PW.12, Ex.P15 P.M.E report by Pw.13.

For the Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects marked:

M.O.1 Five liters plastic Can, M.O.2 Burnt cloths

FAC. II.Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

1 10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.The gist of the prosecution case is that due to differences between deceased[first wife of Pw.1] and accused[ 2nd wife of Pw.1] with regard to land disputes, accused poured kerosene on deceased Lingamma and set fire on her and in meanwhile when D2 Kishtamma[Aunty of accused] tried to rescue, deceased No.1 was caught flames and that D1 died on the spot and that deceased No.2-Kishtamma died later while undergoing treatment. Thus accused was charge sheeted for the offence under Sec.302 IPC.

11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that by examining the PW.'s 1 to 13 and marking Ex's P1 to P16 and MO's 1 and 2, has established the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable under Sec.302

IPC and there may be some minor discrepancies here and there in the evidence of prosecution witnesses but they will not cut root of the prosecution case. Ultimately he prayed for conviction of the accused.

12.The learned defence counsel argued that there are no direct witnesses to the case on hand and that panch-witnesses for confession of accused also did not support the prosecution case, PW.1 gave different version than the prosecution case and it goes to show that the deceased herself poured kerosene on her body. Pw.3-Balamma said to be the person to whom the accused narrated the incident, did not support the prosecution case. The 1 evidence of PW's 1 to 13 is inconsistent with discrepancies and contradictions and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Ultimately he has prayed for acquittal of the accused.

13.Pw.1-L.Saibanna admitted about his relationship with first deceased

Lingamolla Lingamma as first wife and accused Lingamoola Bhagyamma as 2nd wife. Since Lingamma had no issues, he married the accused who gave birth to two children but they are not born to him. One year back his first wife Lingamma poured kerosene on herself and set her fire and the same was informed by accused on phone and by then, he was grazing sheep at

Medak. He returned to Jajapur and found Lingamma died with burn injuries in his house. He gave complaint to the police. In his cross he denied portion of 161 Cr.P.C statements marked as Ex.D1 that is to say that through him accused gave birth to two children namely Nageshwari, age 6 years and

Nagappa 4 years. Though it is not a material contradiction but he did not speak against the accused that she poured kerosene on deceased. He admitted that the accused lodged a complaint against him and accused for the offence under Sec.498-A IPC. The names of the villagers informed him about incident or not mentioned in Ex.P1. Therefore the evidence of Pw.1 is not in accordance with the prosecution case.

14.PW.2-M.Chenna Kistappa deposed that he came to know through the villagers that there were differences in between deceased and accused and that deceased was set fire by the accused with regard to the property dispute.

In his cross he denied the suggestion villagers did not inform him anything that there was no difference between deceased and accused and that deceased died accidentally. PW.2 is hearsay witnesses and his evidence will 1 be taken into consideration when the evidence of material witnesses is consistent and cogent.

15.Pw.3-M.Balamma said to be the witnesses to whom the accused has narrated the incident immediately after the alleged incident. But she did not speak about the said aspect. But stated that she heard from villagers that the accused killed the deceased by setting fire with regard to the property dispute. She has not witnessed the alleged incident and that she had not seen the dead body of Lingamma. In his cross she denied the suggestion that villagers did not inform her about alleged incident and that accused was nothing to do with alleged incident. One way or other PW.3 did not speak with regard to narrating the incident by accused in killing the deceased to her. Therefore her evidence is also not in accordance with the prosecution case.

16.Pw.4-M.Jeelani deposed that he heard that Lingamma was set fire with kerosene by accused. On the next day morning he found the first deceased Lingamma died with burn injuries. In her cross he denied portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement and the same is marked as Ex.D2. Ex.D2 reads as “Pw.4 was about to take food by sitting in his house, he heard cries from house of the deceased and then we went there and advised that not to quarrel and when asked the deceased he told him that mother of the accused while passing urinals behind their house, neighbours were abusing her”. It goes to show that he did not support the prosecution case with regard to galata in the house of the deceased just prior to the incident and also about the presence of accused and deceased in the same house. However he is also hearsay 1 witnesses and his evidence is not sufficient to warrant conviction against the accused.

17.Pw.5-Ashamma deposed that she along with Ramakrishna panch witness werepresent at the time of inquest and also preparation of crime details form. Ex.P2 is inquest report dt.2-4-2012, Ex.P3 is crime details form dt.2-4-2012. MO.1 is plastic can. MO.2 is burnt ash. MO.1 and MO.2 were seized under Ex.P3 in their presence. In her cross-examination she denied Ex.P2 and P3 were prepared in police station and that no such proceedings under Ex.P2 and P3 took place and that MO.1 and 2 were not seized in their presence. Her evidence is with regard to inquest and crime details form and her evidence will be considered when the evidence of material witnesses is consistent and cogent.

18.PW.6-Narayana deposed that deceased No.2 Kistamma is his mother.

She died about one year back with burn injuries while rescuing

Lingamma[D1] from burn injuries. D2 was shifted to Govt. Hospital,

Narayanpet and he died one week thereafter. One way or other he did not speak anything against the accused herein. Hence his evidence is not of much significance to the case on hand except saying the death of his mother.

19.Pw.7- Jethender Goud, spoke about Ex.P4 inquest held over the 2nd deceased Kishtamma on 7-4-2012. But in his cross he denied the suggestion that Ex.P4 was prepared in police station and their signatures were obtained in police station.

