Ms. Padma Sai Sree

1 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C., AT HUZURABAD.

Present: - Ms. Padma Sai Sree, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 236 of 2014

Between:-

The State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, P.S.Huzurabad (Cr.No.32 of 2014). …Complainant.

And

Md.Afeez S/o Azeez, 25 years, Muslim, R/o Mamindlawada, Huzurabad. … Sole Accused.

This case has come before me on 25.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Md.Jaffar, Advocate for sole accused and having heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

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

1.The Inspector of Police, P.S.Huzurabad filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.32 of 2014 for the offences punishable U/Sec.

304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sec.146/196 of

M.V.Act.

2.The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 14.02.2014, at about 1730 hours, the defacto-Complainant/

PW.1/Chinthala Raji Reddy came to Police Station and lodged a 2 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) complaint stating that, on 13.02.2014 morning at about 0800 hours, his father by name Chinthala Malla Reddy went to their relative’s house at Huzurabad from Thograi village and in the evening hours at about 1830 hours when he reached near Kakatiya Canal, Fire Station and while his father was crossing the road, meantime, the accused rode Bajaj Chetak Scooter B.No.AP-36-H-1493 in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his father, as a result, his father fell down and sustained severe injuries on his head and oozed blood from his ear, immediately he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Huzurabad and after giving first aid, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for better treatment and there while undergoing treatment on 14.02.2014 morning, his father succumbed to the injuries and the incident was informed to him by his relative Paripally Sampath Reddy/LW6, upon which he went to MGM Hospital and found his father died. Hence, he requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW.14/PW8 registered a case in

Cr.No. 32 of 2014 for the offences U/Sec. 304-A of IPC and issued FIR.

During the course of investigation, LW.14 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, proceeded to MGM Hospital, Warangal, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses/PW.5 and LW11 and there he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 6, got photographed the dead body of the 3 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) deceased with the help of LW.7 and subjected the dead body for postmorterm examination, there LW12 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, later he observed the scene and drafted crime detail form in the presence of PW6 and LW9 , later he filed requisition before PW7 to inspect the crime vehicle.

Subsequently, LW15 took up further investigation in this case, verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines.

Subsequently on 18.02.2014, accused came to police station and surrendered before LW.15 and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and further he failed to produced insurance certificate of the crime vehicle and later he issued notice u/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused and later he collected PME report from LW12, in which he opined that the cause of death is due to ‘Head Injury’ and thereafter LW13 who inspected the crime vehicle, in which LW.13 opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle. After completion of the investigation,

LW.15 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.146/196 of M.V.Act.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.146/196 of M.V.Act against sole accused.

On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to him as required

U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

4 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair)

5.Accused was examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.146/196 of M.V.Act and explained substance of accusation in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove it's case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Inspite of ample opportunities, the concerned police failed to produce the evidence of Lws.5, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15

before the court, as such this court closed their evidence. Hence,

prosecution evidence is closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in Telugu about the incriminatory circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Defence Counsel. Perused the entire record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and

Sec.146/196 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

5 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) 10. POINT:-It is the case of prosecution that, on 13.02.2014 morning at about 0800 hours, the deceased/Chinthala Malla Reddy went to their relative’s house at Huzurabad from Thograi village and in the evening hours at about 1830 hours when he reached near SRSP

Canal, Karimnagar road, near Fire Station and while the deceased was crossing the road, meantime, the accused rode Bajaj Chetak Scooter

B.No.AP-36-H-1493 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result, deceased fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries on his head and oozed blood from his ear, immediately he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Huzurabad through 108

Ambulance by the passers and after giving first aid, again he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for better treatment and while undergoing treatment on 14.02.2014 morning, deceased succumbed to the injuries. As such, the accused has committed an offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.146/196 of M.V.Act.

11.With the above evidence prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The deceased is none other than father of Pw.1 and Pw.1/defacto-complainant has deposed in his chief-examination that on 13.02.2014, his father came to Huzurabad to go to Jeelugula and at about 05:00 P.M in the evening, while his father was crossing road at Kakatiya Canal, the driver of the crime vehicle/Scooter bearing No.AP36H1493 hit his father with his vehicle.

6 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) He further deposed that LW.6 saw the deceased lying on the road and identified him as his relative and called him and informed about the same. That the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Huzurabad in an ambulance and later, he was shifted to MGM

Hospital at Hanamkonda and on the same day i.e., 13.02.2014 the deceased succumbed to the injuries at MGM Hospital at about 06:30

P.M and he approached police and lodged Ex.P.1/complaint.

During his cross-examination, he stated that Ex.P1 was written by one person who was present at the police station on his narration and that he has no personal acquaintance with that person and that he does not know by what means the deceased reached Huzurabad as he was busy with his work. He admitted that the incident took place at a distance of two kilometers prior to reaching Huzurabad and that in Ex.P1 he has not stated that the deceased was having friends and relatives at Huzurabad and denied all the other suggestions raised by the counsel for the accused.

12.Coming to the evidences of PW2 who is another son of the deceased has deposed that on 13.02.2014 the deceased started from

Thogarrai to go to their relatives place at Jeelugula and that LW.6 informed PW.1 that his father met with an accident by a scooter in front of fire station, Huzurabad and then PW.1 told him about the same. That the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital,

Huzurabad and then MGM Hospital, Warangal and on the next day 7 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) i.e., on 14.02.2024, he went to MGM Hospital, Warangal and by the time he reached the hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries.

During his cross-examination, he stated that deceased came to

Huzurabad by Bus and that he does not know where he got down from the bus and that the distance between the scene of offence and

Huzurabad Bus Stop is about two kilometers. He admitted that the deceased do not have any friends or relatives in Huzurabad and he stated that the deceased started to Jeelugula from his house at

Thogarrai and he denied all the other suggestions raised by the counsel for the accused.

13.PW3 who is the daughter of the deceased deposed in her chief- examination examination that at about 10 years ago, her father who went to relatives house was returning to home and at that time, near canal, at about 06:00 P.M, he stopped to attend nature calls and was crossing road, meantime, the crime vehicle, scooter, dashed to him as a result, he sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government

Hospital, Huzurabad. That PW.1 informed her about the accident, later, he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal in an ambulance. By the time, she reached hospital, the deceased succumbed to injuries while under going treatment. She further deposed that she do not remember who was the driver of the crime vehicle at the time of incident.

8 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair)

14. PW4 who is the grand son of the deceased deposed in his chief- examination that on 13.02.2014 at about 08:00 A.M, the deceased left

Thogarrai to meet relatives at Kandugula and while he was returning to Thogarrai, at about 06:30 P.M and when he was crossing road at the fire station, Huzurabad, the crime vehicle Bajaj Chethak bike bearing No.AP36H1493 moving from Karimnagar to Huzurabad dashed the deceased at high speed, as a result, he fell down and sustained head injury and he was shifted to Government Hospital,

Huzurabad in 108 Ambulance and later shifted to MGM Hospital,

Warangal. He further deposed that LW.6 informed his father/PW.1 about the accident and that the deceased succumbed to injuries in the early hours of 14.02.2014 while undergoing treatment and PW.1 informed him about the death of the deceased.

15.PW5 who cited as panch witness for inquest panchanama deposed in his chief-examination that on 15.02.2024, he went to MGM

Hospital on receiving information about the death of Chintala Malla

Reddy who is his grand father and later police came to hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of

LW.11/R.Mahender Reddy and himself.

16.PW6 who cited as panch witness for crime detail form deposed in his chief-examination that he does not know anything about this 9 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) case and he did not affix his signature on Crime Detail Form and that the police did not conduct any CDF in his presence and that on confrontation, he identified his signature on CDF but he does not know the contents of it and the same was marked as Ex.P3 and he turned hostile.

17. PW7 who is the Motor Vehicle Inspector deposed in his chief examination that on 18.02.2014, he received requisition from Sub-

Inspector of police, P.S. Huzurabad in Cr.No. 32 of 2014 and after receiving the same, he inspected the crime vehicle motorcycle bearing

No.AP36H193 on 19.02.2014, at 1600 hours, in the premises of P.S.

Huzurabad, he found no damages occurred due to the accident and found no failure of the breaks.

18.According to the evidence of PW.8 who is the Investigating

Officer has reiterated the contents of chargesheet in his chief- examination and during his cross-examination he admitted that the age of the deceased is 80 years as on the date of accident and that the accident was occurred at the night hours and that the deceased was old aged person and he was unable to see and hear and further denied all the suggestions raised by the counsel for the accused.

19.With the above evidence prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. This case is before me 10 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) under Section 304 IPC and Section 146 r/w 196 of the Motor Vehicle

Act.

The prosecution's case alleges that the accused, the driver of the scooty, caused the death of the deceased by rash and negligent driving. The prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW8, but none of them provided direct evidence about the alleged incident. PW1 to

PW3, the sons and the daughter of the deceased, deposed that they came to know about the accident through LW6/Paripalli Sampath

Reddy but however he was not examined as eye witness by prosecution but examined as panch for inquest, further they didn't provide any details about the driver of the vehicle nor his name.

20.PW4 and PW5's evidence didn't elicit anything significant as their cross examination is treated as nil. PW6, the panch witness for CDF, turned hostile. PW7, the motor vehicle inspector, deposed found no damages or break failures on the vehicle and issued MVI report/Ex.P4. PW8, the investigating officer, admitted that the deceased was 80 years old at the time of the incident and that the accident occurred at night hours, nothing much elicited from his evidence and upon close perusal of evidence, there is no incriminating evidence found against accused on record. The prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 304-A IPC and Section 146/196 of the MV Act. There are no eyewitnesses to the accident, and none of 11 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair) the witnesses stated about the accused' details and that none deposed accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that vehicle was uninsured.

21.The prosecution's case relies heavily on circumstantial evidence, but the evidence presented is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, after carefully examining the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to link the accused to commission of offence. The testimony of witnesses PW1 to PW8 takes contrary stance in their chief and cross-examinations. The prosecution has also failed to provide reliable and consistent evidence to prove the accused's guilt.

There is no corroborating evidence to support the prosecution's case.

In the absence of reliable evidence, it is impossible to establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In addition, there are doubts about whether the accused drove the crime vehicle and was driving in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to provide evidence to support this allegation, and the accused's defense that he was driving carefully and within the speed limit remains unrebutted.

12 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair)

22.In the light of the above discussion, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, Sec. 146/196 of M.V Act.

Accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal.

23.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, Sec.146/196 of M.V Act. Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties if any, shall lapse after expiry of the appeal period. The accused is set at liberty. No order to the case property, as there is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- FOR THE DEFENCE

PW-1: Chinthala Raji Reddy -None- PW-2: Chinthala Ram Reddy PW-3: J.Lakshmi PW-4: Chinthala Devender Reddy PW-5: P.Sampath Reddy PW-6: Pittala Mogili PW-7: K.Venu PW-8: R.Madunaiah 13 of 13 CC.No. 236 of 2014 (Fair)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: - Ex.P-1: Complaint. Ex.P-2: Inquest Report Ex.P-3: Signature of PW6 on crime detail form Ex.P-4: MVI Report Ex.P-5: First Information Report Ex.P-6: 3 Photographs along with CD. Ex.P-7: Postmortem Examination Report. Ex.P-8: Crime Detail Form

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

1 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: Miss Padma Sai Sree, I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Huzurabad

Tuesday, the 30th day of July, 2024.

