Sri P.Vasanth

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-VIII

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 15th day of November, 2019.

Present:- Sri P. Vasanth,

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII-ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

O.S..No. 20 of 2014

BETWEEN:- 1.Pasupula Yashodha, D/o. Late Vadde Narsaiah, W/o. Hanumanthu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Bavasupalli Village, Thimmajipet Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District.

2.Sampangi Kondamma, D/o. Late Vadde Chinnaiah, W/o. Kondaiah,Aged about 47 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H. No. 10-129/25, Meerpet, Saroornagar, R.R.District.

3.E.Narsamma, D/o. Late Vadde Chinnaiah, W/o. Balaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No. 14-97, Ranganayakula Colony, Mamidipally village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District.

4. E.Venkatesh, S/o.Balaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Labour,

5. V.Yadamma, W/o.Yadagiri, Aged about 36 years, Occ: House Wife,

6. E.Balraj, S/o.Balaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business,

7. E.Bhaskar S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ:Driver,

8. E.Krishna S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ:Govt. Employee,

9. E.Satish S/o. Balaiah, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Driver,

Plaintiffs No.4 to 9 are R/o. H.No. 14-97, Ranganayakula Colony, Mamidipally village, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District. (Plaintiff No.4 to 9 are added as per orders Dated.04.4.2019 Passed in I.A.No.474/2018 as the Lrs of the deceased Plaintiff No.3.) …….Plaintiffs

AND

1.Vadde Venkataiah, S/o.late. Kistaiah, aged about. 41 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

2 2.Vadde Amrutha, W/o.Ramulu, aged about. 40 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

3.Vadde Narsamma, W/o.Balaiah, (Died) aged about. 38 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

4.Vadde Mangamma, W/o.Bachaiah, aged about. 37 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

5.Vadde Srinu, S/o.late.Kistaiah, aged about. 35 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

6.Vadde Raju, S/o.late Kistaiah, aged about 32 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

7.Vadde Ravi, S/o.late Kistaiah, aged about 23 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar Dist.

8.Vadde Balamma, W/o. Late Bheemaiah, aged about 55 years, Occ: House -hold, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Rajapur Post, Bal Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

9.Vadde Pedda Anjaneyulu, S/o. Late Bheemaiah, Aged 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Rajapur Post, Bal Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

10.Varsu Swapna, D/o. Late Bheemaiah, Aged about 25 years, Occ: House-hold, R/o. Mudireddypalli village, Rajapur Post, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

11.Vadde Shekar, S/o. Late Bheemaiah, Aged 22 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypalli village, Rajapur Post, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

12.Vadde Chinna Anjaneyulu, S/o. Late Bheemaiah, Aged 19 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Mudireddypalli village, Rajapur Post, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

3 13.Jarpati Buddamma, D/o. Late Narsaiah, Aged about 80 years, Occ: House-hold, R/o. Mudireddypally Village, Rajapur Post, Bal Nagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

14.Gottemukkala Vimaladevi, W/o. Rama Krishna Raju, Age. about 63 years, Occ: house hold, R/o. H.No.42/B, Vengal Rao Nagar Colony, Hyderabad.

15.C.Buchamma, W/o. Raghava Rao, C/o.Bhagawantha Rao Advocate, Age. about 83 years, Occ: house hold, R/o. H.No.3-4-526/18, Barkathpura, Hyd.

16.Vadde Venkatamma, W/o.Kitaiah, (Died) Age. about 56 years, Occ: agriculture, R/o. Mudireddypalyy Village, H/o. Rajapur, Balanagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

17.Gottemukkala Susheela, D/o. Rama Krishna Raju, Age. about 42 years, Occ: not known, R/o. H.No.42/B, Vengal Rao Nagar Colony, Hyderabad 18.C.Bhagyalakshmi, W/o. C.Bhagawantha Rao, Advocate, Age. about 56 years, Occ: House Hold, R/o. H.No.3-4-526/18, Barkathpura, Hyd.

19.Mamilla Narsimhulu, S/o. Pedda Buran, Age. about 73 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Hasnpur Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

20.M.Lakshmamma, W/o. Shankaraiah, Age. about 53 years, Occ: agriculture, R/o. Hasnpur Village, Bhoothpur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

21.State Bank of Hyderabad(ADB) Rep’by its Branch Manager, Mahabubnagar.

……Defendants * * * This case is coming up before me for hearing on 31-10-2019 in the presence of Sri V. M. Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of the defendant remained exparte and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:- 4

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for partition of suit schedule property into five equal shares and allot one such share to plaintiffs 1 to 3 each and other three shares each to the defendants 1 and 7 and remaining shares equally among the defendants 2 to 6. Another relief prayed is to declare the Regd.sale deeds and Regd.

mortgage deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:-

The plaintiff No.1 late Vadde Chinnaiah who is the father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, father of the defendants 1 to 7, late husband

Bheemaiah of the defendant No.8 and father of the defendants 9 to 12 and defendant No.13 are the children of late Vadde Narsaiah who died intestate about 40 years ago leaving behind him the above sons and daughters and his wife late Balamma as his only legal heirs; they are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Late Narsaiah was the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.7-00 of land in Sy.No.312 and

Adm.Ac.14-39 gts in Sy.No. 313, total extent of Ac.21-39 gts at Gollapally (V) of Jadcherla (M). The land is in a compact block with common boundaries. After the death of Narsaiah, the plaintiffs and father of the defendants 1 to 7 namely Kistaiah and the defendants 8 to 13 succeeded to the suit schedule property as his legal heirs thereby cultivating the suit land jointly. No partition took place till date. While so, after the death of

Narsaiah, his elder son and father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 namely Chinnaiah died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and their father. The wife of Narsaiah namely Balamma died intestate 18 years ago, late

Bheemaiah died intestate 15 years ago. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 were married about 38, 55 and 30 years ago respectively while the defendant No.13 5 remained at parental home with her husband along with her brothers.