20.Evidence of panch-witnesses for confession of the offence:

1

PW.8- B.Pedda Buggappa and PW.9-Kavali Narayana said to be panch-witnesses to speak about the confession of the accused about alleged incident in the manner as under Ex.P15 confessional-cum-seizure panchanama marked through PW.13 investigating officer in this case. PW.8 and PW.9 deposed that they did not go to house of the accused. They did not enquire about nature of offence. Accused did not confess anything before them. However they admitted their signatures portions Ex.P5 and P6 respectively on confessional panchanama dt.7-4-2012. But PW.8-Pedda

Buggappa spoken about seizure Ex.P6, P7 pattedar pass books in the name of PW.1. Police seized Ex.P6 and P7 in their presence. Since Pw.8 and 7 did not support the prosecution case, they were treated as hostile and with the permission of the court. They were examined by Additional Public

Prosecutor who failed to elicit anything in favour of the prosecution except by putting suggestions that they were present throughout the proceedings covered under confessional panchanama dt.7-4-2012. Therefore the evidence of Pw.8 and 9 is no way helpful for the prosecution to prove the alleged confession of the accused as well as the guilt of the accused.

21. Evidence of Official witnesses:

PW.10-S.Rajesh the then H.C of Narayanpet, P.C spoke about his receiving Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1 on 2-4-2012 at 12.00noon and he has registered the same in crime No.32 of 2012. Ex.P9 is registered FIR.

PW.11-S.Ragavender deposed that on 2-4-2012 he conducted P.M.E over the dead bead of deceased Lingamma. Ex.P10 is P.M.E report of deceased Lingamma. He opined that she died due to hypovolemic shock due to 100% 3rd degree burns. On 7-4-2012 he conducted PME over the dead body of 2nd deceased Kurva Kistamma. Ex.P11 is P.M.E report and 2nd deceased Kisthamma. He opined that cause of death due to Cardio 1 respiratory failure with septicemic shock due to 2nd degree burns. In his cross he stated that he did not find traces of kerosene or smell over the dead body of Lingamma.

Pw.12- M.Anand Thertha, the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Narayanpet deposed that he has received Ex.P12 requisition from C.A.S

Area Hospital, Narayanpet, dt.2-4-2012. Immediately at 7.10p,m he went the record Dying Declaration of Lingamma. She told him that daughter of his elder sister by name Lingamma was with burns and when she tried to rescue her and in meanwhile she was caught with fire and thus she sustained burn injuries. Ex.P13 is Dying Declaration of Kistamma. In her cross she stated that the declaration of Kistamma did not attribute any person for sustaining their burn injuries. Ex.P13 is also silent about role of the accused in causing death of two persons in the manner as alleged by the prosecution case.

Therefore the said Dying Declaration. Ex.P13 is not sufficient to connect the accused to the case on hand. Pw.13-N.Lingaiah, investigation officer in this case deposed that he has proceeded to the scene of offence at Jajapur village and prepared Ex.P3 crime details form in the presence of PW.5[Ashamma] and LW.9[P.Kurva Ramakrishna]. He has examined PW's1 to 4, LW.6-

P.Laxmamma and recorded their statements. He held Ex.P3 inquest on dead body of D1 Lingamma in the presence of Pw.5 and Lw.9. The scene of offence was photographed. Ex.P14 is positive photographs nine in number.

He has seized MO's.1 and 2 under Ex.P3.

22.Pw.11-S.Raghavender conducted PME of D1 and D2 on 2-4-2012 and 7-4-2012 respectively. He arrested the accused at her parents house in

Dhanwada village. He secured the presence of PW's.8 and 9 and in their presence, he had conducted confessional panchanama under Ex.P15 1 confessional cum seizure panchananma, dt.7-4-2012. He has seized Ex's.P6 and P7 pattedar pass books under Ex.P15. Ex.P16 is pattedar pass books of

D1. Ex.P17 is title deed of D1. He has examined Pw.6[K.Narayana] and

LW.7[K.Nagesh] and recorded their statements. On receipt of PME report and collection of Dying Declaration of D2. He laid charge sheet in this case.

According to Pw.13 the accused has confessed the offence Ex.P15 in the presence of PW.8 and 9 but one way or other PW.8 and 9 gave go bye a prosecution version and that they did not speak about the confession of accused in their presence before PW.13. Therefore the evidence of Pw.13 is lack of corroboration from Pw.8 and 9 regarding the version of prosecution.

Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon solitary evidence of PW.13 alone in the absence of corroboration from panch-witnesses PW's.8 and 9. Therefore the prosecution has not proved the alleged confession under Ex.P15. As already stated above while interpreting the evidence of other witnesses there is no material placed by the prosecution in proving the guilt of the accused.

Therefore their evidence is also not in accordance with the prosecution prosecution case in the manner as aforesaid. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has not proved the charge under Sec.302 IPC against the accused.

24 In the result, accused is not found guilty for the offence under Sec.

302 IPC and she is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. MO. 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 18th day of September, 2013.

Judge, Family Court -Cum

VIII.Addl. District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar.

1

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 Saibanna, P.W.2 M.Kistappa, P.W.3 Balamamma P.W.4 Md.Jeelanai, P.W.5 Ashamma, P.W.6 K.Narayana, P.W.7 Jethender Goud, PW.8 B.Bugappa, PW.9 Kavali Narayana, PW.10 B.Rajesh, PW.11 S.Ragavendra, PW.12 Anandthertha, PW.13 P.Lingaiah.