Original Suit No. 101 of 2023.

Between:-

1.Bele @ Bathula Laxmi w/o Valmi, D/o Late Bathula Kanukaiah @ Bathula Kanaka @ Bathula Kanaka, age: 65 yrs, occ: House hold, r/o Amudalapalli village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district, now residing at Ballarsha town and Taluka of Chandrapur district of Maharashtra State.

2.Gaddam @ Bathula Kamala w/o Sailu, D/o Late Bathula Kanukaiah @ Battula Kanaka @ Battula Kanaka, age: 56 yrs, occ: House wife, r/o Amudalapalli village of Shankarapatnam mandal of karimnagar district, now residing at Kamgar nagar, Ward No.3, Taluka Rajura of Chandrapur district of maharashtra state. …Plaintiffs

AND

1.Bathula Sampath Kumar s/o Late Rajanarsu, age: 50 yrs, occ: Employee in Singareni Colleries, r/o Amudalapalli village of Shankarapatnam mandal of Karimnagar district. Now residing at H.No. 5-6-1/20, Krishna nagar, NTPC, Jyothinagar, Ramagundam mandal of Peddapally district.

2.The Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam (Keshavapatnam) mandal of Karimnagar district. …Defendants *** This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri. M.Sadaiah, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiffs, and defendants No.1 & 2 are set ex-parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession in respect of land in Sy.No. 306, measuring Ac. 0-20 2 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 ½ gts situated at Amudalapalle village of Shankarapatnam mandal of

Karimnagar district.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that, actually the great grand father of the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 by name Bathula Venkaiah @ Venkataiah was the owner and possessor of land measuring to an extent of Ac.04-03 guntas in survey No. 306 situated in the limits of Amdualapalli Village of

Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar District. Their great grand father died long ago leaving behind his four sons namely Bathula Mallaiah, Bathula

Narsaiah @ Narsimhulu, Bathula Yellaiah and Bathula Rajaiah. The survey number 306 is bifurcated to 306/A,B,C. After the death of Bathula

Venkaiah @ Venkataiah, his four sons divided the land measuring Ac. Ac.04- 03 guntas, Bathula Mallaiah allotted Ac.1-01 guntas in survey no.306/A,

Bathula Narsaiah @ Narsimhulu allotted Ac.1-01 guntas in survey no.306/B, Bathula Yellaiah allotted Ac.1-01 and Bathula Rajaiah allotted

Ac.1-00 in survey no.306/C, and delivered the possession to them. The grand father of the plaintiffs namely Bathula Narsaiah @ Narsimhulu having two sons namely Bathula Rajanarsu and Bathula Kanukaiah @ Battula

Kanaka @ Battula Kanaka, the said Bathula Narsaiah @ Narsimhulu, orally partitioned the land Ac.01-01 guntas and allotted the share to his two sons equally i.e. Ac.0-20 ½ guntas with metes and bounds and delivered the possession to them, since then the father of the plaintiffs and Bathula

Rajanarsu are cultivating the lands and enjoyment of the above said lands without any interruption since 2006-2007. That the defendant no.1 is the father of late Bathula Rajanarsu.

3 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 2.1.The plaintiffs further submitted that, the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are the legal heirs of Late Bathula Kanukaiah @ Battula Kanaka @ Battula

Kanaka who died 40 years back leaving behind him the daughters plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 herein and his wife namely Bathula Venkatraju, was died (5) years back leaving behind her two daughters plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are her legal heirs, after the death of their mother, the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 being her legal heirs became the owner and possessor and enjoyment of suit schedule property. As such the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the exclusive owners of land measuring Ac.0-20 ½ guntas of land out of survey no. 306 situated at

Amdalapalli Village of Shankarapatnam Mandal of Karimnagar District. The plaintiff 1 and 2 are equally entitled to the suit schedule property to the extent of half share each.

2.2.The plaintiffs further submitted that, during the life time of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 the defendant no.1 look after the agricultural work in suit schedule property whose land also situated adjacent to the suit schedule property and given the usufructs derived from the said suit schedule property to the parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, that after the death of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 were residing at

Rajura of Maharashtra State along with their husbands for their livelihood, the defendant no.1 promised to look after the agricultural work in suit schedule property as earlier during the life time of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, so the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 rely the version of defendant no.1 and asked him to look after the agricultural work in the suit schedule property 4 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 and the defendant no.1 given the usufructs derived from the said suit schedule property to the plaintiffs no.1 and 2.

2.3.It is to submit that the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are enjoying the said property jointly and the usufructs used to distribute to the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 by the defendant no.1. It is to submit that since some period the defendant no.1 change his attitude and not distributing the usufructs to the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and when plaintiffs no.1 and 2 demanded for the profit in the yield derived from the suit schedule property, the defendant no.1 refuse to give the profit. While so, the defendant No.1 behind the back of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 having no exclusive right, title and possession over the suit schedule land. with a malafide intention to knock away the suit schedule property as the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are residing at Rajura of

Chandrapur of Maharashtra State for their livelihood and taking the advantage, by managing the Revenue Authorities got mutated his name in respect of the suit schedule property along with his share i.e. 20 ½ guntas + 20 ½ guntas. The plaintiffs recently came to know about the mutation the name of defendant no. 1 in revenue records without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, when the plaintiffs went to the suit schedule property and found that the defendant No.1 has occupied the suit schedule property by illegal means. The plaintiffs asked the defendant No.1 as to why he occupied the suit schedule property, the defendant No.1 showed the pahani patriks. In fact the defendant No.1 has no exclusive right, title or interest of the suit schedule property.

5 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 2.4.The plaintiffs submitted that, the Plaintiffs no.1 and 2 got issued legal notice to the defendants no.1 and 2 dated 23-11-2022, and requested the defendant no.1 to not to illegally trespass the suit schedule property of the plaintiffs, and requested to defendant no.2 that, to issue the pattedar pass book in favour of plaintiffs in respect of the suit schedule property, as the said property is the ancestral property of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and to cancel the alleged pattedar pass book issued in favour of defendant no.1, but the defendants no. 1 and 2 did not given any reply to the said legal notice.

The defendant no.1 having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, colluded with the Revenue Officials and got mutated the suit schedule property in his name in revenue records and defendant No.1 having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property by virtue of the Pattedar pass book, as the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs no. 1 and 2. The defendant no.1 behind the back of the plaintiffs, occupied the suit schedule property illegally. That the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 also conducted elders panchyath, wherein the elders advised the defendant no.1 give possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs no.1 and 2, but the defendant no.1 refused to give the possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs no.1 and 2 and ask the plaintiffs to do whatever they can. That on 01-02-2023 the plaintiffs went to the house the defendant no.1 and requested him to vacate his illegal possession over the suit schedule property, but the defendant no.1 bluntly refused to do so and further denied the title and possession of the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 over the suit schedule property. Thus the defendant no.1 wrongfully occupied the suit schedule property. The defendant no.1 has no rights whatsoever over 6 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 the suit schedule property and he has illegally occupied the suit schedule property in the absence of the plaintiffs no.1 and 2. The plaintiffs no. 1 and 2 are entitled to sue the defendant no.1 for declaration of title and recover the possession in respect of the suit schedule property against the defendant no.1 on the basis of their title and also for rectification of entries in revenue records. The plaintiffs no.1 and 2 are entitled to seek the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for rectification of entries in revenue records against the defendant no.1.

Hence this suit.

3.The defendants are set exparte. During exparte evidence, the Plaintiff

No.2 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A37. Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are entitled for declaration of title

and recovery of possession as prayed for?

5. POINT:-

In order to prove their case, the Plaintiff No.2 got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A37. Ex.A1 to Ex.A36 are the true copies of pahani patrikas issued by Dy. Tahsildar. Ex.A37 is the office copy of legal notice.

6.It is the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.37, clearly established that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 father acquired the suit schedule land from his forefathers through virasath, and after his demise, 7 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 became the owners and possessors of the land. Since then, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land. The defendant No.1 has his respective land in suit survey number and he illegally occupied the land of plaintiffs No.1 and 2, without having any legal documents showing their excessive possession. During the life time of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2 the defendant no.1 look after the agricultural work in suit schedule property whose land also situated adjacent to the suit schedule property and given the usufructs derived from the said suit schedule property to the parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, that after the death of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 were residing at

Rajura of Maharashtra State along with their husbands for their livelihood, the defendant no.1 promised to look after the agricultural work in suit schedule property as earlier during the life time of parents of plaintiffs no.1 and 2, so the plaintiffs no.1 and 2 rely the version of defendant no.1 and asked him to look after the agricultural work in the suit schedule property and the defendant no.1 given the usufructs derived from the said suit schedule property to the plaintiffs no.1 and 2. However, the defendants failed to file written statement in spite of giving opportunity to appear before the court , as such the defendant No.1 is set ex-parte. When the fact stated by the witnesses remained unchallenged or disputed, the same admitted to be true. In view of the afore principle, when the case of the plaintiffs remained undisputed, it is deemed to be admitted that they have possession and title supported by the documentary evidence. It is an admitted fact that when the possession and title is confirmed by the plaintiffs No.1 & 2, defendant No.1 do not challenge the evidence of P.W.1 to 3, as such the 8 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023 possession can be accepted. On perusal of documents and the evidence of

P.W.1 to 3 on record, this court is of the view that plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are in continuous possession of suit schedule land, as on the date of filing of the suit and as such the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are entitled to decree the suit, as prayed for. This point is answered accordingly.

7. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs, declaring plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as owners and possessors of suit schedule land, directing the defendant No.1 to vacate the suit premises and also directing defendant No.2 to rectify the entries in pahani patrikas in respect of suit schedule property of the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, within TWO MONTHS, failing which the court shall take steps in accordance with law.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of July, 2024.

Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD.

FAC:PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW.1 Gaddam @ Bathula Kamala -Exparte- PW.2 Gooda Komuraiah PW.3 Bathula Mogili

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1958-59 Ex.A.2:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, 9 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023

Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1959-60 Ex.A.3:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1960-61 Ex.A.4:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1961-62 Ex.A.5:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1962-63 Ex.A.6:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1963-64 Ex.A.7:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1966-67 Ex.A.8:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1969-70 Ex.A.9:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1971-72 Ex.A.10:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1975-76 Ex.A.11:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1976-77 Ex.A.12:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1978-79 Ex.A.13:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1979-80 Ex.A.14:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1980-81 Ex.A.15:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1981-82 Ex.A.16:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1987-88 Ex.A.17:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1989-90 Ex.A.18:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1990-91 Ex.A.19:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1991-92 Ex.A.20:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1993-94 Ex.A.21:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1995-96 Ex.A.22:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1996-97 10 OF 10 OS.NO. 101 of 2023

Ex.A.23:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1997-98 Ex.A.24:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1998-99 Ex.A.25:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A.26:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2000-2001 Ex.A.27:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2001-2002 Ex.A.28:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2002-2003 Ex.A.29:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2003-2004 Ex.A.30:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2004-2005 Ex.A.31:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2005-2006 Ex.A.32:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2006-2007 Ex.A.33:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2007-2008 Ex.A.34:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2009-2010 Ex.A.35:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2010-2011 Ex.A.36:True copy of Pahani Patrika issued by Dy.Tahsildar, Shankarapatnam mandal for the year 2011-2012 Ex.A.37:Office Copy of Legal Notice, dt: 23.11.2022.

FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

-Nil-Sd/-

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUZURABAD.

FAC:PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

1 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C AT HUZURABAD.

Present: - Ms. Padma Sai Sree, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 430 of 2015

Between:-

The State of Telangana through the Inspector of Police, Huzurabad P.S (Cr.No.194 of 2015). …Complainant.

And

1.Boda Pushpa W/o Mogili, 50 years, Caste: SC Mala, R/o Bornapalli village.

2.Boda Kumar S/o Mogili, 21 years, Caste: SC Mala, R/o Bornapalli village of Huzurabad mandal. … Accused No.1 and 2.

This case has come before me on 23.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. M.Sadaiah, Advocate for the accused and having heard and having perused the record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

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

1.The Inspector of Police, P.S Huzurabad has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Cr.No. 194 of 2015 for the offences punishable U/Sec.325, 354-A (i) and 290 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC).

2 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair)

2.The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 26.07.2015 at 1030 hours, the complainant/Koluguri

Sharadha/PW.1 came to Huzurabad Police station and lodged a

Telugu written complaint stating that, on 26.07.2015 at about 0930 hours, she went to boring which is near to her house and while washing the clothes, meantime, her villagers/accused No.1 and 2 came there, abused her by stating how much time she will take to wash her clothes and beat her with hands, as a result, she received swelling injury over her left wrist and accused No.2 caught hold her private parts (breast), as such she bite on his hand to release her breast and while taking his hand, accused No.2 torned her blouse and the same was witnessed by PW2 and PW3 and LW3. Thus, she requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW8, registered a case in Cr.No.

194/2015, U/sec.290, 323 and 354-A (i) r/w 34 of IPC and issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators Lws. 5 and 6, observed the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch in crime detail form.

Thereafter, LW9, took up further investigation, visited the scene of offence and there he examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 4 and he has issued notice u/s.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused No.1 and 3 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair) 2 and in response to the same, on 20.08.2015 the accused No.1 and 2 appeared before LW9 and complied the condition laid down under

Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. Thereafter, PW4 took up further investigation, verified the investigation done by Lws.8 and 9 and found it on correct lines and during the course of investigation, he collected the Medical

Certificate of LW1 from LW7, in which LW7 opined that the injuries sustained by LW1 are in Grievous in nature. After completion of the investigation PW.4 filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/sec.325, 354-A (i), 290 r/w 34 of IPC.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable U/sec.

325, 354-A (i), 290 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 and 2. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them as required

U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C they denied the charge sheet allegations and after hearing both sides, charges were framed for the offences U/sec.325 and 290 of IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and charge framed for the offence u/s.354-A (i) IPC against accused No.2, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair)

6.To prove it's case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Further, inspite of ample opportunities, the concerned police failed to produce the evidence of Lws.3, 5 to 9 before the court, as such this court closed their evidence. Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to them in Telugu about the incriminatory circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defense evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the entire record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/sec. 325 and 290

of IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and for the offence

u/s.354-A (i) IPC against accused No.2 beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

10. POINT:-It is the case of prosecution that, on 26.07.2015 at about 0930 hours, PW1 went to boring which is near to her house and while washing the clothes, meantime, accused No.1 and 2 came there, abused her by stating how much time she will take to wash her clothes and beat her with hands, as a result, she received swelling injury over her left wrist and accused No.2 caught hold her private 5 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair) part (breast), as such she bite on his hand to release her breast and while taking his hand, accused No.2 torned her blouse and the same was witnessed by PW2 and PW3 and LW3. Hence the accused is liable for the offences punishable U/sec.325 and 290 of IPC against accused

No.1 and 2 and for the offence u/s.354-A (i) IPC against accused No.2 of

IPC.

11.With the above evidence, prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt. PW.1 who cited as victim and defacto-complainant has deposed in her chief- examination that in the year 2015 as some disputes arose between herself and accused persons, then she approached village elders, as such they obtained her signature on some white papers and that she did not lodge any complaint against accused persons and they never harassed her. She further stated that she identified her signature on the complaint which is marked as Ex.P1, however she deposed that she does not know the contents of the same. If really accused No.2 insulted her modesty, she might have deposed as per complaint, thus she did not support the prosecution version and turned hostile.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW.2 who is the mother of PW1 and

PW3 who is the eye witness to the incident have also stated that they do not know anything about the case and turned hostile and that with permission of the court, the Additional Public Prosecutor have cross- 6 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair) examined Pws.1 to 3, but nothing significant was elicited in their cross-examination, except their Sec.161 of Cr.P.C statements were marked as Exs.P2 to P4 respectively.

13.The remaining witness is PW.4 who is the Investigating Officer has deposed in his chief-examination about the manner in which he conducted the investigation and reiterated the charge sheet contents.

During cross-examination he denied the suggestions regarding that he has conducted table investigation for the purpose of statistical purpose he filed this false case. Furthermore, this court closed the evidence of remaining witnesses, as the police did not produce them

before the court. In the present case on hand, the crucial witness i.e.,

the victim i.e., PW1 herself deposed that due to disputes between herself and accused persons she approached the village elders and they obtained her signature on some white papers and that she did not lodge any complaint against the accused and the accused never harassed her, thus she did not support the case and turned hostile and further all the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile except the Investigating Officer, but only basing on the sole evidence of Pw.4/Investigating Officer, this court cannot come to the conclusion to convict the accused. Moreover, all the witnesses have also failed to support the ingredients of Sec.325, 290 and 354-A

(i) of IPC before the Court and not supported to the prosecution case.

