Smt Pramila Jain

29.04.20261SC.No.155 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda, (Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026)

S.C. No. 155 of 2021

(On committal by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class Spl.Mobile Court at Nalgonda, by order, dated: 09.04.2021 in P.R.C.No.61/2020 in Cr.No.57/2020 of P.S. Thipparthy).

Name of ComplainantThe Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Thipparthy Name of accusedA1. Kodidala Renuka, W/o Mallesh, Age: 26 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mamidala Village of Thipparthy Mandal. A2. Alakuntla Venkatamma, W/o Yellaiah, Age: 46 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mangalapalli Village of Nakrekal Mandal. A3. Alakuntla Yellaiah, S/o Buchaiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mangalapalli Village of Nakrekal Mandal. A4. Alakuntla Dhanamma, W/o Venkanna, Age: 42 years,Occu: Coolie, R/o Nakrekal Village and Mandal. Nature of OffenceU/sec. 306 r/w 34 IPC. Plea of accusedNot guilty Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence /OrderIN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One Saree deposited before this court vide CP.No.6/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Counsel for the Addl. P.P. prosecution Counsel for defenceSri. T.Venkateshwarlu, Advocate 29.04.20262SC.No.155 of 2021

This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and of Sri.

T.Venkateshwarlu Counsel for the accused; and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Thipparthy filed charge-sheet against the Accused for the offenses punishable under

Section 306 r/w 34 IPC in Cr.No.57/2020 of P.S. Thipparthy.

Brief facts of the case of prosecution as stated as follows:- 2. On 27-05-2020 the complainant Smt.Kodidala Premalatha W/o

Suresh came to police station and lodged a Telugu written complaint in which she stated that, her marriage solemnized with one Suresh about 4 years ago, her brother in law marriage was done with one Renuka R/o:

Mangalapalli village of Nakrekal mandal. They all are residing separately in their own house. A family dispute between her and her co-sister

Kodidala Renuka. In the month of April-2020, her co-sister quarreling with her and her husband and in laws i.e., Ravindhar, Laxmamma and beat with slipper by abusing in most filthy language. In this connection they placed the matter before the elders and ask to her as to why abuse to them. Keeping the same in mind, the said Renuka filed a complaint against them in Nakrekal Police station, as such they made phone call to her husband and called to police station. Then, she along with her 29.04.20263SC.No.155 of 2021 husband and in laws went to police station and told the facts to police as per their advise, they went out from the police station and while discussing with said Renuka. Then, the said Renuka, her mother

Venkatamma, father Yellaiah, their relatives Alakuntla Dhanamma,

Alakuntla Parvathamma were beat to her husband and in laws. On 26.05.2020 evening at about 05:00 hrs her husband commit suicide by hanging due to harassement of her co-sister. Hence, the complainant requested to take legal action against aforesaid 5 persons and to do justice.

3.Basing on the contents of above complainant, the LW15 has registered a case vide Cr.No. 57/2020 U/sec 306 r/w 34 IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW15 have prepared and dispatched FIRs to concerned officers as well as Hon’ble court infavour of information, examined and recorded the statement of complainant as LW1 in detail in CD part-II at Police station. Later visited scene of offence i.e., at the house of LW1 vide house bearing no.1-89 situated Mamidala village of Thipparthy mandal, observed the scene minutely, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators viz Lws 11 & 12 and their presence seized hanging rope i.e.,

Saree duly affixing punch chits. Later, rushed to the mortuary of

Dist.Hqrs Hospital, Nalgonda whereas dead body of deceased was kept, observed the body minutely, held inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators viz Lws 11 & 12 and subjected to the body 29.04.20264SC.No.155 of 2021 for PME. Accordingly, LW13 has conducted PME over the dead body of deceased and same was obtained after PME, dead body of deceased has been handed over to the LW1 for last rites. During the inquest, LW15 have examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 7 in detail in CD part-II. On 19-10-2020 served notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C to the SHO,

Nakrekal with request to furnish original petition of Kodidala Renuka

W/o Mallesh at Mangalapalli village of Nakrekal mandal who filed against

Kodidala Suresh and his family members for part of investigation and obtained same. On 20.10.2020 the LW15 has visited Mimadala and