For Defence:

--N o n e --

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Complaint by Pw.1, Ex.P2 Inquest by PW.5[D1], Ex.P3 scene of observation by Pw.5, Ex.P4 Inquest by PW.7[D2], Ex.P5 Signature of confessional panchanama of PW.8, Ex.P6 Pattadar passbook PW.8 Ex.P7 Pattedar passbook of PW.8, Ex.P8 Signature of confession panchanama of PW.9, Ex.P9 F.I.R of Pw.10, Ex.P10 PME report Lingamma of PW.11, Ex.P11 PME report of Kistamma by PW.11, Ex.P12 requisition letter of PW.12, Ex.P13 Dying declaration of PW.12, Ex.P14 Photoes(9) in number, Ex.P15 Confessional-cum-seizure panchanama, Ex.P16 Pattadar Pass book[D1], Ex.P17 Title deed of D1 For the Defence:

Ex.D1 A portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.D2 A portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4,

Material Objects marked: M.O.1 Plastic can, M.O.2 burnt ash

Judge, Family Court -Cum

VIII.Addl. District and Sessions Court, FAC. II.Addl.District and Sessions Judge, (FTC),Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2015.

Present:- Sri P. SUDHAKER,

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar. FAC II Addl. District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

OS No.31 of 2007

Between:-

S. Venkat Ramana Reddy s/o seetharam Reddy, Age 33 yrs, Occ. Agrl. R/o Saireddiguda village, Kandukur mandal, RR District. … Plaintiff. A N D

1. S. Seetharam Reddy s/o Chandra Reddy, Age 65 yrs.

2. S. Chandra Bhasker Reddy s/o S. Seetharam Reddy, Age 37 yrs. Both r/o Saireddiguda vlg, Kandukur mandal.

3. Premalatha w/o Madusudan Reddy, Age 39 yrs, House hold r/o Gungal vlg, Yacharam mandal.

4. Varalaxmi w/o Tirupath Reddy, Age 35 yrs, House hold r/o Siddapur vlg, Kothur mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

5. S. Ranga Reddy s/o Chandra Reddy, Age 60 yrs, Occ. Agrl. R/o Shai reddiguda vlg, Kandukur mandal, RR Dist.

.. Defendants.

@ @ @

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 26-3-2015 in the presence of Sri T. Vijayabhasker Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff. Sri S. Bhasker Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.1. D2 to D4 were set exparte. Sri K. Prathap Kumar, Advocate for the defendant No.5. And upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.It is averred in the plaint, that the, plaintiff Venkat Ramna Reddy and defendant

No.2 S. Chandra Reddy are sons, defendants No.3 Premalath and defendant No.4

Varalaxmi are daughter of the defendant No.1. The defendant No.5 is not concerned with the suit lands but nominal gift deed for C schedule lands for an area of Ac.6-21 Gts is in his name. Thereby he made as party to the suit. The suit lands are ancestral lands.

The plaintiff, defendants No.1 to 4 are in joint possession without any partition. The defendant No.1 being father of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 has no right to execute the gift deed in favour of the defendant No.5 without consulting of plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 4. Due to old age the defendant No.1 is unable to manage the joint family since other defendants are not cooperating of the joint family properties, the plaintiff demanded the defendants to effect partition of the suit lands. The defendant

No.1 is agreed but other defendants did not agree for partition. The plaintiff made proposal for partition of the suit lands into five equal shares on 14-5-2007 but some of the defendants did not agree. Hence the suit for partition into five equal shares and allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and delivery of the possession of the same.The defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 to 4 also filed written statement admitting the averments in the plaint and seeking for partition of the plaint schedule property as prayed for without costs.

2.But during the time of trial the defendants No.2 to 4 were set exparte.

3.The defendant No.5 filed the written statement denying most of the averments in the plaint besides stating that the plaintiff is admitting that the defendant No.1 has already gifted Ac.6-21 Gts of land out of the suit lands to the defendant No.5. The plaintiff has not sought any relief against the defendant No.5 in spite of pleading about the said gift. Thus, the suit in respect of the said Ac.6-21 Gts of land out of the suit land is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed in view of the failure on part of plaintiff in not seeking any appropriate relief against the defendant No.5 in respect of the said lnd and in respect of gift deed document No.3341/2000 dated 22-11-2000 which were included in the suit schedule c property. On this ground also the present suit in respect of suit schedule c property is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit without seeking relief of declaration and cancellation of the Gift deed

No.3341/2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5. Thus the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation in respect of the lands gifted to the defendant No.5 by the defendant No.1 through the Gift deed document No.3341/2000 which the plaintiff has included in the present suit in c schedule property.

4.D5 further contended that the lands bearing Sy.No.252, 253, 255 and 256 ad- measuring Ac.20-04 Gts, Ac.4-31 Gts, Ac.15-12 Gts and Ac.12-01 gts respectively situated at Kadthal village, Amangal mandal jointly belongs to late Narsimha Reddy @

Narsi Reddy and late Chandra Reddy who are the real brothers. The said Narsimha

Reddy died leaving behind his only son Kashi Reddy as his heir. The above said lands were recorded in the names of Kashi Reddy and Chandra Reddy in revenue records.

The said Chandra Reddy died leaving behind four sons namely 1] Narsimha Reddy 2]

Raji Reddy 3] Ranga Reddy [defendant No.5] said Kashi Reddy and Chandra Reddy have orally partitioned all their lands including land bearing Sy.No.252, 253, 255 and 256 situated at Kadthal village long back and started enjoying their respective extents and lands as absolute owners. The name of Chandra Reddy continued in revenue records even after his death for substantial period as his sons including the defendant

No.1 and defendant No.5 have not taken immediate steps to get their names mutated in revenue records as owners of their respective lands. However, subsequently the names of defendants No.1, 5 and their two other brothers Narsimha Reddy and Raji Reddy were recorded as pattadars of the said lands in revenue records. The said four brothers have also partitioned their lands situated at Kadthal village, Amangal mandal,

Mahabubnagar Dist and Saireddy gudem village, Kandukur mandal. All the said brothers started enjoying their respective properties as absolute owners. In view of certain developments and as per interse partition, understandings and settlements between the four brothers including the defendant Nos. 1 and 5 various lands were given to the defendant No.5 in land bearing Sy.No.252,253, 255 and 260 towards his share. The said understanding was also implemented and acted upon and accordingly the elder brother of defendant No.1 and 5 namely Narsimha Reddy has gifted land bearing Sy.No.252/AA and 253/A admeasuring Ac.2-20 Gts and 00-24 Gts respectively total ad-measuring Ac.3-04 Gts situated at Kadthal vlg to the defendant No.5 vide registered gift deed document No.1696/97 on 23-6-1997. Their another brother Raji

Reddy has gifted land bearing Sy.Nos. 252/AA and 253/AA and 255/AA admeasuring

Ac.2-21 Gts, 0-24 Gts and Ac.1-37 Gts respectively total admeasuring Ac.12-18 Gts which fell to the share of S. Kashi Reddy, the cousin brother of defendant Nos. 1 and 5 who is son of Narsimha Reddy the real brother of Chandra Reddy the father of defendants No.1 and 5, was also gifted to the wife of defendant No.5 by name Smt.

Yadamma on 23-6-1997 vide document No.1701 of 1997 and she was put into possession of said lands. The plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are very much aware of all the said gifts and settlements between the defendants No.1, 5 and their two other brothers, but intentionally filed the present suit to extract money from the defendant No.5. All the said gifts were accepted and acted upon and the name of defendant No.5 was also mutated as owner of said lands in revenue records and he has become absolute owner of all the said lands.

5.The gift made by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5 in respect of suit schedule “c” property is legal and valid and binding on the plaintiff and defendant

No.2 to 4. The plaintiff cannot question the said gift, particularly in view of the fact that no relief is sought against the defendant No.5 in respect of the properties gifted to defendant No.5. The title in respect of said property was legally transferred to defendant No.5 and hence the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for partition. The plaintiff or defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have no subsisting right or title over the said lands and hence the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit, particularly in respect of suit schedule C property. The plaintiff should seek declaration of his right in respect of suit schedule properties particularly the suit schedule C property and should seek declaration that the Gift made by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 as illegal and not binding on him before seeking any relief in the present suit. The plaintiff cannot maintain present suit without seeking said main relief. The plaintiff is not entitled for the said relief also even if he seeks such relief and hence the plaintiff has not sought said relief and filed the present suit for partition to avoid payment of Court fee and to force defendant No.5 to settle the matter with them and meet their illegal demands. Thus, there are absolutely no bonafides on part of plaintiff in filing the present suit. On this ground also, the present suit is fit to be dismissed. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 are not all in possession of the plaint schedule property and that they have no right or title over the said property. Ultimately he has prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

6.On the basis of the paint, written statement of D-1, D2 to D4 and D5 this court framed the following issues on 29-12-2010 for trial:- [1] Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek partition of plaint schedule property?

[2] Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

[3] Whether the suit is maintainable?

[4] To What relief?

7. Issues No.1 to 3:- The finding on issue No.1 will bind on other issues, hence I answer all these issues together.

8.On behalf of the plaintiff, Pws 1 and 2 are examined and through PW1 Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked. On behalf of the defendant No.5, the defendant No.5 is examined asDW1 and his son is examined as DW2. Through DW1 Ex.B1 to Ex.B62 are marked.

9.On going through the avermnents in plaint, written statement, oral and documentary evidence adduced on either side and written arguments filed on behalf of the plaintiff, I find the following aspects.

1] Narsimha Reddy and Chandra Reddy are brothers.

6 2] Kashi Reddy is the son of Narsimha Reddy.

3] Chandra Reddy has got four sons namely, 1] Narsimha Reddy, 2] Raji

Reddy, 3] Ranga Reddy(D5) and Seetha Ram Reddy [defendant No.1] and five daughters.

4] The plaintiff Venkatram Reddy [PW1] and defendant No.2 Chandra

Bhasker Reddy are sons of the defendant No.1, the defendants No.3 and 4 are daughters of defendant No.1.

5] The plaintiff has suppressed the relationship of the defendant No.1 with his own brother defendant No.5 saying that the defendant No.5 is not concerned with the suit land but nominal gift deed for 'c' schedule property was executed by the defendant

No.1 without knowledge of plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 4.

6] The defendant No.1 filed his written statement and defendants No.2 to 4 together filed another written statement admitting the averments in the plaint seeking preliminary decree for partition of the suit lands into five equal shares as prayed for in the plaint. It goes to show that there is collusion between the plaintiff and defendants

No.1 to 4.

7] Though the plaint A,B,C properties are shown, the plaintiff mainly contending with regard to execution of gift deed. Ex.A1 is certified copy of Gift deed

dated 22-11-2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5 in

respect of land to an extent of ac.8-21 gts shown in 'c' schedule property. Ex.B6 is original of Ex.A1.

8] The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.A2 to Ex.A7 certified copies of pahanies for the years ranging from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and in which the defendant No.1 is shown as possessors and enjoyer for the plaint 'c' schedule property and for which the defendant No.1 has executed Ex.B1 gift deed in favour of the defendant No.5 [DW1].

10.Now the evidence adduced on either side is to be considered hereunder.

11.PW1 has reiterated the same version as averred in the plaint andthrough him

Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked and they are already discussed above. Ex.A1 is the c.c. Of gift deed dated 22-11-2000. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-1998.

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-

98. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000. PW2 K. Ramulu s/o Narsimha supported the version of plaintiff saying that the defendant No.5 is not concerned with the plaintiff or with the suit schedule lands. His lands are nearer to the suit lands. He came to know that

Ranga Reddy has created some document in respect of part of the lands in his favour said to be executed by Sitarama Reddy, in fact Ranga Reddy has no concern with the suit lands and he is not in possession of any land. In his cross he stated that about three months back the plaintiff approached him and informed that the defendant No.5 got recorded his name in the revenue records in respect of lands belongs to the plaintiff and requested him to give evidence. On going through his chief and cross examination, I feel that his evidence is not of much significance to decide the issue on hand.

12.PW1 in his cross admitted that the extent of property fell to the share of his father Ac.30 and odd land situated at Sai reddyguda, another extent Ac.6-00 land situated in Anmaspally village of Kadthal mandal. His father did not get ancestral house property but he received a house sited from his father. The property succeeded by his father were acquired by their grandfather. He enquired with defendant No.1 about alleged gift deed in favour of D-5 the he also supported him to file a suit against the defendant No.5. He denied the suggestion that he did not pray any relief against the defendant No.5 and that due to internal understandings between the defendant No.1 and his brothers got executed Ex.A1 document in favour of the defendant No.5 by the defendant No.1 and that he is having kowledge of the said fact from the date of Ex.A1 only and that himself colluded with other defendants brought the present suit against the defendants No.5 to defeat his interest and to harass to purchasers.

13.DW1 Ranga Reddy is defendant No.5 in this matter. DW2 Chandra Mohan

Reddy is son of DW1. Both Dws 1 and 2 have reiterated the same version as averred in the written statement filed on behalf of D5. Through DW1 Ex.B1 to Ex.B61 are marked.

Ex.B1 is the original title deed issued by M.R.O., Amangal in respect of 'c' schedule property. Ex.B1 is pattadar pass book was issued in pursuance of Ex.A1 gift deed thereby name of the defendant No.5 is entered in the revenue records. Ex.B2 is the original registered gift deed No.1696 of 1997, dated 23-6-1997. Ex.B2 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.5. Ex.B3 is original registered gift deed

No.1701 of 1997 executed by Kasi Reddy in favour of the defendant No.5. Ex.B4 is registered gift deed No.3192/2000 executed by Ram Reddy [elder brother of defendant

No.1] in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of land to an extent of Ac.5-20 Gts of land.

Ex.B5 is original registered gift deed No.3237 of 2000 dated 9-11-2000 executed by Raji

Reddy in favour of the defendant No.5 to an extent of Ac.2-01 gts . Ex.B6 is original registered gift deed No.3341 of 2000 dated 22-11-2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.5 to an extent of ac.8-21 gts. Ex.B7 is certified copy of sale deed

dated 22-6-1997 executed by the defendant No.5 in favour of one Balraj Yadav. Ex.B8 is

certified copy of sale deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of Bommineni

Agareddy in respect of land to an extent of Ac.6-02 Gts. By filing these documents the defendant No.5 has proved that he has sold some extent covered under Ex.B8 in favour of Aga Reddy But one or other way the said Aga Reddy is not impleaded as party to the suit. That a specific plea taken by the defendant No.5 in his written statement that the said Raji Reddy has gifted land bearing Sy.No.252, 253 and 255 extent ac.2 -21 gts, 00-24 gts and ac.1-37 gts respectively total ad-measuring ac.3-04 gts situated at Kadthal village. Ex.B9 is the ROR dated 16-3-2012 in which the defendant No.5 is shown as pattadar and one Yadamma shown that she is in possession to an extent of Ac.10-02 in

Sy.No.252/A and Ac.2-06 Gts in Sy.No.253/A. Ex.B10 is pahani for the year 2010-2011 stands in the name of Sathineni Yadamma w/o Ranga Reddy. As per Ex.B11 certified copy of ROR in which the defendant No.5 is shown as pattadar and possessor. Ex.B12 to

Ex.B61 are certified copies of pahanies ranging from 1970-71 to 2010-2011.

14.In Ex.B9 the names of the defendant No.5 and his wife are mutated in revenue records. Even after death of Chandra Reddy his name was continued to be as posessor for some of the lands. But after death of ChandraReddy, the defendant No.1 and 5 and their brother Narsimha Reddy and Raji Reddy got their names recorded in the revenue records in respect of lands acquired by father of Chandra Reddy. On going through the documentary evidence, I find that instead of execution of partition deed, the defendants

No.1, 5 and their two brothers got executed gift deeds in the manner vide Ex.B2 to

Ex.B6. Ex.B1 is the title deed issued in favour of the defendant No.5 for the lands covered under Ex.B6 or Ex.A1. After execution of Ex.A1 gift deed the defendant No.1 has not come forward to give his evidence by himself or anybody on his behalf in order to establish the circumstances led to execution of Ex.B6 or Ex.B1, Ex.B49 is certified copy of pahani in which the name of the defendant No.1 is shown as pattadar and possessor for the lands in Sy.No.255 and 256. On going through the entire pahanies and other documents filed by the defendant No.5, I find that the defendant No.1 and 5 and their two brothers Narsimha Reddy and Raji Reddy were enjoying their lands separately and exclusively and thereby on mutual understandings they got executed gift deeds like Ex.B2 to Ex.B6, perhaps to avoid payment of stamp duty and registration expenses penalty. Therefore I believe the version of the defendant No.5 that with the knowledge of plaintiff, defendants No.2 to 4 the defendant No.1 has got executed Ex.B6 gift deed in favour of the defendant No.5. Though it was executed in the year 2000 but the suit is filed in the year 2007. The name of the defendant No.5 is mutated in the revenue records and thereby issued pattadar pass books and ROR. Ex.B62 pattadar pass book issued in the name of the defendant No.1 and extent shown in such document is ac.8-21 gts and same extent is mentioned in Ex.B1. The other brothers Narsimha Reddy and Raji Reddy were not shown as parties in the suit and there are some other properties not included in the suit schedule property. Therefore the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties like Aga reddy, Narsimhareddy and Raji reddy. As already stated above the plaintiff has suppressed his relationship with the defendant No.5. All these things would suggest that the present suit is collusive one in order to defeat the rights of the defendant No.5 over the suit schedule property covered under Ex.B6 or 'c' schedule property.

15.The plaintiff in his written statement has relied upon the decision reported in 2012 (1) ALD 92 (SC) between Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd. V. State of Haryana and another wherein it was observed that, 'sale of by executingagreement of sale,

General Power of Attorney (GPA) and a will do not convey title and therefore, do not amount to transfer nor are they valid mode of transfer of immovable property' But in the present case the defendant No.1 has executed Ex.B6 registered gift deed in favour of the defendant No.5. The facts and circumstances of the said decision are not applicable to the case on hand.

16.In view of the aforesaid discussion the plaintiff is not entitled to seek partition suit schedule properties and that the suit is barred by limitation and that the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable. Hence I answered these issues accordingly.

17.Issue No.4:- In the result, the suit is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.

Dictated to Sr. Asst.[working on deputation to attend the work of Stenographer],

transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of April, 2015.

FAC. II.Addl.District Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:- FOR DEFENDANTS:-

PW-1 Venkataramana Reddy.DW1 S. Ranga Reddy

PW-2K. Ramulu.DW2 S. Chandra Mohan Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1 is the c.c. Of gift deed dated 22-11-2000. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-1998. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-1996. Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98. Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1998-99. Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000.

FOR DEFENDANTS:-

Ex.B1 is pattadar pass book. Ex.B2 is the original registered gift deed No.1696 of 1997, dated 23-6-1997. Ex.B3 is original registered gift deed No.1701 of 1997. Ex.B4 is registered gift deed No.3192/2000. Ex.B5 is original registered gift deed No.3237 of 2000 dated 9-11-2000. Ex.B6 is original registered gift deed No.3341 of 2000 dated 22-11-2000. Ex.B7 is certified copy of sale deed dated 23-6-1997. Ex.B8 is certified copy of sale deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of Bommineni Agareddy. Ex.B9 is c.c. Of ROR. Ex.B10 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11. Ex.B11 is c.c. Of ROR. Ex.B12 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-2011. Ex.B13 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-2011. Ex.B14 is true copy of pahani for the year 2009-10. Ex.B15 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.B16 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.B17 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.B18 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.B19 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.B20 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2003-04 Ex.B21 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2002-03 Ex.B22 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2001-02 Ex.B23 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2000-01 Ex.B24 is c.c. Of pahani for the year1999-2000 Ex.B25 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1997-98 Ex.B26 is c.c. Of pahani for the year1996-97 Ex.B27 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1994-95. Ex.B28 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1993-94 Ex.B29 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1991-92 Ex.B30 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1990-91 Ex.B31 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1989-90 Ex.B32 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1988-89 Ex.B33 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1987-88 Ex.B34 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1986-87. Ex.B35 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1985-86. Ex.B36 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1984-85 Ex.B37 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1983-84 Ex.B38 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1982-83 Ex.B39 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1981-82 Ex.B40 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1980-81 Ex.B41 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1979-80 Ex.B42 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1978-79 Ex.B43 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1977-78 Ex.B44 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1975-76 Ex.B45 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1974-75 Ex.B46 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1973-74 Ex.B47 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1972-73 Ex.B48 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.B49 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1992-93 Ex.B50 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2004-05 Ex.B51 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2005-06 Ex.B52 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2007-08 Ex.B53 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.B54 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2008-09 Ex.B55 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2006-07 Ex.B56 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 1970-71 Ex.B57 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B58 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B59 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B60 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B61 is c.c. Of pahani for the year 2010-11 Ex.B62 is title deed pass book.

FAC. II.Addl.District Judge, (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 7th day of May, 2015.

Present:- Sri P.Sudhakar,

Judge, Family Court-cum-VIII-Addl.Sessions Judge,

FAC. II.Addl. District and Sessions Judge, (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 361 of 2014

In Preliminary Registered Case No.32/2014 committed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, in Crime No.46/2014 of Police

Station Balanagar.

Prosecution:-: Sri.G.K.Harshavardhan Reddy,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel:-: Sri. K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate (Defence) for accused.

Name and particulars of : A1: Pathlavath Mallesh, S/o. Punya, age 30 Accusedyears, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Devunigutta Thanda, h/o. Peddarevally of Balangar(M), A2: Pathlavath Dusya@ Pathlavath Dasu, S/o. Punya, age 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Devunigutta thanda, h/o. Peddarevally (V), Balanagar Mandal, A3: Vadithya Jagan, S/o.Ramulu, age 28 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Neelabanda thanda, H/o. Hemajipur village of Balanagar(M). A4: Jarupula Shiva, S/o.Keshya, age 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Thuppudagadda thanda, H/o. Konded village of Jadcherla(M).

A1 to A4 arrested on 01-03-2014 and produced in court.

Offence under section(s): 302 r/w 34 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the charge under Sec.302 IPC.

They are acquitted for the said offence under

Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The MO's 1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2 *****

The above numbered Sessions Case coming on 4-5-2015 for final hearing before me, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made and delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Circle-Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Rural filed Charge Sheet against the A1 to A4 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC with the following allegations.

2.Gist of the prosecution case is that on 21-2-2014 at about 9.30am

PW.1 Smt.Ramavath Bujji came to police station and gave a complaint to

S.H.O Balanagar, stating that on 20-2-2014 she along with her husband

Ramavath Hari chandher went to Lord Anjaneya Swamy temple in their village to attend the marriage of daughter of K.Kishan Naik. At about 3.30pm, while they were returning to their home, on the way they found her brother-in-law Narsimha having galata with the family members of Punya in respect of coolie amount then her husband Hari Chander went and questioned and meanwhile A1 to A4 came and beat Harichander indiscriminately and kicked on his testicles and as such he died on the spot.

Basing on the said complaint a case in Cr.No.46 of 2014 was registered for the offence u/Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC.

3.During the course of investigation the accused confessed their offence

before PW.8 A.Nagaraju, PW.9 Balakrishna, panch witnesses and on

completion of investigation, the accused 1 to 4 were charge sheeted for the offence u/Sec.302 of IPC.

3

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla, on filing of charge sheet before them, took the case into cognizance under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and numbered the charge sheet as PRC No.32/2014. After appearing of the accused 1 to 4 the learned Magistrate furnished copies of documents as required under Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard both sides committed the case to the court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar under

Section 209 Cr.P.C, as offences are exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions. Mahabubnagar.

5. The Hon'ble Prl.Sessions Judge, Numbered the same as S.C.361 of 2014 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

6. On appearance of the accused No. 1 to 4 before this court and on hearing on the counsel on both sides, this court framed the charge under section 302 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 4, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then this

Court fixed trial schedule and conducted the trial.

7.As there is no incriminating material against the accused 1 to 4 the examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C is hereby dispensed with. The defence of the accused 1 to 4 is total denial of the prosecution case.

8.During trial of the case, prosecution got examined P.W’s 1 to 9,

Ex’s.P1 to P16 and MO's 1 to 3 are marked. As such their evidence is closed.

9.Heard arguments of both sides,

10.Now the Point for determination is that :

4 i.Whether A1 to A4 assaulted the deceased at about 4.00pm on 20-2-2014 near Lord Anjaneya Swamy Temple at Neelathanda and that assaulted the deceased Harichander, scuffled him, badly manhandled him by charging fist blows all over the body and also kicked him and then he died on the spot and whether the prosecution has proved the charge under sec.

302 IPC against A1 to A4?

11.The learned Addl.P.P argued that though the most of the witnesses turned hostile, but the prosecution by examining PW's.1 to 9 and marking

MO's 1 to 3 and Ex's.P1 to P16, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused and as such he prayed for conviction of the offence u.Sec.302

IPC. Whereas the defence counsel contended that all the witnesses PW's 1 to 9 did not support the prosecution case and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused in killing the deceased

Harichander and that there is no needs made out by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Ultimately he has prayed for acquittal of the accused.

12.PW.1 R.Bujji said to be wife of deceased and eyewitness to the occurrence. PW.2 K.Dhansingh, Pw.3 M.Balya, PW.4 R.Narya, Pw.6

R.Narshing are said to be eye-witness to the occurrence. Pw.5 R.Dhansingh is said to be younger brother of deceased and circumstantial witness. PW.1 to 6 deposed that they did not know anything about this case. However

PW.1 admitted her signature portion of PW.1 on complaint dt.21-2-2014.

She identify clothes of her husband. MO.1 is Banyan of deceased, MO.2 is white colour pant of deceased. MO.3 is underwear of deceased. PW.1 to 6 denied their examination by police and thereby they were treated as hostile and cross-examined by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor who failed to elicit anything in favour of prosecution. During their cross-examination except by 5 marking their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Ex's.P2 to P7 respectively, nothing worthwhile is elicited. Therefore the evidence of PW's.1 to 6 is not at all useful for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

13.PW.7 V.Vijay deposed that he along with LW.9 Ravi were present at the time of holding inquest over the dead body of deceased Harichander.

Ex.P8 is inquest proceedings, dt.21-2-2014. He denied the suggestion that in his cross-examination that he was not present at the time of holding inquest proceedings under Ex.P8 and that he is speaking falsehood but they are not of much significance to the case on hand.

14. Evidence of confessional witnesses:-

PW.8 A.Nagaraju, V.R.O of Nerlapally village, PW.9 Bala Krishna,

V.R.O of Pedda Revally village deposed that they were called to the Police station and there police obtained their signatures. No body confessed offence and nothing was recovered from anybody in their presence. Ex.P9 and

Ex.P13 are signature portions of PW.8 and 9 on confessional panchanama of

A1, dt.1-3-2014, at 10-45 am. Ex.P10 and Ex.P14 are signature portions of

Pw's 8 & 9 on confessional panchanama of A1 and A2, dt.1.3-2014 at 11.30am. Ex.P11 and Ex.P15 are signature portions of PW's 8 and 9 on confessional panchanama of A3, dt.1-3-2014 at 12.15noon. Ex.P12 and

Ex.P16 are signature portions of PW.8 and 9 on confessional panchanama of

A4, dt.1-3-2014 at 1-00pm. Since both PW's 8 and 9 did not support the prosecution case they were treated as hostile and cross-examined by

Addl.Public Prosecutor with permission of the court. During their cross- examination they denied the suggestion that they were present throughout the proceedings covered under confessional panchanamas of A1 to A4, dt.1- 3-2014 and that they are speaking falsehood to help the accused. The evidence of PW's 8 and 9 is also not helpful for the prosecution to prove the 6 guilt of the accused. As already stated above, PW.1 to 6 gave a go bye to the prosecution version. The evidence of PW's 8 and 9 confessional panch witnesses did not support the prosecution case. Therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the involvement of the accused. Accordingly, I hold that the prosecution has not proved the charge under Sec.302 IPC against the A1 to A4.

15.In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are not found guilty for the charge under Secs.302 IPC. They are acquitted for the said offence under

Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The MO's 1 to 3 are ordered to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Steno-typist, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 7th day of May, 2015.

FAC. II.Addl. District & Sessions Judge. (FTC) Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution:

P.W.1 R.Bujji P.W.2 K.Dhan Singh P.W.3 M.Balya P.W.4 R.Narya P.w.5 R.Dhan Singh P.W.6 R.Narsingh P.W.7 V.Vijay P.W.8 Nagaraju P.W.9 Balakrishna

For Defence:

--N o n e --

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 Signature on complaint by Pw.1 Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.1 Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.2 Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.3 Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.4 Ex.P.6 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.5 7

Ex.P.7 161 Cr.P.C statement by PW.6 Ex.P.8 Signature of Pw.7 on inquest panchanama, dt.21-2-2014, Ex.P9 Signature portion of PW8 on confessional panchanama of A1, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P10 Signature portion of PW8 on confessional panchanama of A2, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P11 Signature of PW.8 on confessional panchanama of A3, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P12 Signature of PW.8 on confessional panchanama of A4, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P13 Signature of PW.9 on confessional panchanama of A1, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P14 Signature of PW.9 on confessional panchanama of A2, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P15 Signature of PW.9 on confessional panchanama of A3, dt.1-3-2014, Ex.P16 Signature of PW.9 on confessional panchanama of A4, dt.1-3-2014,

For the Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects marked:

MO.1 is Banian of deceased, MO.2 is White colour pant of deceased, MO.3 is Underwear of deceased.

FAC. II.Addl. District & Sessions Judge. (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

BEFORE THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM VIII ADDL.DIST COURT AT

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 27th day of June, 2015.

Present:- Sri.P.Sudhakar,

Judge,

Family Court cum VIII ADJ, Mahabubnagar.

F.O.P.No. 45 of 2014

Between:-

1. B.Navya Sree w/o Venu goud @yallaiah goud, age: 23 years, occ: Student r/o Yalaal village and mandal of Ranga Reddy Dist. At present H.No.1-7-23817, TD gutta, Mahabubnagar.

..Petitioner No.1.

2.Venu goud @ yallaiah goud s/o Nagaiah, age: 34 years, occ: Police constable, PC.3195, working at O/o Asst. Commissioner of police, Spl.branch, Cybrabad, Hyderabad. r/o MIG, 2354, BHEL, Srilingampally Hyderabad. .

,.,Petitioner No.2.

Sub:- Petition U/s.13-B of the Family Court Act.1984.

@@@

This petition corning before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri. C.Rajender Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner No.1 and of Sri G.Sreeram goud for petitioner

No.2 and upon on perusing on material record and having stood over for consideration till this day the court passed the following:

O R D E R

I.A.No./2015 is filed Wo. 6 R.7 CPC and allowed.

Affidavits of both partiees filed. This OP is filed on 18-11- 2014 i.e., more than six months. Both parties stated that they intended to obtain divorce by mutual consent.

Petitioner has received Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) present. Which is kept in F.D in the name of

Sheresta in the state Bank of Hyderabad. It appears that there is no likelihood re-union.

Both parties are present. They filed this petition under section 13 (B) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent on 30-10-2014. The statutory period of six month is completed for granting divorce by mutual consent. Marriage of petitioners 1 and 2 took place on 13- 2-2009. Their photographs filed along with the petition.

Both the petitioners expressed their willingness to obtain divorce by mutual consent. There is no likelihood re-union at this stage. Perused the averments in petition and satisfied with reasons for granting divorce by mutual consent.

In the result petition is allowed granting divorce of mutual consent by dissolving the marriage between petitioners 1 and 2 on 13-2-20(19, No order as to costs.

Pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th day

of June, 2015.

Judge

Family court cum VIII ADJ, Mahabubnagar.