7 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair) Absolutely there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence and therefore this Court finds the accused No.1 and 2 are not guilty. The point is answered accordingly.

14.In the light of the above discussion, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/sec.325 and 290 of

IPC against accused No.1 and 2 and for the offence u/s.354-A (i) IPC against accused No.2 of IPC. Accordingly the accused No.1 and 2 entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/sec.325 and 290 of IPC against accused

No.1 and 2 and for the offence u/s.354-A (i) IPC against accused No.2.

Accordingly, accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted U/Sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of six months as per Sec. 437(A) of Cr.P.C. The accused are set at liberty. No order to the case property as there is no property seized in this case.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

8 of 8 CC.No. 430 of 2015 (Fair)

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- FOR THE DEFENCE

PW-1: K.Sharadha-None- PW-2: K.Yellamma PW-3: K.Ravi PW-4: Ch.Srinivas

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: - FOR THE DEFENCE:-

Ex.P-1: Signature of PW.1 on complaint-Nil- Ex.P-2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1 Ex.P-3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 Ex.P-4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P-5: Complaint Ex.P-6: First Information Report Ex.P-7: Crime Detail Form Ex.P-8: Letter C.No.1260/H/2015 dated 03.09.2015. Ex.P-9: Medical Certificate.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

1 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HUZURABAD.

PRESENT: Miss Padma Sai Sree,

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Huzurabad. FAC:Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-JMFC, Huzurabad

Friday, this the 20th day of June, 2025

Original Suit No. 166 OF 2022

Between:-

1. Kattula Padma @ Mukkera Rajitha W/o Kattula Shankar, D/o late Mukkera Rajaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Housewife.

2. Kattula Shankar S/o Rajaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both are r/o H.No.3-39/1, Perikapalli village, V-Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district. …Plaintiff.

AND

1. Panja Venkavva W/o late Chinna Odelu, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Rekonda village, Chigurumamidi mandal, Karimnagar district.

2. Seetha Lachamma W/o late Rajaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Kadargudem village, Manakondur mandal, Karimnagar district.

3. Vemula Ramaiah S/o late Venkaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Akunur village, Saidapur mandal, Karimnagar district. (Died) …Defendants. *** This suit is coming for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri. G.Srinivas Goud, Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, and defendants are set ex-parte and having been heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, this court made the following:-

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration of title and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, transferees, agents, administrators, servants and workmen etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of item 2 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022

No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties i.e., item No.1 land in

Sy.No.1220/B (1220/ఆ) to an extent of Ac.0-07 gts, Sy.No.1220/D (1220/ఈ) to an extent of Ac.0-07 gts, Sy.No.1220/E (1220/ఉ) to an extent fo Ac.0-04 gts and land in Sy.No.1220/F (1220/ఊ) to an extent of Ac.0-03 gts, total to an extent of Ac.0-21 gts, situated at Akunur village of V-Saidapur mandal of

Karimnagar district and item No.2 house bearing No.3-39/1 to an extent of 150 sq.yrds, situated at Perkapalli village, V-Saidapur mandal of Karimnagar district.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that plaintiff No.1 is the adopted daughter of Mukkera Rajaiah and the plaintiff No.2 is the husband of plaintiff No.1. That during the life time of Mukkera Rajaiah, he adopted the plaintiff No.1 as his daughter at her child age and he educated her by admitting in Vivekananda Vidyalayam, Molangur Village and performed her marriage with the plaintiff No.2 on 19-03-1998 by incurring huge marriage expenses. That at the time of adoption, plaintiff No.1 was called as Mukkera

Rajitha and the same was recorded in all her records and at the time of marriage as per the Astrology and on the advise of the Purohith, the name of plaintiff No.1 was changed as Mukkera Padma.

2.1. It is further submitted that the said Mukkera Rajaiah died on 25- 01-2022 leaving behind him, plaintiff No.1 as his legal heir and successor to his estate and mother of the plaintiff No.1 by name Mukkera Kethamma also died on 04-01-2018 and during their lifetime plaintiffs were taking the care 3 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022 and providing good food and medicine to Mukkera Rajaiah and Mukkera

Kethamma and they are not having any children except the adopted daughter i.e., plaintiff No.1 herein. It is further submitted that during the life time of Mukkera Rajaiah, he was the absolute owner and possessor of item

No.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and his name also recorded in the revenue records as owner, possessor and pattedar of suit schedule properties.

2.2. It is further submitted that during the life time of Mukkera Rajaiah, he executed the Will Deed on 10-12-2018 by bequeathing suit schedule properties in favour of plaintiffs and after his death, the plaintiffs acquired the suit schedule properties by way of succession and also Will Deed and since then the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties.

2.3. It is further submitted that defendant No.1 to 3 are no way concern with the suit schedule properties and they never in possession of the suit schedule properties at any point of time and on 02-06-2022, defendant No.1 to 3 tried to interfere into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. That defendants No.1 to 3 colluding with the revenue authorities has changed the entries over the said survey numbers on their names and the revenue authorities has not given any notice to the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of the said Mukkera Rajaiah nor given any intimation to the neighboring land owners and deleted the name of the father 4 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022 of the plaintiff in the possession and pattedar coloumn. That the revenue authorities changed entries over the said survey numbers without following due process of law and not conducted any enquiry as contemplated under

R.O.R Act. That recently plaintiffs came to know that the defendants speedily trying to alienate/sold the suit schedule properties to the third parties without having any right or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

3.The paper publication is filed. No representation on behalf of defendants No.1 and 2, hence they were set exparte. Suit against defendant

No.3 is abated. During exparte evidence, Plaintiff No.1 and 2 got examined themselves as Pws.1 and 2 and also examined Pws.3 to 5 and PW1 got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Heard the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to declare as owner and

possessor of suit schedule property and are entitled for perpetual

injunction, as prayed for?

5.In order to prove their case, Plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is the original unregistered Will Deed

dated 10.12.2018 executed by adopted father of plaintiff No.1 in favour of

plaintiffs No.1 and 2. Ex.A2 is Study Certificate dated 16.07.1988, Ex.A3 is the Record Sheet dated 16.07.1989 and Ex.A4 is the Marriage Card dated 19.03.1998, which shows that the deceased Mukkera Rajaiah is the father of 5 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022 plaintiff No.1. Ex.A5 is the photographs (6). Ex.A6 is the Death Certificate

dated 01.02.2022. Ex.A7 is the online house tax assessment details, shows

that the deceased Mukkera Rajaiah is the owner of the item No.2 house property. Exs.A8 is the dharani pahani of land in Sy.No.1220ఆ, which shows that defendant No.3 is the pattadar of the land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts, Exs.A9 to A11 are the dharani pahanies of lands in Sy.No.1220ఈ, Sy.No.1220ఉ and

Sy.No.1220ఊ respectively shows that the deceased Mukkera Rajaiah is the pattadar in respect of above said survey numbers.

6.The case of the plaintiff No.1 is that she is the adopted daughter of

Mukkera Rajaiah and the said Mukkera Rajaiah executed the will deed under Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the defendants are interfering with their possession over the suit properties and that the defendants colluding with the revenue authorities has changed the entries over the said survey numbers on their names and the revenue authorities has not given any notice to the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of the said

Mukkera Rajaiah nor given any intimation to the neighboring land owners and deleted the name of the father of the plaintiff in the possession and pattedar coloumn.

7.As could be seen from the record, the defendants are set exparte and the Plaintiff No.1 has produced the original unregistered Will Deed under

Ex.A1 and examined the attesting witnesses as Pws.3 to 5, who have corroborated the due execution and attestation of the Will by Mukkera 6 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022

Rajaiah/father of plaintiff No.1. Thus, the Will stands proved as required under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian

Evidence Act. Since the Will is legally proved and there is no rebuttal evidence from the Defendants, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title over the properties covered under the Will excluding the property i.e., land in Sy.No.1220/ఆ to an extent of Ac.0-07 gts, as under Ex.A8/dharani pahani which is got marked by PW1 shows that the name of defendant No.3 as owner in respect of land in Sy.No.1220/ఆ to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts but not Ac.0-07 gts and regarding that property, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove any legal right, title, or connection to the deceased/Mukkera Rajaiah.

Therefore, no relief can be granted in respect of that property. As the

Plaintiffs have also proved their possession over the item No.1 and 2 of properties mentioned in the Will/Ex.A1 except the above said survey number i.e., Sy.No.1220/ఆ and she is entitled for perpetual injunction protecting her possession. The point is answered accordingly.

8.In the result, the suit is partly decreed and that the Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are declared to be the owner and possessor of the suit schedule item No.1 and 2 properties, except the property standing in the name of defendant

No.3 i.e., land in Sy.No.1220/ఆ and that the Defendants are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the Plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties covered under the said Will except the above said property. That the relief sought with respect to the 7 OF 7 OS.NO. 166 of 2022 property standing in the name of defendant No.3 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of June, 2025.

SD/-

F.A.C: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW.1- Kattula Padma @ Mukkera Rajitha -Exparte- PW.2- Kattula Shankara PW.3- Kattula Ramesh PW.4- Chintham Venkataiah PW.5- Kanuganti Thirumal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: Ex.A1 is the original unregistered Will Deed dated 10.12.2018. Ex.A2 is Study Certificate dated 16.07.1988, Ex.A3 is the Record Sheet dated 16.07.1989 Ex.A4 is the Marriage Card dated 19.03.1998, Ex.A5 is the photographs (6). Ex.A6 is the Death Certificate dated 01.02.2022. Ex.A7 is the online house tax assessment details, Ex.A8 is the dharani pahani of land in Sy.No.1220 ఆ Ex.A9 is the dharani pahani of land in Sy.No.1220ఈ Ex.A10 is the dharani pahani of land in Sy.No.1220ఉ Ex.A10 is the dharani pahani of land in Sy.No.1220ఊ

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: -Exparte-

SD/-

F.A.C: PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURABAD.

1 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair )

IN THE COURT OF I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM- I ADDL.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C., AT HUZURABAD.

Present: - Ms. Padma Sai Sree, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I Addl. Judl Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Friday, this the 27th day of June, 2025.

CALENDAR CASE No. 162 of 2015

Between:-

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Saidapur P.S (Cr.No. 12 of 2015). …Complainant.

And

Chinthalapally Saikiran S/o Janardhan Reddy, Age: 19 years, Caste: Reddy, R/o Nagasamudrala village of Koheda mandal. … Sole Accused.

This case has come before me on 24.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. P.Sridhar Babu, Advocate for sole accused and having heard, having perused the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Saidapur filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.12 of 2015 for the offences punishable

U/Sec. 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Sec.181 and 191 of M.V.Act.

2.The brief facts of the case as set out in the charge sheet are that: On 09.02.2015, at about 1300 hours, the defacto-Complainant/ 2 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair ) PW.1/Chandragiri Komuramma came to Saidapur Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that, on the same day at about 1100 hours, she received a phone call from her uncle about the death of his father by name Vallepu Komuraiah, due to road accident, immediately she rushed to the spot and she came to know that her father while going towards Saidapur village from Godishala village on his bicycle, meantime, accused rode his bike B.No.AP-15-R-0053 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to her father, on that her father received severe injuries and died on the spot. Finally, PW.1 requested to take necessary action against the accused.

3.Basing on the above complaint, LW.11 registered a case in

Cr.No. 12 of 2015 for the offences U/Sec. 304-A of IPC and issued FIR.

During the course of investigation, LW.11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence, got photographed the dead body with the help of LW.6, later he observed the scene and drafted crime detail form in the presence of Pws.5 and 6, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panch witnesses/Pws.5 and 6 and subjected the dead body for autopsy, there

LW9 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and there LW11 examined and recorded the statements of

Lws.2 to 4 and 6 and he collected PME report from LW9, in which he opined that the cause of death is due to Homological shock. Later, 3 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair ) LW.11 addressed a letter to the Motor Vehicle Inspector/LW.10, to inspect the crime vehicle and report, in which LW.10 opined that the accident did not occur due to mechanical issue. Subsequently on 20.02.2015, accused along with owner of the vehicle/LW5 came to police station and surrendered before LW.11 and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and further stated that he has not having any valid driving license and insurance to the bike. After completion of the investigation, LW.11 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V.Act.

4.This court took cognizance of the offences punishable

U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.3/181 and 196 of M.V.Act against sole accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of all documents that are relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to him as required U/sec. 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Accused was examined U/Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.3/181 and 196 of M.V.Act and explained substance of accusation in vernacular language for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove it's case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. The learned A.P.P filed memo stating that Lw.3 4 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair ) is paralysed and cannot speak, hence this court closed his evidence and that the learned A.P.P given up the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., Lws.6, 9 to 11 as all the material witnesses including complainant turned hostile, as such this court closed their evidence.

Hence, prosecution evidence is closed.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining to him in Telugu about the incriminatory circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defense evidence. Hence, defence evidence is closed.

8.Heard the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the

Learned Defence Counsel. Perused the entire record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused

for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and

Sec.3/181 and 196 of M.V.Act beyond all reasonable

doubt?

10. POINT:-It is the case of prosecution that, on 09.02.2015 at 1100 hours, PW1 father by name Vallepu Komuraiah went to Saidapur village from Godishala for work on his cycle and when he reached

Chinthalapally Godowns, meantime, accused who rode his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased cycle in opposite 5 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair ) direction, upon which the deceased sustained severe blood injuries on his body and his left leg knee broken and died on the spot and the same was witnessed by LW4. As such, the accused have committed an offences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC and Sec.3/181 and 196 of

M.V.Act.

11.With the above evidence prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The deceased is none other than father of Pw.1 and Pw.1/defacto-complainant has deposed in her chief-examination that at about 10 years ago, on one day she came to know through her husband that her father met with an accident and that she does not know how and where the accident was occurred and who caused the accident. She further deposed that Elkaturthy Police asked her about the relationship with the deceased and obtained her thumb impression on some papers for the purpose of postmortem and on confrontation of report/complaint, she stated that she does not know it’s contents. During cross-examination, she stated that she never went to Saidapur Police Station after this case and police did not examine her. Though, she was the defacto-complainant her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution case, as she resiled from her earlier version as stated in the complaint and in her chief examination she expressed ignorance regarding the place of occurrence and identity of the accused.

6 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair )

12.Coming to the evidences of PW2 who is another daughter of the deceased has deposed that she came to know through some one that her father met with an accident and she does not know how and where the accident occurred and who caused the accident. PW3 who is the owner of crime vehicle and PW4 who is the eye witness deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case and turned hostile and that with permission of the court, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined all the witnesses,

but nothing significant was elicited in their cross-examination except marking their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P1 to P3. Pws.5 and 6 who cited as panch witnesses for inquest panchanama and Crime

Detail Form have deposed in similar lines in their chief-examination that while they were proceeding, police stopped them and obtained their signature on some blank paper and police did not conduct any inquest and CDF in their presence and they identified their signatures on inquest panchanama and CDF and the same were marked as

Exs.P4 to P7 respectively. They further deposed that they did not know the contents of inquest panchanama and CDF. During cross- examination, they denied that police conducted inquest panchanama and Crime detail form in their presence and obtained their signatures.

Absolutely there is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences, and therefore this Court finds the accused not guilty. The point is answered accordingly.

7 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair )

17.In the light of the above discussion, having regarding to the facts and circumstances of the case and careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, Sec. 3/181 and 196 of M.V

Act. Accordingly the accused is entitled for acquittal.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec.304-A IPC, Sec.3/181 and 196 of M.V Act.

Accordingly, accused is acquitted U/Sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused and that of his sureties if any, shall lapse after expiry of the appeal period. The accused is set at liberty. No order to the case property, as there is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27 th day of June, 2025.

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

FOR THE PROSECUTION:- FOR THE DEFENCE

PW-1: Chandragiri Komuramma -None- PW-2: Paidakula Padma PW-3: Chinthalapalli Janardhan PW-4: B.Ramulu PW-5: K.Venkata Swamy PW-6: Mamindla Raju 8 of 8 CC.No. 162 of 2015 ( Fair )

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: - Ex.P-1: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P-2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P-3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P-4: Signature of PW5 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P-5: Signature of PW5 on crime detail form. Ex.P-6: Signature of PW6 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P-7: Signature of PW6 on crime detail form.

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Sd/-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of F.C., Huzurabad.