Plaintiff No.1, plaintiffs 2 & 3, the defendants 1 to 7, the defendants 8 to 12 and the defendant No.13 are entitled to 1/5th share each. The plaintiffs requested and demanded late Kistaiah and the defendants 1 to 13 on 2.6.2010, 10-10-2011 and 10.6.2013 allot their shares but, the same was denied stating that the plaintiffs had been married off long ago. The plaintiffs came to know that late Kistaiah, the defendants 8 and 13 and late Vadde Bheemaiah had already sold off the suit schedule property

dated 7.10.1993, 5-3-1992, 27-12-1993, 4-1-1995 and 20.8.1990 and

they further executed the Regd.mortgage deed in favour of the S.B.H.

(D-21) on 4.3.2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla and they did so illegally without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs. Hence, the transactions are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit for partition.

3.All the defendants remained exparte.

4.Now, the point for consideration:

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and the relief of declaration of documents concerned as null and void?

5. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW-1 and filed her chief-affidavit virtually reiterating the contents of the plaint. She filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A17.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs.

7.POINT :-

The essence of the plea by the plaintiffs is that one Narsaiah is the common ancestor who had three sons and two daughters namely 6

Bheemaiah, Kistaiah and Chinnaiah, the plaintiff No.1 and the defendant

No.13. The suit lands are ac.7-00 in Sy.No.312, Ac.14-30 gts in

Sy.No.313 thereby total extent of Ac.21-39 gts. The total land was the self-acquired property of Narsaiah. The plaintiff Nos.4 to 9 are the legal heirs of the plaintiff No.3; plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the real sisters; the defendants 1 to 7 are the legal heirs of one Kistaiah who was brother of the plaintiff No.1 and father of the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and brother of the defendant No.13; the defendants 8 to 12 are the legal heirs of one

Bheemaiah who was the brother of plaintiff No.1, father of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, brother of the defendant No.3 and father of the defendants 1 to 7; father of plaintiffs 2 and 3 namely Chinnaiah was the brother of

Bheemaiah and Kistaiah. This is the family genealogy.

8.The major ground canvassed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that although the five coparceners (3 sons and 2 daughters) of Narsaiah had 1/5th share each in the suit schedule lands, father of the defendants 1 to 7 namely Kistaiah and father of the defendants 8 to 12 and 13 namely Bheemaiah along with the defendant No.13 (Buddamma) colluded with each other and sold Ac.3-10 gts in Sy.No.312 under Ex.A1;

Ac.7-39 gts in Sy.No.313 in Ex.A2; Ac.1-20 gts in Sy.No.312 in Ex.A3;

Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No.312 and Ac.2-19 gts in Sy.No. 313 in Ex.A4; Ac.1-30 gts in Sy.No. 312 and Ac.3-30 gts in Sy.No.313 in Ex.A5. While so, under

Ex.A6, D-18 ( purchaser) mortgaged Ac.5-20 gts with SBH (D21) under

Ex.A6.

9.The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is that since the suit lands are the self-acquired property of

Narsaiah, upon his death, it naturally devolves upon the aforesaid five legal heirs U/s.8 of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, the sale under

Exs.A1 to 5 and mortgage under Ex.A6 is null and void and not binding on 7 the plaintiffs. To substantiate his argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs heavily banked on Ex.A15 which is the Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 and which shows Narasaiah to be the owner and possessor of Ac.21-19 gts i.e. the suit lands. Ex.A7 to A14 are the pahani patrikas for various years and wherein the names of the purchasers of the lands came to be recorded as pattadars and possessors. The main contention of the plaintiffs is that Kistaiah, Bheemaiah and the defendant No.13 connived with each other and sold the land to the third parties thereby depriving the plaintiffs of their legitimate shares in the suit lands.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs filed Ex.A16 Encumbrance Certificate reflecting the aforesaid sale transactions between Kistaiah, Bheemaiah and

Buddamma (D13) and the purchasers. From the perusal of documents made available on record, it has become evident that indisputedly, the common ancestor Narsaiah was the owner of the suit lands as reflected in

Khasra pahani vide Ex.A15 and while so, the suit lands should have been devolved upon his three sons and two daughters. In order to establish that the suit lands were originally the self-acquired property of Narsaiah,

Ex.A15 Khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 is placed on record which does proclaim that Narsaiah was the owner and possessor of the suit lands.

10.Referring to the legal point, as far as separate or self-acquired property is concerned, devolution can only be U/s. 8 of the Hindu

Succession Act, which lays down rule of succession in respect of a male

Hindu dying intestate. Put differently, Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act operates in cases where a Hindu male, not being a member of coparcenery but holding the property in his own right dies, in such an event, devolution would be through succession in favour of his Class-I heirs. By virtue of (i) of Sec. 8, the property of a male Hindu dying 8 intestate would devolve upon heirs, being relatives specified in Class-I of

Schedule who are mother, widow, sons and daughters of the deceased. All of them shall take simultaneously and to the exclusion of all other heirs

U/s.8 and 10 read with Class-I of Schedule. While that be the legal position, in the case on hand, when the suit schedule lands are the self- acquired property of Narsaiah, the same devolves upon the plaintiff No.1, plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 jointly, the defendants 1 to 7, the defendants 8 to 12 jointly and the defendant No.13 thereby each acquiring 1/5th share since they are the Class-I heirs of Narsaiah. In this view of the matter, the sale of land only by some of the legal heirs to the exclusion of other legal heirs is bad in law as all the Class-I heirs acquire the share in the property of Narsaiah. This proposition of law is well dealt with in a decision “ The Commissioner of Wealth-Tax Vs. V. Chander Sen,

AIR 1986 SC 1753”.

Consequently, the sale made by some of the legal heirs to the third parties under Exs.A7 to A14 are not binding on the plaintiffs herein.

11. Since the defendants remained exparte, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs remained unassailed and uncontroverted. Hence, the suit deserves to be decreed. Point for consideration is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed with costs as under:-

1) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed holding that the property be divided into five equal shares thereby allotting one share to the plaintiff No.1; another share jointly to the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and among the other three, each share to the defendants 1 and 7 while remaining 9 the share equally among the defendants 2 to 6.

2) That the Regd.deeds bearing doc.Nos. 1792/1993 dated:

7-10-1993, 348/1992 dt: 5-3-1992, 2229/1993 dt: 27-12-1993, 16/95

dt: 4-1-1995, 1262/1990 dt.20.8.1990 and Regd.Mortgage deed bearing

No.1609/2009 dt:4-3-2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jadcherla,

Mahabubnagar District are hereby declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of November, 2019.

sd/-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII.ADJ., Mahabubnagar

Appendix of evidence: [Witnesses examined] For plaintiffs: For defendants PW-1 Pasupula Ashodha. Remained exparte.

Exhibits Marked for Plaintiff

Ex.A1. C.C. of theRegistered sale deed bearing document No. 348/92,

Dt: 05.03.1992 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A2. C.C. of theRegistered sale deed bearing document No. 2229/93,

Dt: 27.12.1993 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 3. C.C. of theRegistered sale deed bearing document No. 16/95,

Dt: 04.01.1995 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 4.C.C. of theRegistered sale deed bearing document No. 1262/90,

Dt: 20.08.1990 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 5. C.C. of theRegistered sale deed bearing document No.1792 /93,

Dt: 07.10.1993 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 6. C.C. of theRegistered Mortgage deed bearing document No.1609 /2009, Dt: 04.03.2009 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 7. Pahani Patrika for the Fasli year 1422 issued by Mee-Seva(10 Numbers)

Ex.A 8. Pahani Patrika for the year 2005-06 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 9. Pahani Patrika for the year 2006-07 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 10. Pahani Patrika for the year 2000-01 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

10

Ex.A 11. Pahani Patrika for the year 1990-91 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 12. Pahani Patrika for the year 1980-81 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 13. Pahani Patrika for the year 1970-71 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 14. Pahani Patrika for the year 1960-61 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar, Jedcherla.

Ex.A 15. KhasraPahani for the year 1954-55 issued by the Dy. Tahsildar,Jedcherla.

Ex.A 16. E.C. bearing No. 1666779 for the period commencing from 01.01.83 to 02.06.2013 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Jedcherla.(4 Numbers).

Ex.A 17. Valuation Certificates. (2 numbers).

For defendants:

Remained exparte.

Sd/-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII.ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDGE: FAMILY COURT CUM

VIII-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, this the 10th day of August, 2021

Present:- Sri P. Vasanth

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VIII ADJ, Mahabubnagar.

Crl.A.No. 126 of 2019

Between :- Mallesh @ Madda Mallaiah S/o. Ram Chandraiah, age 30 yrs., Caste: Golla, Occ. Shepherd R/o. Shagapur village of Addakal Mandal.

...Appellant/Accused

A N D

The State of Telangana, Rep. through Police, P.S. Koilkonda.

… Respondent/Prosecution

Sub:-Appeal u/s. 374(3)(a) Cr.P.C., against the Judgment, dt. 3-12- 2019 passed in S.C.No.215/2017 on the file of I Addl. Sessions

Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

-o0o-

This case is coming up before me for hearing in the presence of Sri K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This Criminal Appeal is preferred u/s.374(3)(a) of Cr.P.C., by the sole appellant who is convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s. 306 of IPC, thereby challenging his conviction and sentence under the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2019 in

S.C.No.215 of 2017 passed by the learned I Addl. Assistant

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 2

Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (hereinafter referred to as

the „Trial Court‟ for brevity).

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred to as arrayed in the case before the Trial Court.

3.The case of prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

On 8.4.2016 at 12:00 hours, one Golla Jogu Srinu made police complaint stating that he has been working under the accused for the last two years at Addakal as shepherd having received Rs.80,000/- as hand loan in addition to salary. He came to his village Keshavapur upon the death of his sister. On 7.4.2016 his owner (accused) came to his village, asked to come for grazing sheep for which he replied that he would come after the conclusion of festival. Accused coerced him to come with him or else to repay the loan at the spot. Accused abused him in filthy language inspite of request made by his wife. Accused threatened that if he failed to arrange the money on the next day, he take took away him by tying his legs and then left the village around 12:00 hours. Having witnessed this scene, his wife disgusted over life, he left home around 14:00 hours, only to find his wife lying down in front of his house having consumed pesticide. On enquiry, she replied that unable to bear the insult heaped by the accused, she consumed pesticide. She was shifted to Government hospital, Mahabubnagar, but she was pronounced “brought dead”. Hence, charge for the offence u/s.306 of IPC.

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 3

4.The case was taken on file U/s. 306 of IPC; on appearance of the accused, before the JFCM (P&E), Mahabubnagar, he was furnished with copies of charge sheet and in all annexures thereto in compliance with Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and committed the case to Hon‟ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge‟s Court which numbered the case as S.C.No.215 of 2017 and made over the same to the Trial Court for trial. The Trial Court examined the accused u/s. 228 of Cr.P.C., for which the accused denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereupon, the Trial Court framed the charge for the offence u/s.306 of

I.P.C., the accused was defended by his advocate.

5.On the completion of evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C., whereupon, he denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated the same to be false. He reported no defence evidence.

6.After the conclusion of the trial and on hearing the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence u/s. 306 of I.P.C., and convicted him u/s. 235(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

7. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Trial Court under the impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal with the grounds of appeal and the core of contentions is briefly stated as follows:

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 4

The Trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients of

Section 306 of I.P.C., do not apply to the facts of the case; there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused has abetted the deceased to commit suicide so as to bring his act u/s. 107 of

I.P.C. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the authorities submitted by the accused. The Trial Court ought to have seen that PW1 (husband of the deceased) admitted, in his cross examination, that there were no other persons except he and his wife at the time of alleged incident and the accused left the place after the incident and he further admitted to have received money from the accused on the pretext of working under him whereupon, the accused came to him and asked him to join his duty or refund the money taken by him. Thus, there is no other allegation against the accused so as to hold him liable for the death of deceased.

8.With the above main contentions, the appellant prayed the

Court to allow the appeal and secondly, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment.

9.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and the appeal is coming for passing of the judgment.

10.Now the points for consideration are:

1)Whether judgment passed by the Trial Court dt.3.12.2019 suffers from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality and calls for any interference by this court?

2)To what result?

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 5

Point No.1:-

11.The conspectus of the prosecution case is that the deceased committed suicide at the abetment of the accused. In order to attract the applicability of Section 306 of I.P.C., it should be proved that the accused should instigate any person and abet the commission of suicide by the deceased. In other words, a person is said to abet the offence only when but for his abetment, the offence could not have been committed. A person abets to doing of a thing when he instigates any person to do that thing or intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. What can be understood from the provision u/s. 107 of I.P.C., is that there should be direct link between the offence and the abetment to do that offence by the accused.

12.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record in the background of legal position noted hereinabove, it is worthwhile to note that it is the prosecution case that the wife of PW1 committed suicide due to abetment of the accused. Put differently, to constitute the offence u/s.306 of I.P.C., the accused should have instigated the deceased to put an end to her life.

13.The main allegation against the accused is that husband of deceased (PW1) was employed by the accused for grazing his sheep on the annual wages of Rs.65,000/-. PW1 had borrowed hand loan of Rs.80,000/- from the accused on interest. Both belong to different villages. PW1 came to his village upon the death of his sister. Accused came over to his village and insisted

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 6

him to come with him to graze the sheep and when PW1 stated that he would resume duty after Ugadi festival, accused threatened to take him by tying his hands and legs. When his wife (deceased) entreated the accused to send PW1 after the festival, accused abused her in filthy language and went away. It is the allegation of PW1 that the deceased committed suicide due to abusive language used by the accused.

14.The learned counsel for the accused drew the attention of the Court to the impugned judgment wherein the Trial Court placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW4 who claimed to have witnessed the commotion at the house of PW1 and he further stated that when PW1 promised to return to duty after the festival, accused abused him and demanded Rs.80,000/- borrowed by PW1 and further threatened him that he would take

PW1 by tying his legs and hands; meanwhile, the deceased intervened and requested the accused to wait for two days but the accused abused her in filthy language as “Lanjaddana,

Chaavaali” and left the place. Thereupon the deceased felt insulted and consumed pesticide. The learned defence counsel faulted the Lower Court‟s reliance on the evidence of PW4 by completely ignoring the statement of PW1 himself in the cross examination. The learned defence counsel referred to the cross examination of PW1 wherein he explicitly stated that his wife never worked for the accused and accused left his house around 10:30 a.m., and at the relevant time, except he (PW1) and his wife (deceased) none was present at the scene. He further

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 7

admitted that in between the visit of the accused and consuming of poison by his wife, no one visited his house and that he and his wife were present in the house. In this view of the matter, it is significant to note that when PW1 did not make any whisper about the presence of PW1 or any other person for that matter at the relevant time he falsified the testimony of PW4 that he was an eye witness to the incident that took place at the house of

PW1, among PW1, his wife and accused. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the testimony of PW4 bristles with improvement and exaggeration. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that the version presented by PW4 deserves to be brushed aside for the reasons noted hereinabove. Naturally, the

Trial Court did not take this aspect into consideration and accepted the testimony of PW4 who designed his version to suit the ingredients of Section 306 of I.P.C. by stating that the accused abused the deceased as “Lanjaddana, Chaavaali”. It is necessary to point out that if such statement had been made by the PW1, there could have been some scope to believe that the accused instigated the deceased to take her life. However, when

PW1 himself testified unequivocally that except himself and his wife, none was present at his house till the accused left, the introduction of PW3 and PW4 as the eye witnesses to the incident does not inspire the confidence of the Court. Be that has it may,

PW3 also deposed on the same lines like PW4 but his claim stood diluted when he stated, in his cross examination, that PW1 informed him of the incident over the phone. The evidence of

PW6 is in the form of hearsay evidence and as such, it does not

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 8

merit any consideration. The Investigating Officer stated that

PW1 owed Rs.80,000/- loan amount to the accused; PWs1 to 3 did not specifically state the abusive words uttered by the accused against PW1 or his wife nor did they state that the accused abetted deceased to die.

15.It is settled Law that the utterance of mere abusive words does not amount to abetment. Anyway, there is no iota of evidence on record that the accused abetted or instigated the deceased to take her own life. As already discussed earlier, only

PW4 referred to the abusive words but when his evidence is discarded, the question of instigation by the accused does not arise.

16.The learned defence counsel turned towards another aspect that there is 22 hours delay in making the complaint. He further amplified his submission by stating that the plea of the accused is that the F.I.R. was lodged after unconscionable delay of 22 hours after due deliberation by concocting the story of abetment in order to avoid the debt payable by PW1 to the accused. Point to be noted is that no explanation is given for such inordinate delay in making the complaint.

17.In the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is held that the impugned judgment of the Trial Court does suffer from serious infirmities thereby requiring the interference by this

Court to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the

Trial Court against the appellant/accused. The findings of the

Trial Court are not tenable under Law as it has not arrived at the

Crl.A.No. 126/2019 9

correct conclusion. The conviction and sentence imposed by the

Trial Court against the accused for the offence u/s. 306 of I.P.C., is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the appellant/accused and against the respondent/prosecution.

Point No.2:-

18.In the result, the appeal is allowed thereby setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence u/s. 306 of I.P.C., imposed in the impugned judgment dated 3.12.2019 in

S.C.No.215 of 2017 on the file of I Addl. Assistant Sessions

Judge (FTC), at Mahabubnagar. Consequently, the appellant is

found not guilty for the offence u/s. 306 of I.P.C., and he is acquitted of the charge for the offence. The fine amount paid by the appellant, if any, shall be returned to him, after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 10th day of August, 2021.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

-Nil-

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahabubnagar

1 zzIN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC):

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, this the 9th day of December, 2020

Present:- Sri P. Vasanth,

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII.ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

FAC: II Addl.Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

Spl.S.C.No. 189 of 2017

Between:-

The State of Telangana through Police, Police Station, Nawabpet.

….Complainant.

And.

PichakuntlaShivaS/oAnjaneyulu,age;19years, Caste:Pichakuntla, occu: Coolie, R/o Theegalapally village of Nawabpet Mandal.

...Accused.

Nature of offences: U/Secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Sentence or order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs. 354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and, accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the six months. Unmarked properaty, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

-o0o- 2

This case coming up before me for hearing on 2.12.2020 in the presence of Sri Puttapaga Raghupathi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Syed Faqruddin, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case is tried against the accused for the offences U/Secs.

354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('the POCSO Act,' in short).

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The complainant/victim is a minor girl aged about 15 years and she is studying 10th class at ZPPS Karkonda (V) and she would attend the school on foot from Theegalapally (V). While she was going to school, the accused, who is her villager, had been stalking her in the name of love and marriage. On 03-7-2017 at about 3-30 p.m., when the victim was in her house, the accused taking advantage of her loneliness, entered into house and caught hold of her hand but, however, she escaped from the hands of the accused and went to her uncle house and told the incident to him and her uncle went to the house and on seeing the him, the accused escaped from house.

On a complaint, a case was registered. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police, Nawabpet registered the case, visited the scene of offence i.e. the house of the victim, secured panchas

PWs 8 and 9 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and drawn rough sketch in crime details form. He examined and recorded the statements of PWs 2 to 5. He got examined and recorded the statement of the victim through the Woman Constable and on 7-7-2017 he apprehended the accused and on interrogation, the accused confessed 3 the offence and he effected the arrest of the accused and produced him

before the Court for judicial remand.After the completion of the

investigation, the Sub-Inspector of police filed the charge sheet against the accused alleging that the accused committed the offences punishable

U/Secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.This case was taken on file against the accused for the offences

U/Secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and on the appearance of the accused, the copies of the charge sheet and all the annexures thereto were furnished to him in compliance of

Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and upon the consideration of all the material placed by the prosecution, the charges u/secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 were framed against the accused and the said charges were read over and explained to the accused u/s.228 (2) of Cr.P.C and he, having understood the same, denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused is defended by his advocate.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences arraigned against him, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 on the prosecution side.

4

6. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution and further stated the same to be false.

The accused stated that he had no defence evidence.

7.After the completion of the trial, the learned Addl.Public

Prosecutor representing the State and the learned defence counsel appearing for the accused submitted their arguments and, thereafter, the case is coming for judgment.

8.Now the point for determination is as follows :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences U/Sec.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

9.POINT :-

Unfolding the prosecution case, PW-1 (uncle of the victim) testified that the victim (PW10) is studying 9th Class. He came to know through the friends of victim that the accused had been stalking the victim while she was going to school. On one day, around 9:30 a.m., PW-4 told him that the accused is harassing the victim and when she rushed inside the house of PW-2, he found the accused inside the house and then, they caught hold the accused and handed over to police.

10. PW-2 is the father of the victim, PW-3 is the mother, PW-4 and PW-5 are the circumstantial witnesses and the evidence of these witnesses is in the form of hearsay. PW-10 is the victim who testified that about 3 years ago on 3-7-2017, she was going to 5 school and on the way, the accused came and told that he was in love with her and she told the same to her parents. The learned defence counsel would argue that no offence can be said to have been made under the POCSO Act or any other Act for that matter even assuming the version of the victim to be true. Indisputably, there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. The learned defence counsel drew the attention of the Court to the testimony of

PW-1 who deposed that when PW-4 told him about the harassment of the victim by the accused, he rushed to the house of the victim and found the accused inside the house. What can be construed to mean from this statement is that only the presence of the accused in the house of the victim is referred to and by stretch of no imagination can it be said that the accused molested the victim.

11. According to the learned defence counsel, the POCSO Act itself is not attracted in the first place because as on the date of the alleged offences, the victim was major. Her parents PWs 2 and 3 admitted it to be true that within two months of the alleged incident, they married off their daughter and who was 19 years old at the relevant time. This fact would demonstrate that as on the date of the alleged offence which took place merely two months before the wedding of the victim, the latter was major. Another factor fortifying the fact of majority is the statement of the mother of the victim that the wedding was held under “Kalyanalaxmi Scheme”. The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that the Government will not extend the facility of such scheme to the marriage of minors. Hence, by all accounts, the victim was major as on the date 6 of the alleged offence. Furthermore, all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses and the victim did not speak anything against the accused in her evidence except stating that he said to her that he was in love with her.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, it has become evident that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences and as such, he is entitled to be acquitted by giving the benefit of doubt.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and, accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the six months. Unmarked properaty, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 9th day of December, 2020.

FAC , II Addl.Sessions Judge(FTC),

Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

DEFENCE:

PW-1: C. Masaiah -None-

PW-2: C.Anjaneyulu.

PW-3: C.Padmamma.

PW-4: C.Naveen Kumar.

PW-5: C.Madhavi

PW-6: G.Sathaiah

PW-7: Y.Shilpa,

PW-8: Jaleel Pasha.

7

PW-9: M.Sundaram.

PW-10: Victim (the name is not disclosed as barred U/s 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (SC) 6) as discussed in para 2 of the judgment)

PW-11: B.Deepthi.

PW-12: A.Praveen Kumar.

EXHIBITITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1: Bonafide Certificate of PW-10

Ex-P2: Signature of PW-8 on Crime Details Form.

Ex-P3: Signature of PW-9 on Crime Details Form.

Ex-P4: Complaint.

Ex-P5: F.I.R.

Ex-P6: Crime details form.

DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

FAC II Addl.Sessions Judge(FTC),

Mahabubnagar.

8

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTSC),

MAHABUBNAGAR

1. Case.No. Spl.SC.No.189 of 2017

2. Name of the station P.S., Nawabpet .

3. Name of the accused.

Pichakuntla Shiva S/o Anjaneyulu, age; 19 years, Caste:Pichakuntla, occu: Coolie, R/o Theegalapally village of Nawabpet Mandal.

4.Date of:

1Occurrence03.07.2017 2Complaint04.07.2017 3Apprehension07.07.2017 4Released on bail26.07.2017 5Commitment- 6Commencement of trial10.12.2019 7Close of trial06.03.2020 8Sentence or order/judgment.09.12.2020

Sentence or order/judgment.

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

U/Secs.354-A and 509 of IPC and u/sec.11 r/w Sec.12 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and, accordingly, the accused is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the six months. Unmarked properaty, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : --

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahaboobnagar, FAC, II Addl.District Judge (FTSC), Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

Tuesday, the 24th day of July, 2018

Present:- Sri P.Vasanth, Asst. Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool

FAC: Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

S.C. No.236 of 2016

Preliminarily Registered Case No.27 of 2016 committed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr. No.86/2016 of P.S.,

Jadcherla for the offence U/Sec.366 of I.P.C.

ProsecutionSri E.Padma Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

AccusedUradi Prakash S/o late Pentaiah, aged: 20 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Auto driver R/o H.No.27-352, Nimmabavigadda, Badepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal.

(Sri K.Vijay Mohan, Advocate for accused)

Offence under section366 of IPC

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

FindingFound not guilty

Sentence or orderAccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.366 of I.P.C. and he is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of Six (06) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

-o0o-

This case came up for final hearing before me on 23-7-2018 and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Jadcherla P.S. filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offence U/Sec.366 of IPC.

Page 2

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused got acquaintance with the victim-girl Kum. N.Chandana aged: 17 years at

Badepally village while she was going to the college in his auto and he induced her with gullible words that he would marry her. Likewise, on 18-2-2016 at 09.00 hours, the accused met the victim girl at her college and told deceitful words to her in the name of love and marriage and took her to various places and on 21-2-2016, he took her to Railway

Station, Kurnool and got her boarded train and he escaped from that place and she got down from the train at Jadcherla Railway Station and went to her parents house.

Basing on the complaint given by the father of the victim-girl, the

S.I. of Police, Jadcherla registered a case and investigated into the case.

During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew the rough sketch. On 24-2-2016, the accused was arrested and sent him to Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused. Thus, the accused has committed the offence punishable U/Sec.366 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla took the cognizance against the accused for the offence U/Sec.366 of IPC and after following the Committal procedure, committed the accused to the

Court of Session, Mahabubnagar along with case records. The Court of

Session, Mahabubnagar taken the cognizance for the said offence and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

3.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charge U/Sec.366 of IPC against the accused, read

Page 3 over and explained to him and he pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

4.In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and no material objects are marked.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him and he reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard arguments on both side.

7.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec.366 of

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

8.POINT:-

In this case, in all, (9) witnesses have been examined as PWs.1 to

9. Out of whom, PWs.1 to 3 are the parents and victim-girl. Except the investigating officers i.e. PWs.8 and 9, rest of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case.

PW-1 is the defacto-complainant and father of the victim-girl and who deposed to the effect that about 2 years ago, his daughter, who was studying Intermediate 1st year at Govt. Junior College, Jadcherla, fell in love with the accused and they eloped without his knowledge whereupon, he filed Ex.P-1 complaint. It is elicited in his cross- examination that his daughter married the accused and the couple is living in his house from the date of Ex.P-1 complaint. He further added that he lodged a complaint against the accused due to previous disputes

Page 4 and that the accused did not take away his daughter without his consent.

Likewise, PW-2 (mother of the victim-girl) corroborated the version of PW-1 and added that the couple did get married without their consent, but after marriage, the couple is residing in her house. She was declared hostile, but she denied to have stated before the police as in her 161

Cr.P.C. statement.

PW-3 is the victim-girl, who testified that she fell in love with the accused and got married under intimation to her parents and that she and accused are living at her parental house. She was declared hostile and cross-examined, but she denied to have stated to the police as in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

Similarly, PWs.4 and 5, who have been projected as witnesses, turned hostile to the prosecution case, so also, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence i.e. PWs.6 and 7 and who denied that the police conducted C.D. panchanama in their presence.

PW-8 is a Woman Constable, who stated to have recorded the statement of the victim-girl under Ex.P-3. While PW-9 the S.I. of Police, who stated to have examined the witnesses, conducted the C.D.

panchanama, apprehended the accused and so on and ultimately, laid charge sheet.

Coming to the appreciation of the evidence on record, except routine and symbolic evidence of the investigating officer, no material is available against the accused, since not only the parents of the victim- girl but also the victim-girl turned hostile to the prosecution case making special reference to the fact that the victim-girl and accused have since

Page 5 been married to each other and leading happy marital life at the very house of PWs.1 and 2. In sum, there is no incriminating evidence against the accused on record.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.366 of IPC and he is acquitted

U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of

Six (06) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed, typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 24th day of July, 2018.

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosectuion:-

PW1: N.Raghavender, Father of the victim-girl.

PW2: Smt. N.Jayamma, Mother of the victim-girl.

PW3: Kum. N.Chandana, Victim girl.

PW4: G.Saraswathi, Circumstantial witness.

PW5: P.Sivaiah, Circumstantial witness.

PW6: P.Hanmanthu, Panch for scene of offence panchanama.

PW7: P.Ravi, Panch for scene of offence panchanama.

PW8: P.Sampurna, Woman Constable, who recorded the statement of victim-girl.

PW9: K.Jamulappa, Investigating Officer.

For Defence:- -Nil-

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1Complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P3Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P4Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4. Ex.P5Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5.

Page 6

Ex.P6Signature of PW-6 on Crime Details Form. Ex.P7Crime Details Form. Ex.P8First Information Report.

For Defence:- -Nil-

Material Objects marked

-NIL-

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar

Page 7

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

1. Serial No. (One) : S.C. No.236 of 2016

2. Name of the P.S. : Jadcherla

3. Description of the Accused:

Uradi Prakash S/o late Pentaiah, aged: 20 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Auto driver, R/o H.No.27-352, Nimmabavigadda, Badepally Village, Jadcherla Mandal.

4. Date of :

i)Occurrence18-02-2016 ii)Complaint21-02-2016 5 iii)Apprehension24-02-2016 iv)Release on bail29-03-2016

v)Commitment18-05-2016 vi)Commencement of trial22-01-2018 vii)Close of trial23-07-2018 viii)Sentence or Order24-07-2018 ix)Explanation of delayNo delay

Prl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Copy Submitted to:

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad through the District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar through C.D.

Page 8 ***

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTSC),

MAHABUBNAGAR

Thursday, the 26th day of November, 2020

Present:- Sri P.Vasanth,

Judge,

Family Court-Cum-VIII ADJ., Mahabubnagar, FAC, II Addl.District Judge (FTSC), Mahabubnagar.

Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2017

Between :-

The State of Telangana through Police, Kothakota Police Station.

...Complainant.

And.

Eragadindla Sridhar S/o. Yellappa, age 21 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ: Driver, R/o: Waddera colony Madanapur.

...Accused.

Nature of offences:U/Secs.366, 417 and 376 (1) of IPC and U/Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court :Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.366, 417 and 376 (1) of IPC and

U/Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted

U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

-o0o-

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 19.11.2020 in the presence of Sri Puttapaga Raghupathi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N. Shashikanth, Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This case is filed for the offences U/Secs.417, 420, 376(1), 366 of IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against sole accused.

2

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under :-

The accused and victim hail from Madanapur (V). The accused used to follow the victim when she was pursuing her 8th class and used to meet her at her school. While so, the accused made marriage proposal before the victim and same was agreed by her. On 01.02.2017, as per the plan of the accused, the victim woke up in the early morning and went with accused to ECIL Hyderabad and stayed for some days therein Rajeev Colony. Later on 13.02.2017, the accused kept the victim in a rented room at Kothamolgara and on the same night participated with her in sexual intercourse. On the next day when the victim asked the accused to marry her then the accused denied and told to her that he would marry with his caste lady and intentionally cheated her. Hence the charges for the offences U/Secs.417, 420, 376(1), 366 of IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3.My predecessor took cognizance of the case for the offences

U/Secs.417, 420, 376(1), 366 of IPC and U/Sec.3 r/w 4 of the Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused and copies were furnished to him, thereupon charges for the offences U/Secs.366, 417 and 376 (1) of IPC and U/Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused were framed. When the accused was examined U/Sec.228(2) of Cr.P.C., for which he denied the offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 10 were examined and and Exs.P1 to P20 were marked.

5.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., but he denied the incriminating evidence on record and reported no defence evidence.

6. Arguments were heard through video conferencing.

3

7.Now the point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offences U/Secs.366, 417 and 376 (1) of IPC and U/Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 beyond reasonable doubt?

8.PW-1 is the complainant and father of the victim who pleaded total ignorance about this case. Adding to that his daughter never told him against the accused but he has put his signature on some written documents at the instance of villagers. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution but he denied the suggestion that he stated to police about the allegations contained in the charge sheet. PW-3 is the victim herself who pleaded ignorance about this case and stated that she never spoke against the accused to her parents but she stated before

magistrate as tutored by the police. She was declared hostile and cross

examined but she denied the suggestion that she stated to police in 161

Cr.P.C., statement and before Judicial Magistrate U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C., against the accused. PW-2 is mother of the victim but she too turned hostile to the prosecution case. PWs.6 to 8 are cited as panchas for

C.D.panchanamas but they too turned hostile to the prosecution case.

PW-5 is the woman police constable, who recorded the statement of the victim. PW-4, the dental assistant surgeon, who examined the victim and issued medical age certificate.

9.PWs.9 and 10 are the investigating officers who issued F.I.R., conducted investigation, laid charge sheet etc.

10.Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, there is no evidence to support the prosecution case. More particularly, the victim did not state anything against the accused. There is no independent evidence to support the prosecution case. It is needless to add that no reliance can be place on the official witnesses like police. In the absence of its independent corroboration.

4

11.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.366, 417 and 376(1) of IPC and U/Sec.4 of the

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted

U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.II, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 26th day of November, 2020.

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahaboobnagar, FAC, II Addl.District Judge (FTSC), Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Naganna.

PW-2: Lalamma.

PW-3: Victim (the name is not disclosed as barred U/s 228-A of IPC and as observed by the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Puttaraj (2004 (2) ALT (SC) 6) as discussed in para 2 of the judgment)

PW-4: Dr. Mohd. Iqbal.

PW-5: Arundathi (WPC).

PW-6: K. Ramulu.

PW-7: Raske Anjaneyulu.

PW-8: Chinthakayala Pedda Anjaiah.

PW-9: Md. Sattar (IO).

PW-10: B. Shankar (IO).

DEFENCE: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1: Signature of PW-1 on complaint. Ex-P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1 (recorded by A.S.I). Ex-P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-1 (recorded by C.I). Ex-P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2 (recorded by A.S.I). Ex-P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-2 (recorded by C.I). Ex-P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3. Ex-P7: Sec.164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW-3. Ex-P8: Medical age estimation certificate of victim. Ex-P9: Signature of PW-6 on first scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

5

Ex-P10: Signature of PW-7 on second scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

Ex-P11: Signature of PW-8 on second scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch.

Ex-P12: Complaint.

Ex-P13: First Information Report.

Ex-P14: First Scene of Offence Panchanama.

Ex-P15: Section Alteration Memo.

Ex-P16: Bonafide Certificate of victim.

Ex-P17: Potency Certificate of accused.

Ex-P18: Preliminary Examination Report of victim.

Ex-P19: F.S.L. Report.

Ex-P20: Final Opinion.

DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: NIL

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahaboobnagar, FAC, II Addl.District Judge (FTSC), Mahabubnagar.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTSC),

MAHABUBNAGAR

1. Case.No. Spl.SC.No.69 of 2017

2. Name of the station P.S., Kothakota.

3. Name of the accused.

Eragadindla Sridhar S/o. Yellappa, age 21 years, Caste: Waddera,

Occ: Driver, R/o: Waddera colony Madanapur.

4.Date of:

1Occurrence01.02.2017 2Complaint06.02.2017 3Apprehension17.02.2017 4Released on bail14.03.2017 5Commitment- 6Commencement of trial12.12.2019 7Close of trial19.11.2020 8Sentence or order/judgment.26.11.2020

Sentence or order/judgment.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Secs.366, 417 and 376 (1) of IPC and U/Sec.4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and he is acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after six months. Unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Explanation for delay : --

Judge,

Family Court-cum-VIII ADJ., Mahaboobnagar, FAC, II Addl.District Judge (FTSC), Mahabubnagar.