Nakrekal, whereas examined and recorded the statements of Lws 8 to 10 in detail in CD part-II at their respective houses. As per the statements of

Lws 8 to 10, the involvement of the so called accused A5 is not proved, as such LW15 have sent a requisition to the kind SDPO Nalgonda, seeking permission to delete the names of the said so called accused person from the charge sheet and obtained deleation permission from kind SDPO Nalgonda vide Cr.No.548/Proc/SDPO-N/2020, Dated: 27-10- 2020. The accused A1 to A4 arrested and sent to judicial remand on various dates i.e., on 18-09-2020, 23.09.2020, 03.10.2020. Further,

LW15 have addressed a letter to JFCM (Spl Mobile) court at Nalgonda with request to conduct 164 Cr.P.C statement of LW1. Accordingly, LW14 recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of LW1 and obtained court attested copies. After collection of investigation, the LW15 has filed Charge sheet 29.04.20265SC.No.155 of 2021 in the present case.

4.On filing the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class(Spl Mobile Court) Nalgonda took the cognizance of the offence on file under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was taken against the Accused and furnished the copies of case documents to them under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda vide P.R.C. No.61/2020. The Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda made over the case to this court to dispose according

to Law vide SC No.155/2021.

5.On appearance of accused before this Court, charges for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code are framed against them, the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Accused denied the accusations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 and MO-1.

7.After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused A1 to A4 wereexamined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

29.04.20266SC.No.155 of 2021 8.Heard arguments from both side.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offenses punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:

10. In this case prosecution examined PW1 to PW6, marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P10 and MO-1. PW1 is Kodidala Srinu/Circumstantial witness, PW2 is V.Railaiah/Panchayath Elder, PW3 is R.Bixam/Panchayath Elder,

PW4 is S.Venkanna/Panch for scene of offence cum inquest panchanama, PW5 is Dr.K.Krishna Murthy/Conducted PME and furnished report, PW6 is G.Satyanarayana/Investigating Officer & filed the charge sheet. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW2, LW6, LW7, LW10, LW12, LW14. The evidence of LW1, 3, 4 is closed by this court on 11.09.2025 as the prosecution failed to produce witness before the court inspite of several adjournments as well as conditional order in the Crl.MP.No.14 of 2025 which was allowed on 04-09-2025. Ex.P1 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW1, Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P3 is Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is Rough sketch, Ex.P5 is

Inquest panchanama, Ex.P6 is PME report, Ex.P7 is Police report,

Ex.P8 is F.I.R, Ex.P9 is Requisition letter to SDPO, Ex.P10 is 164 29.04.20267SC.No.155 of 2021 statement of LW1. MO-1 is Saree.

11.Upon considering the evidence of PW1, PW1 deposed that,

Deceased(husband of LW1) died at about 6 years back by hanging himself with Saree as the accused A1 filed the case against the deceased with regard to the dispute relating to Joint washroom between them.

Deceased hand himself due to the fear of case filed by A1. The deceased is having one daughter. Police examined and recorded his statement.

12. On considering the evidence of PW2 & PW3/Panchayath elders deposed that, they don’t know anything about this case, they never acted as panchayath elders in the present case. Police did not examined and recorded their statement and turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas the cross of PW2 & PW3 reported nil by the defense counsel.

13. On considering the evidence of PW4/Panch witness deposed that,

At about 6 years back police called PW4 to the house of deceased at about 10:00 AM and conducted the scene of offence panchaama and also drawn rough sketch, PW4 know the contents of the scene of offence panchanama as the Police read over its contents to him and after he signed on it and the Police seized one silk Saree from the scene. Witness identified the Saree before the court, hence marked as MO-1 and the same was deposited vide C.P.No. 6 of 2026. Police also called PW4 to the

Govt.Hospital and conducted the Inquest over the dead body of the 29.04.20268SC.No.155 of 2021 deceased namely Suresh. He has observed the black mark over the neck of the deceased as the deceased committed suicide by hanging with the

Saree. PW4 know the contents of Inquest panchanama and after that he has signed on it. Ex.P5 is Inquest panchanama, dt: 27.05.2020.

14. On considering the evidence of PW5/Medical officer deposed that,

On 27.05.2020 he received a requisition from SHO Thipparthy P.S at about 01:15 PM for conducting autopsy over the dead body of deceased by name Kodadala Suresh, Age: 25 yrs as such he commenced autopsy over the dead body at about 01:30 PM on the same day and found the following injuries: 1). Anti mortem reddish brown ligature mark of 16 cm with a width of 1 cm, obliquely placed infront of the neck and above the level of thyroid cartilage, running upwords and backwards with a gap of 15 cm present over the nape of the neck and outerside of right side of neck, margins are irregular contused and abraded, base of the ligature mark is parchmentised. The underlying soft tissues above and below the ligature mark are contused. The hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage are intact. 2). Therapetic incised wound of size 2cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep present over right axilla. He has concluded autopsy at about 02:30 PM.

The cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is hanging.

Accoridngly PW5 issued PME report.

15. On perusal of evidence of PW6 who is Investigating Officer who investigate the matter and filed the charge sheet in the present case 29.04.20269SC.No.155 of 2021 deposed that, On 27.05.2020 at 09:00 hrs, PW6 received a complaint from PW1, basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No. 57/2020 u/s 306 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR.Later he has recorded the statement of LW1. Later on visited to the scene of offence situated at Mamidala

Village and seized one Saree (MO-1) in the presence of mediators under the cover of scene cum seizure panchanama dated: 27-05-2020(Ex.P3).

PW6 has shifted the dead body to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators. On 19-09- 2020 PW6 has served notices u/s 41 Cr.p.c to the SHO Nakrekal with request to furnish the original petition of Kodidala Renuka who filed the petition Kodidala Suresh and his family for part of investigation and obtained the same. Later on 20.10.2020 he examined the recorded the statement of Lws 8 to 10 from the statements of witnesses the involvment of A5 is not proved as such he has sent a requisition to SDPO and obtained the same vide C.No.548/proc/SDPO-N/2020, Dt: 27-10- 2020 and the said proceedings is marked as Ex.P9.Later on PW6 affected the arrest of the A1 & A2 and produced before the court for judicial custody. Later addressed a letter to LW14 with a request to record the 164 statement of LW1 and accordingly recorded the same and obtained from the court. Ex.P10 is 164 statement of LW1. After collection of PME report and completion of investigation PW6 has filed the charge sheet against the Accused u/s 306 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel PW6 admitted that PW6 don’t 29.04.202610SC.No.155 of 2021 have any idea whether PW6 received any complaint with regard to the dispute occurred between defacto complainant and accused and further denied all the suggestions.

16. As seen from the evidence available in the record, as per the evidence of PW1 deceased died 6 years back by hanging himself with a

Saree as the accused A1 filed the case against the deceased with regard to the disputes relating to the joint washroom between them but whereas as per the prosecution case there is a family disputes between the accused and deceased and in the month of April 2020, the accused A1 quarreled with her and her husband and in laws and beat with slipper by abusing in most filthy language which does not reveal about the disputes relating to the washroom as stated by the PW1. Further as per the evidence of PW1 deceased hanged himself due to the fear of the case filed by A1 but whereas the case of the prosecution after the filing of the complaint by A1 the accused called the deceased and her husband in

Nakrekal police station accordingly they went to the police station and as per police advice they went out from the police station and while discussing with the Accused, the accused, her mother, father/Yellaiah and their relatives Alakuntla Dhanamma, Alakuntla Parvathamma were bet to her husband and in laws which is not stated by the PW1 in his evidence. Moreover prosecution failed to examine the LW1 who is crucial witness in the present case. Further the LW2 who is eye witness in the 29.04.202611SC.No.155 of 2021 present case was died during the pendency of the case. Furthermore the

PW2 & 3 who are the panchayath elders in the present case turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution further, during the course of their cross examination by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor nothing incriminating evidence was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution as such the evidence of PW1 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused between reasonable doubt in absence of any corroborating evidence. Further on considering the evidence of

PW5 which shows that the PW5 conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME which only proves the death of the deceased which is not at all a question before the court. Further on considering the evidence of PW6 who is Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that PW6 visited the scene of offence situated at Mamidala

Village and seized one Saree (MO-1) in the presence of mediators under the cover of scene cum seizure panchanama, dt: 27.05.2020 and the same was deposed by the PW4 who is one of the mediators in the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama which only proves that PW6 visited the scene of offence and seized MO-1 from the scene. Further on considering the evidence of PW6, the PW6 shifted the dead body to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of mediators and the same was deposed by PW4 which again proves that the death of the deceased which is not at all a question

before the court of law. Further except reiterating the averments of the

29.04.202612SC.No.155 of 2021 charge sheet nothing much incriminating evidence is elicited from the evidence of PW6 as such the evidence of PW6 is of nominal importance.

17.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of Accused, hence it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the

Accused A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts. In the absence of any corroborating evidence against Accused A1 to A4, the Accused A1 to A4 cannot be convicted. Hence Accused A1 to A4 are entitled for acquittal.

Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

18.IN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One Saree deposited before this court vide CP.No.6/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda 29.04.202613SC.No.155 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1 is Kodidala Srinu/Circumstantial witness,

PW2 is V.Railaiah/Panchayath Elder,

PW3 is R.Bixam/Panchayath Elder,

PW4 is S.Venkanna/Panch for scene of offence cum inquest panchanama

PW5 is Dr.K.Krishna Murthy/Conducted PME and furnished report,

PW6 is G.Satyanarayana/Investigating Officer & filed the charge sheet.

FOR DEFENCE

-None-

EXHIBITS M ARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P1 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P3 is Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is Rough sketch, Ex.P5 is Inquest panchanama, Ex.P6 is PME report, Ex.P7 is Police report, Ex.P8 is F.I.R, Ex.P9 is Requisition letter to SDPO, Ex.P10 is 164 statement of LW1.

FOR DEFENCE :

MO-1 is Saree

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda 29.04.202614SC.No.155 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NALGONDA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

S.C.No. 155 of 2021

1.Date of offence:26.05.2020

2.Date of complaint:27.05.2020

3.Date of appearance of accused:18.09.2020

4.Committal order: 09.04.2021

5.Date of commencement of trial:26.02.2026

6.Date of closure of trial:16.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment:29.04.2026

8.Explanation if delay if any:--

9.Complainant: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Thipparthy.

10.Accused: A1. Kodidala Renuka, W/o Mallesh, Age: 26 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mamidala Village of Thipparthy Mandal. A2. Alakuntla Venkatamma, W/o Yellaiah, Age: 46 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mangalapalli Village of Nakrekal Mandal. A3. Alakuntla Yellaiah, S/o Buchaiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Coolie, R/o Mangalapalli Village of Nakrekal Mandal. A4. Alakuntla Dhanamma, W/o Venkanna, Age: 42 years, Caste: Waddera, Occu: Coolie, R/o Nakrekal Village and Mandal.

11. Offence: U/sec. 306 r/w 34 of IPC.

12Finding of Court: Found not Guilty

13. Sentence/order:

IN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One Saree deposited before this court vide CP.No.6/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

07.05.20261SC.No.73 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda, (Thursday, this the 07th day of May, 2026)

S.C. No. 73 of 2024

(On committal by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Nalgonda, by Order, dated: 26.06.2024 in P.R.C.No.12/2024 in Cr.No.32/2024 of P.S. Chandur).

Name of Complainant The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Chandur

Name of accusedA-1: Nallavelli Raju S/o Sailu, 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 4-7413, Kanakadurga Nagar, Gattuppal village & mandal, Nalgonda District. A-2: Nallavelli Shanker @ Shankaraiah S/o Sailu, 37 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o. H.No.4-79, Gattupppal village and mandal, Nalgonda Dist. A-3: Nallavelli Krishna S/o Sailu, 44 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3-103, Kanakadurga Nagar, Gattuppal village and mandal, Nalgonda District. Nature of OffenceU/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC. Plea of accusedNot guilty Finding of the CourtNot guilty Sentence /OrderIN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One knife deposited before this court vide CP.No.7/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Counsel for the Addl. P.P. prosecution Counsel for defenceSri. G.Kishore Kumar, Advocate 07.05.20262SC.No.73 of 2024

This case is coming on this day before me for final disposal in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution; and of Sri. Sri. G.Kishore Kumar Counsel for Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Chandur filed charge- sheet against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC in Cr.No.32/2024 of P.S. Chandur.

The Brief facts of the case of prosecution as stated as follows:- 1. On 14.03.2024 at 17:00 hours, the complainant Nuthanaganti

Padma W/o Saidulu came to Police station, Chandur and lodged a

Telugu written petition stating that, Sri.Markendeya Jathara is being celebrating at Theratpally village of Gattuppal Mandal. On that occasion, that on 11.03.2024 she along with her husband Nuthanaganti Saidulu went to Theratpally village for selling toys & bangles. Later on 13.03.2024 at night 12:00 hrs, while her husband playing kai raj kai game meanwhile one Nallavelli Raju S/o Sailu approached him and picked up quarrel with her husband and exchanged heated argument in between them. On observing the same the complainant and his family went into the middle and sent out the alleged accused from that place on the next day i.e., on 14.03.2024 at about 10.00 hrs while her husband is selling toys in their shop at Theratpally village meanwhile one Gujja @ Erra

Suresh called her husband over the phone and informed that to summon 07.05.20263SC.No.73 of 2024 him to Gattuppal for discussing the matter with the Nallavelli Raju on which her husband went to Gujja @ Erra Suresh shop, Gattuppal village at about 01:30 hrs, while her husband discussing the matter with the alleged accused Nallavelli Raju, meanwhile the alleged Nallavelli Raju and his brothers Nallavelli Shankaraiah and Nallavelli Krishna with pre preparation and plan were attacked her husband with an intention to kill him, Nallavelli Shankaraiah stabbed her husband with a chock under his armpit, Nallavelli Raju and Krishna beat her husband with a stick over chest & Jaws indiscriminately. On seeing the same the villagers Pagadala

Raju, Gujja @ Erra Suresh, Pujari Krishna, Vattikoti Naresh, Bola

Shankariah and some others rushed to there and rescued her husband from the clutches of accused and same informed to her over the mobile phones. Immediately the complainant and her family members rushed to the scene of offence situated at Gattuppal village and shifted him to

Govt.Hospital, Nalgonda for medical treatment. Hence, the complainant is requested to take necessary action against the accused whom tried to kill her husband.

2.Basing on the contents of the complaint, the SHO, LW13/U.Suresh,

SI of police Chandur registered a case in Cr.No.32/2024 U/s 307 r/w 34

IPC and dispatched FIRs to all concerned officers duly informing about the incident to superiors and as per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda the LW13 entrusted the investigation to LW10/Gutha 07.05.20264SC.No.73 of 2024

Venkat Reddy, SI of Police, PS Gattuppal. During the course of investigation the LW14 has examined and recorded the statement of complainant at police station, Chandur in detail in part II CD, later visited the scene situated at Akshitha Cool Drinks & General store shop at Gattuppal village and mandal where he caused discreet and detail enquiry about the occurrence of offence and recorded the statements of

Lws 2 & 3 who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence of offence in detail in part-II CDs, secured the Lws 8 & 9 in their presence, conducted scene of offence panchanama, got photographed the scene and all the details have been incorporated in said CDF panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene. Later visited to Govt.Hospital, Nalgonda and observed the injured Nuthankanti Saidulu while he was undergoing treatment and consulted with duty doctor, after taking opinion from duty doctor, he has examined and recorded the statement of injured as LW4 in detail in Part-II CD. On 15.03.2024 at morning at 11.00 hrs, on getting reliable information about the accused A1 to A3, the LW14 along with available force rushed to the house of Nallavelli Raju at Gattuppal village and mandal where apprehended the accused A1 to A3 at 13:00 hours at their home and on interrogation they ready to confess something about the offence, accordingly ha filed a requisition to MPDO, Gattuppal with a request to send two Govt.employess for acting as panch witness on which the Lws 10 & 11 visited Gattuppal village in their presence the LW14 has 07.05.20265SC.No.73 of 2024 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused and seized one knife having 1 feet length and 5 inches wooden wrist and having sharp surface and one Neam stick which is having at about 5 feet length and one inch thick which was used by them at the commission of offence, brought the accused A1 to A3 to police station Chandur at 15:00 hours on 15-03-2024 and effected their arrest duly issuing arrest memos against them following the provisions of Sec.50 & 50-A Cr.P.C and given arrest intimation to their close friend Ganji Venkatesh, further subjected to District Hqrs. