Sri. P.V.Ramana Rao

1 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MAHABUBABAD

Tuesday, this the 21 st day of November, 2017

PRESENT:P.V. RAMANA RAO, B.Com, (Hons).LL.B., VI-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.

S. C. NO. 65 OF 2017

(P.R.C.No. 16/2016 on the file Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad in Crime No.28/2015 of P.S.Kesamudram)

Name of the Complainant : The State of Telangana rep. by the C.I of Police, Mahabubabad Rural.

Name of the Accused :A1 Gundla Kavitha, W/o. Krishna, aged 30 years, Padmashali, R/o. H.No.1-653/1, Upparapally road, Kesamudram station.

A2GundlaKrishna,S/o. Venkatramaiah, aged 34 years, Padmashali,business,R/o. H.No.1-653/1, Upparapally road, Kesamudram station.

A3 Mandala Mohan, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 29 years, Gouda, Agriculture, R/o. Vemnur village, Mahabubabad mandal.

Offence with which Charged :U/sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 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 acquitted U/sec.232 Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC, for which they stand charged. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

Name of the Prosecution counsel:Sri D. Satyanarayana, A.P.P. Name of the Defence Counsel:Sri. M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate.

2 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

This case is coming up before me on this day for final hearing on 20-11-2017 in the presence of Sri D. Satyanarayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri M. Suresh Reddy, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Circle-Inspector of Police, Mahabubabad Rural filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that, this is a case of conspiracy and double murder, in which A1 to A3 planned for murder of D1 by name Gundla Venkatramaiah, aged 68 years, and D2 by name

Gundla Saraswathi, aged 45 years, both are residents of Upparapally road, Kesamudram station. On the intervening night of 6/07-02-2015 at about 24.00 hours A1 to A3 killed the deceased D1 and D2 in their house at Upparapally road, Kesamudram station by stabbing with knives, due to the disputes arise about the partition of the properties.

On 7-02-2015 at 14.30 hours the defacto complainant/

Kallakunta Laxminarayana, VRO of Kesamudram lodged a complaint to

P.S. Kesamudram stating that 07-02-2015 at about 2.00pm he came to know that unknown persons killed a retired teacher and his wife who are residents of Upparapally road, Kesamudram station. Immediately he went to the place and found one woman died with bleeding injuries and after her, the retired teacher also died with bleeding injuries. On his enquire with the neighbours he came to know that the retired teacher Gundla Venkatramaiah, S/o. Lachaiah, aged 70 years, caste:

Padmashali, after his retirement his wife died. Then, he married one

Gundla Saraswathy, nine years back. During their wedlock they were 3 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017 blessed with one son Vishnu. The first wife of Venkatramaiah has two daughters and one son Krishna and their marriages were performed, but property disputes are there since long time in between the father

Venkatramaiah and his son Krishna, due to which, Venkatramaiah was constructing a house at his 2nd in- laws’ village Kunur to shift to there. 3 days back, Venkatramaiah along with his wife and son came to Kesamudram and staying in his house. In the upper portion, first wife’s son Krishna along with his wife and children is staying. On 07.02.2015 at about 2.00PM while Venkatramaiah’s son was crying in the house, the neighbor Kakunuri Nagamani heard the same and went to there. She saw into the house by knocking the doors and found Venkatramaiah and his wife

Saraswathy were dead in the pool of blood and raised hues and the neighbors also came to there and witnessed the same.

Keeping in view the property disputes, the family members might have killed Gudla Venkatramaiah and his wife Saraswathy.

Finally, the LW-1 requested for necessary action against the accused who are responsible for these murders.

On receipt of the above complaint, the LW.51 K. Phanidhar,

S.I of Police, Kesamudram registered a case in Cr.No.28/2015 U/s 302 IPC, issued Express FIR to the concerned.

As LW.53 Sri. J. Krishna Reddy, C.I of Police, was out of headquarters on other duty, the SDPO Mahabubabad Rural vide

C.No.72/SDM/2015, dated 07.02.2015 instructed the LW.52 B. Nandi

Ram, Inspector of Mahabubabad Town, to take the investigation.

Accordingly, the LW.52 B. Nandi Ram, Inspector of Police rushed to the scene of offence and took up the investigation.

4 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

During the course of investigation, the LW.52 B. Nandi Ram,

Inspector of Mahabubabad Town, examined the Lws-1 to 5 and recorded their statements. As per the instructions of LW.52, Lw.51 held inquest over the dead body of D1 Gudla Venkatramaiah in the presence of mediators Lws.41 and 42 and LW.52 held inquest over the dead body of D2 Gudla Saraswathy in the presence of mediators Lws.43 to 45 duly obtaining photographs over the dead bodies of D1 & D2 and the scene of offence with the help of LW.6. Thereafter, the LW.52 conducted the scene of offence observation panchanama in the presence of Lws.43 and 44 and drafted it in crime details form as well as separate scene of offence panchanama. The LW.52 seized 1)Bloodstained wooden pedestal( peeta ),2) Bloodstained maroon color door curtain, 3) Bloodstains collected with cotton and 4) Control cotton from the scene of offence under the cover of scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators Lws.43 and 44.

Thereafter , the dead bodies of D1 and D2 were sent for PME at Govt. Area Hospital, Mahabubabad. Further, the LW.52 examined the LW-6/photographer and recorded his statement.

After the PMEs, the bloodstained clothes of D1 & D2 were collected.

Subsequently, on the following day i.e., on 08.02.2015,

LW.53 took up further investigation of the case , verified the investigation done by LW.52 and foune it on correct lines. During the course of further investigation, LW.53 examined the Lws-7 to 16 and recorded their statements.

5 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

As per the evidence, on 10.02.2015 at 17.00 hours LW.53 apprehended the accused A1 and A2 in their house i.e., upper portion of the house of D1 & D2 at Upparapally road,

Kesamudram Station and they disclosed that they are ready to confess about the offence, as such secured the Lws.46 and 47 as mediators and on their presence, interrogated the accused A1 and A2 individually and separately.

On interrogation, the A1 & A2 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A3. As such reduced the confessional statements of A1 & A2 into writing and seized 1)

Withdrawal Deed consisting of (5) stamp papers bearing No:33AA 763086, dated: 24-05-2010, 2) Withdrawal Deed consisting of ( 3)

Stamp papers bearing No: AH770304, dated:04-05-2011, 3) Nokia

Company mobile phone with Uninor sim bearing Phone No.

8341977667 from the possession of A1. Thereafter, brought the apprehended accused A1 & A2 to P.S. Kesamudram on 10-02- 2035 at 21.15 hours and affected their arrest by issuing arrest forms . Further, informed the arrest of A1 & A2 to them and their relative u/s 50 Cr.P.C. notice.

On 11.02.2015 at 07.00 hours, LW.53 apprehended the accused A3 at his agriculture fields at the outskirts of Vemnur village, secured the Lws.48 and 49 as mediators and in their presence, interrogated the accused A3.

On interrogation, the accused A3 voluntarily confessed to have committed this along with A1 & A2 . As such reduced the confessional statement of A3 into writing and seized 1) Burnt shirt of A3 kept in a plastic tin, 2) Black color Nokia cell phone 6 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017 with 2-sims bearing Nos.8184931447 & 9000111087, 3) Xerox copy of the house sale agreement on Rs.10/- stamp paper executed by the deceased D2 in favour of LW-11,which was crushed having small hole and bloodstains and 4) Spender Plus motorcycle No:AP-20/AQ-8828 from the possession of A3 as shown by him.

Thereafter, the accused A3 as confessed by him led the mediators and the police to the well of one Geeeda Gopal

Reddy located at Kistapuram by the side of Railway fly over bridge, Kesamudram Station, where LW.53 got the well searched with the help of Lws.17 and 18 and they brought out 2-knives from the well, which were used in the commission of this offence by A1 to A3. The A3 identified the knives as used by him and A1 in killing the D1 and D2 and he has thrown the same in that well. Seized the 2-knives under cover of seizure panchanama in the presence of mediators. On 11-02-2015 at 12.30 hours, A3 was arrested and produced before the Hon’ble Court for remand. He collected the agreement of deed of distribution of properties between D1 and A2, 2)

Gift registration deed No.02AA 560906 on the name of A2 by D1, 3)

Gift registration deed No.00AA8335 on the name of D2 by D1, 4) copy of OS No.s179 and 180/2011 filed by A2 against D1 in the Court of Sr.

Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, 5) copy of FIR No.90/2006 of P.S.

Kesamudram filed by D1 against A2 from Lw.23.

On 19-02-2015 on requisition, the Idea Cellulor Ltd., Bharathi

Airtel Ltd., and Telewings Communications Services Pvt. Ltd., Telenor concerned issued CDRs about the Cell phone Nos.SIM No.8184932466, 8341977667 of A1and 8184931447, 900111087 SIM No.2 of A3. After 7 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017 receiving the CDRs, he recorded the statement sof Lw.31 to Lw.33 and recorded their statements in detail.

The Medical Officer, Lw.50 who held autopsy issued post mortem examination report opined that the deceased No.1 die due to “Stab injury of abdomen with hypovolemic shock” and deceased No.2 died due to “stab injury of chest and with hypovolemic shock”. The seized material objects forwarded to the RFSL, Warangal for examination and report. After receipt of RFSL reports, and after completion of entire investigation charge sheet is filed U/sec.120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Copies of documents were furnished to the accused contemplated U/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4. The learned Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mahabubabad

before whom the charge sheet was filed committed this case to the

court of Sessions, Warangal after complying section 209 Cr.P.C. The

Honourable Sessions Court, Warangal made over this case to this Court

for disposal in accordance with law.

5. On appearance of the accused, the accused were examined

U/sec. 228 of Cr.P.C and charges U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC against accused had been framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

6. The prosecution cited 53 material witnesses in all got examined

Pw.1 to Pw.31, given up the evidence of remaining witnesses and got marked Ex.P1, P2.

7.As there is no incriminating circumstances against the accused, the examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

8.Point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has brought home the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt ?

9. Heard both sides.

POINT:

10. PW1: K. Laxminarayana/complainant,Village Revenue Officer. He stated that in the capacity of VRO, he gave complaint on 7-2-2015.

Ex.P1 is the complaint. He saw the two dead bodies lying on the

Upperpally road. Except that he did not speak against the accused and he is not eye witness to the incident.

11. PW2: P. Madhavi/circumstantial witness, but she did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that she saw the dead body of the deceased. She does not know anything about this case.

12. Pw.3: V. Upendra/ circumstantial witness, but she did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that the deceased is her 9 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017 younger sister. She went and saw the dead body. She does not know anything about this case.

13. Pw.4: Kakunuri Nagamani/ circumstantial witness, but she did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that she does not know anything about this case.

14. Pw.5: Kakunuri Sai/ circumstantial witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. He does not know anything about this case.

15. Pw.6: Porandla Narsamma/ circumstantial witness, but she did not support the case of the prosecution. She stated that on information she rushed to the house of her daughter at Kesamudram and found dead. She does not know anything about this case.

16. Pw.7: Perumandla Ramesh and Pw.8: Aleti Soundarya are the circumstantial witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. They stated that they no not know anything about this case.

17. Pw.9: B. Brahmam/photographer, he stated that on the request of police Kesamudram, he went to the scene of offence and snaped the photographs of the dead bodies. He handed over the photographs to the police along with CD. His evidence is only taking the photographs of the dead bodies. His evidence is not helpful the case of prosecution.

10 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

18. Pw.10: Md. Sajid Pasha, Pw.11: B. Srirangam, Pw.12: S. Suresh,

Pw.13: M. Sherath, Pw.14: S. Narsaiah, Pw.15: T. Gopinath, Pw.16: N.

Venkanna and Pw.17: N. Sayanna are the circumstantial witnesses. But they did not support the case of the prosecution. They stated that they do not know anything about this case.

19. Pw.18: M. Bagath/panch witness for confession of A3, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. He stated that on 11-02-2015 police called him to the police station, Kesamudram and obtained his signature on some written papers. He does not know anything about this case. He does not know the accused.

20. Pw.19: Boda Surya, Pw.20: Jellampally Yellababu, Pw.21: Bommari

Srinivas, Pw.22: Sirimalla Soma Shekar, Pw.23: Sirimalla Swarajalaxmi,

Pw.24:Bathula Venkat Narsaiah, Pw.25: Bomma Suraiah, Pw.26: Kandi

Venkataiah, Pw.27:Rapaka Sumalatha, and Pw.28: Rapaka

Kumaraswamy, all are the circumstantial witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. They stated that they do not know anything about this case.

21. Pw.29: J. Komurelli, Pw.30: K. Srilatha and Pw.31: M. Ramesh, are the circumstantial witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution. They stated that they do not know anything about this case.

22. Absolutely there is no material to connect the offence with the accused. All the witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and they stated that they do not know anything about this case. The 11 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017 learned A.P.P. also given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no useful purpose would be served in examining, except the wastage of time and money to the exchequer. As there is no incriminating circumstances against the accused, the examination U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. The prosecution case is failed as no witnesses is supported the case of the prosecution.

23.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are acquitted U/sec.232 Cr.P.C for the offences U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC, for which they stand charged. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21 stday of November, 2017.)

Sd/-

VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW1: K. Laxminarayana/complainant,VRONone PW2: P. Madhavi/circumstantial witness Pw.3: V. Upendra/ circumstantial witness Pw.4: Kakunuri Nagamani/ circumstantial witness Pw.5: Kakunuri Sai/ circumstantial witness Pw.6: Porandla Narsamma/ circumstantial witness Pw.7: Perumandla Ramesh/ circumstantial witness Pw.8: Aleti Soundarya/ circumstantial witness Pw.9: B. Brahmam/photographer Pw.10: Md. Sajid Pasha/ circumstantial witness Pw.11: B. Srirangam/ circumstantial witness Pw.12: S. Suresh/ circumstantial witness Pw.13: M. Sherath/ circumstantial witness Pw.14: S. Narsaiah/ circumstantial witness Pw.15: T. Gopinath/ circumstantial witness Pw.16: N. Venkanna/ circumstantial witness Pw.17: N. Sayanna/ circumstantial witness Pw.18: M. Bagath/panch witness for confession of A3 Pw.19: Boda Surya/ circumstantial witness Pw.20: Jellampally Yellababu/ circumstantial witness Pw.21: Bommari Srinivas/ circumstantial witness Pw.22: Sirimalla Soma Shekar/ circumstantial witness Pw.23: Sirimalla Swarajalaxmi/ circumstantial witness Pw.24:Bathula Venkat Narsaiah/ circumstantial witness Pw.25: Bomma Suraiah/ circumstantial witness Pw.26: Kandi Venkataiah/ circumstantial witness Pw.27:Rapaka Sumalatha/ circumstantial witness Pw.28: Rapaka Kumaraswamy/ circumstantial witness Pw.29: J. Komurelli/circumstantial witness Pw.30: K. Srilatha/circumstantial witness Pw.31: M. Ramesh/circumstantial witness 12 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1- is the complaint by Pw.1 Ex-P2- is the signature of Pw.18 on confession panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MOs. MARKED: NilSd/-

VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

13 S.C.No. 65 OF 2017

CALENDER EXTRACT

Judgment in SC.No.65/2017 on the file of VI-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad in P.R.C.No.16/2016 on the file of JFCM, Mahabubabad.

1.Name of the Police Station : 28/15 , U/sec. 120-B, 302 r/w 34 IPC with Crime Number. P.S. Kesamudram

2. Name of the Accused:

A1 Gundla Kavitha, W/o. Krishna, aged 30 years, Padmashali, R/o. H.No.1-653/1, Upparapally road, Kesamudram station.

A2 Gundla Krishna, S/o. Venkatramaiah, aged 34 years, Padmashali, business, R/o. H.No.1-653/1, Upparapally road, Kesamudram station.

A3 Mandala Mohan, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 29 years, Gouda, Agriculture, R/o. Vemnur village, Mahabubabad mandal.

3.Date of Offence:07-02-2015

4.Date of Report:07-02-2015

5. Date of Arrest: 11-02-2015 A1&A2, 11-02-2015A3

6. Date of release on Bail: 10-2-15 A1 & A2 25-03-15 A3

7.Date of Commitment:10-02-2017

8.Date of commencement of trial : 13-11-2017

9.Date of closure of Trial:20-11-2017

10. Date of Sentence or order : 21-11-2017

11.Explanation for delay: ----

The accused appeared on summon on 15-05-2017. Charge was framed on 05-10-2017. Trial commenced on 13-11-2017 and ended on 20-11-2017. Arguments were heard on 20-11-2017. Judgment pronounced on 21-11-2017.

Sd/-

VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1

IN THE COURT OF VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MAHABUBABAD

Tuesday, this the 28 th day of November, 2017

PRESENT:P.V. RAMANA RAO, B.Com, (Hons).LL.B., VI-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.

CRL.A.No. 24/2015 in C.C.No.81/2013 on the file of Addl. JFCM,

Mahabubabad

Between:-

Thirunagari Venu, S/o. Venkata Kistaiah, age:23 years, Madipally village, Mandal:Thorrur, District:Warangal. … Appellant/ A2.

A N D

The State of Telangana, rep. By S.I of Police, P.S. Kesamudram. … Respondent/Complainant

APPEAL FILED U/SEC.374 (3) OF THE Cr.P.C

CHARGE U/SEC.279, 304-a, 337 OF IPC, SEC. 181 OF M.V. ACT.

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. JFCM, Mahabubabad in C.C.No.81/2013, dated 24-03-2015, sentencing the appellant/A2 to suffer S.I for one year and also impose the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, S.I for a period of four months. Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo 15-days S.I for the offence U/sec. 337 of IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo one month, S.I for the offence U/sec.279 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I for 15-days for the offence U/sec.181 of M.V. Act.

LOWER COURT CAUSE TITLE

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

MAHABUBABAD

C.C.No. 81 of 2013

Between:-

The State of Telangana rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Kesamudram. ….Complainant

And

A1. Banoth Ravi, S/o. Baliya, age:28 years, Lambada, R/o. Madipally village, Nekkonda mandal.

A2 Thirunagari Venu, S/o. Venkata Kistaiah, age 23 years, Sathani, R/o. Madipally village, Thorrur mandal. …Accused.

2

This case is coming up before me on 28-11-2017 for final hearing in the presence ofSri M. Suresh Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant/accused and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/complainant and after perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A2, aggrieved by the

Judgment passed by the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. JFCM, Mahabubabad in

C.C.No.81/2013, dated 24-03-2015, sentencing the appellant/A2 to suffer S.I for one year and also impose the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence

U/sec.304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, S.I for a period of four months. Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo 15-days S.I for the offence U/sec. 337 of IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo one month, S.I for the offence U/sec.279 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I for 15-days for the offence U/sec.181 of

M.V. Act. Hence, the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:-

Grounds of appeal:

I) The judgment under appeal is bad in eye of law and also on facts, therefore liable to be set-aside.

ii) The judgment and order of trial court is against the facts and ground realities of the case.

Iii) The trial court has based its judgment on mere surmises and also based on assumptions.

iv) The prosecution examined total Eleven witnesses, but unfortunately it appears that Pws.1 to 8 were not cross examined by the counsels of the appellant and A1 also. It appears that the 3 counsels requested time for cross examination but time is not granted by the trial court judge and fair chance has not given to the appellant to prove his innocence.

It is further submitted that initially the crime is registered against A1 only as the report is given by the father of the deceased against A1 and from the evidence of Pw.7 who is the owner of the passenger auto and subsequently the name of the appellant is added as A2 enabling family of the deceased to claim insurance amount.

It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to examine the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased to know the exact cause for the death.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Point for determination:-

Whether the petition deserved to be allowed ?

Point:

4.The prosecution case in brief is that, A1 is the driver of the Trolley auto bearing No.AP 36-TA-5708 and A2 is driver of the passenger auto bearing

No.AP-36-Y-9893 and both accused had drove the both the autos in a rash and negligent manner on 12-01-2013 at 01-15pm at Thimmampet village outskirts, and both the autos collided and he auto passenger by name P.

Charan Raju, aged 10-years old boy died on the spot and the inmates of the auto i.e. Pw.3, Lw.4, Pw.5 and Pw.6 has sustained simple injuries. On a complaint a case was registered.

4

5.The Hon’ble court took the cognizance for the offences punishable

U/sec.279, 304-A, 337 of IPC and Sec.196 of M.V. Act against A1 and Sec.

279, 304-A, 337 of IPC and Sec. 181 of M.V. Act against A2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207Cr.P.C, and the accused were examined U/sec.251 of

Cr.P.C, and they pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.11 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. On behalf of the defence no evidence adduced and no document marked. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the prosecution examined the accused examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. for which they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, and reported no defence evidence.

According to Pw.1 P. Saraiah, is the father of the deceased by name P.

Charan Raj, 4th Class student. He only saw the accident, it cannot be cause only, this by without something happens on the road attention get attracted.

Of course that cannot be correct reason. Pw.1 is the father of the deceased, but he is not eye witness. Pw.2 P. Spandana is the mother of the deceased P.

Charan Raju. Pw.3 Dasari Suresh, is said to be the eye witness. He deposed that Pw.1 is his sister. He deposed that on 12-01-2013 he came to

Kesamudram to invite Pw.2 for Sankranthi Festival and he took the deceased and boarded the auto at about 3-30pm, at Kesamudram and auto drive by A2 while proceedings towards Inugurthy, when the auto reached near

Thimmampeta thanda, the auto met with accident with opposite trolley auto driven by A1. A1 and A2 drove the autos with speed manner, as such, collision has taken place and deceased by name P. Charan Raj, 4th Class student, and other sustained injuries.

Absolutely, there is no doubt, one of the victim died and others received injuries.

5

6. After hearing the arguments, the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant/A2 sentencing to suffer S.I for one year and also impose the fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence U/sec.304-A IPC, in default of payment of fine, S.I for a period of four months. Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo 15-days S.I for the offence

U/sec. 337 of IPC, sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine amount shall undergo one month, S.I for the offence U/sec.279 IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default S.I for 15-days for the offence U/sec.181 of M.V. Act. The appellant/A2 paid total fine amount of

Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven thousand only).

But coming to the point of sentence, the accused is aged about 30 years and eaksout his livelihood by driving Autorickshaw. Sentencing him for imprisonment may not serve any purpose, but this Court is aware of cateena of decisions, but the Indian Penal Code only proposes fine of

Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) on A2. This Court confirm the fine of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) and to my discretion, the fine amount must be paid to the LRs of the deviadj.cuser1ceased. The imprisonment passed by the lower court is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

7. In the result, this Court confirm the fine of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) imposed by the lower court on four counts i.e. Sec.304-A IPC fine of Rs.5000/-. Sec.337IPC fine of Rs.500/-. Sec.279 IPC fine of Rs.1000/- and Sec.181 of M.V. Act, fine of Rs.500/-, and the fine amount should be paid to the LRs of the deceased. The imprisonment passed by the lower court is set aside. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of November, 2017.)

Sd/-

6

VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

Crl.A.No.70/2014

IN THE COURT OF VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, MAHABUBABAD

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of November, 2017

PRESENT:P.V. RAMANA RAO, B.Com, (Hons).LL.B., VI-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.

CRL.A.No. 70/2014 in C.C.No.800/2008 on the file of Addl. JFCM,

Mahabubabad

Between:-

Pagidi Rama Devi, W/o. Srinivas, age 32 years, Private Teacher at Sai School, Mulukalapally Native of Industrial Area, Khammam. … Appellant/ A2.

A N D

The State of Telangana, rep. By S.I of Police, P.S. Dornakal. … Respondent/Complainant

APPEAL FILED U/SEC.374 (3) OF THE Cr.P.C

CHARGE U/SEC.420 OF IPC.

Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. JFCM, Mahabubabad in C.C.No.800/2008, dated 04-07-2014, sentencing the appellant to suffer S.I for one year and also impose the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence U/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I for three (3) months.

LOWER COURT CAUSE TITLE

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

MAHABUBABAD

C.C.No. 800 of 2008

Between:-

The State of Telangana rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police P.S. Dornakal. ….Complainant

And

A1. Thagaram Esthair Thara, W/o. Late Jaya Raju, age:25 years, Household, R/o. Papatpally of Khammam District. Now at Mamindlagudem of Khammam District.

A2 Pagidi Rama Devi, W/o. Srinivas, age 32 years, Private Teacher at Sai School, Mulukalapally Native of Industrial Area, Khammam. …Accused.

2 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

Crl.A.No.70/2014

This case is coming up before me on 29-11-2017 for final hearing in the presence ofSri M. Suresh Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant/accused and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/complainant and after perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

:: O R D E R ::

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/A2, aggrieved by the

Judgment passed by the Court of the Hon’ble Addl. JFCM, Mahabubabad in

C.C.No.800/2008, dated 04-07-2014, sentencing the appellant to suffer S.I for one year and also impose the fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence U/sec.420 r/w 34 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I for three (3) months. Hence, the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:-

Grounds of appeal:

I) The judgment under appeal is bad in eye of law and also on facts, and liable to be set-aside.

ii) The judgment and order of trial court is against the facts and ground legalities of the case.

Iii) The trial court has based its judgment on mere surmises and also based on assumptions.

iv) The prosecution examined total four witnesses, and out of them prosecution witness No.4 evidence is not considered. Prosecution witnesses No.1 to 3 are alleged victims in the hands of accused, and no independent witness supported their version. Pw.1 to Pw.3 are co-teachers of this appellant/A2 and according to their version this appellant also received fake appointment letter along with them.

3 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

Crl.A.No.70/2014

It is further submitted that the prosecution given-up the independent witness Lw.4 and panch witness for confession Lw.6 and also investigation officer. As such this appellant loosed her opportunity to cross examine the investigation officer and other material witness to fish out the real facts.

It is further submitted that the trial Court convicted this appellant basing on developed story of the witnesses which is not the case of the prosecution. Trial court not considered the version of the witnesses that this appellant also received fake appointment letter.

It is further submitted that the prosecution failed in proving that the alleged fake appointment letters were sent by the accused and so also failed to prove the that even A1 received amounts from

Pw.1 to Pw.3. Nothing is recovered from the accused and particularly from this appellant.

Hence, the appellant prayed the Court to allow the appeal, by setting aside the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad in C.C.No.800/2008.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Point for determination:-

Whether the petition deserved to be allowed ?

Point:

4.On perusal of the record, the prosecution examined Pw.1 to Pw.4. Pw.4 treated as hostile. Pw.1 to Pw.3 not stated anything against the appellant herein. According to their case, they gave amount to the accused No.1 4 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

Crl.A.No.70/2014

believing her words. It is pertinent to note that most of the evidence part of

Pw.1 to Pw.3 is omissions, which were not stated before the investigation officer at the time of recording their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Another point is that, the independent witness Lw.4 and confession panch witness Lw.6 were given up by the prosecution and investigation officer was not examined enabling the defence to confront the omissions and contradictions and not examining the investigation officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. As there is no incriminating evidence against the appellant herein. The lower court imprisonment is not on proper lines. Hence, the judgment passed by the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad in

C.C.No.800/2008, dated 04-07-2014 is set-a-aside. The fine amount paid by the appellant herein is entitled to receive the same from the Lower Court.

Accordingly the petition is allowed.

5. In the result, Appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubabad in C.C.No.800/2008, dated

04-07-2014 is set-a-aside. The fine amount is enhanced from Rs.1000/- to

Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The victims are entitled to receive the equal amount. Accordingly the petition is allowed.

(Typed to my dictation by Steno, after correction pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 29 th day of November, 2017.)

Sd/-

VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

MAHABUBABAD

1 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

A.S.NO.38/2017

IN THE COURT OF VI-ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD

Wednesday, this the 29 th day of November, 2017.

PRESENT:P.V. RAMANA RAO, B.Com, (Hons).LL.B., VI-Addl. District Judge, Mahabubabad.

A.S.No. 38 of 2017

Between:

1. Cheviti Venkanna and 6 others. .… Appellants/Defendants

And

1. Gandham Gopal and another.

…. Respondents/Plaintiffs.

APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED

BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD IN

O.S.NO.87/2011

Cause Title of the Lower Court

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MAHABUBABAD

O.S.NO.87/2011

Between:

1. Gandham Gopal,

2. Gandham Santhosha…Plaintiffs

And

1. Cheviti Venkanna

2. Cheviti Sudhakar

3. Shaik Yakub Ali….Defendants

This Appeal is coming for hearing before me on 29-11-2017 in the presence of Sri . V. Kumaraswamy,Counsel for the Appellants/defendants and Sri. N. Jalender, Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, and after perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal suit is filed by the Appellants/defendants praying the Hon’ble Court pleased to set-a-side the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad in 2 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

A.S.NO.38/2017

O.S.No.87/2011, dated 30-07-2015, by allowing this appeal.

The appeal is preferred by the Appellants/defendants on the following grounds:-

a) The judgment and decree under appeal is against the facts, law and contrary to the evidence on record.

b) The Lower Court have not given opportunity in adducing the evidence, on behalf of the appellants/defendants and thereby came to wrong conclusion and decreed the suit.

C) On 30-07-2015, the Lower Court passed the judgment and decree, without giving an opportunity to lead the evidence and also for arguments to the appellants. “the Lower Court endorsed on the docket that the defendants called absent, no representation and defendants side evidence closed and posted for arguments, and on the next day of hearing enclosed that the defendants called absent and no representation, plaintiff’s side arguments heard and defendant’s side arguments also heard. The Lower Court passed the judgment against the appellants.

It is further submitted that the appeals are pending before the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahabubabad and Joint Collector,

Warangal, Pertaining to schedule land very title and rights are in dispute in between the appellant No.1 to 3 and the respondents and that too suit is filed for perpetual injunction.

It is further submitted that the lower Court failed to consider the documents filed by the appellants/defendants.

It is further submitted that the lower court passed the judgment and decree on 30-07-2015 in the absence of the appellants and even the docket clearly shows the same and the same will be elicited after 3 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

A.S.NO.38/2017

called for the entire records.

It is further submitted that, if the Court fails to allow the appeal, the appellants will be put to irreparable loss, as the question of dispute are with regard to the title and rights over the suit schedule land and the same will be decided after full pledged trial.

Hence, the appellants prayed the Court may be pleased to set- a-side the judgment and decree passed by the Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge, Mahabubabad in O.S.No.87/2011, dated 30-07-2015.

2.Perused the written arguments, and memos filed by the both

Appellants and Respondents.

3. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the Appeal is deserved to be allowed ?

POINT:

4.The contention of the appellants are that, on 30-07-2015, the

Lower Court passed the judgment and decree, without giving an opportunity to lead the evidence and to submit the arguments by appellants. Hence, the appellants prayed the Hon’ble Court pleased to set-a-side the judgment and decree passed by the Hon’ble Senior

Civil Judge, Mahabubabad in O.S.No.87/2011, dated 30-07-2015.

5.The contention of the respondents that the appellants failed to appear before the Court and the Hon’ble Court rightly passed the judgment and decree. The appeal is field without any merits and liable to be dismissed.

4 VI­ADJ.M’bad 

A.S.NO.38/2017

6.Perused the material on record. This Court opined that the lower court failed to give opportunity to the appellants to lead the evidence and to submit the arguments. The learned Senior Civil

Judge, Mahabubabad is hereby directed to re-open the matter and to

given an opportunity to the appellants, and after full pledged trial, to dispose off the case within 90-days by giving opportunity as unbiased by this order.

7.In the result, Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the

Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad is set-a-aside and the matter is

remanded to dispose off the case within 90-days by giving opportunity as unbiased by this order.

(Typed to my dictation by steno after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29 th day of November, 2017)

Sd/-

VI-ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

MAHABUBABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT MAHABUBABAD

AS No. 148 OF 2017

1.Kurapati Kedari, Age: 64 Years,

2. Kurapati Sreenu Both are residents of Alair village, Nellikudur Mandal, Mahabubabad District.

………… Appellants VERSUS

Kurapati Venkanna, Age: 61 Years, R/o Alair village, Nellikudur Mandal of Mahabubabad District.

…..……. Respondent

ORDER

Date : 09-12-2017

The matter is called before the Lok Adalath Bench .Both parties present. Memorandum of compromise filed and the same is recorded as per the terms of compromise with regard to subject matter. As per the terms and conditions of the memorandum of compromise filed by the appellant and respondent, the AS is allowed.

Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubabad.

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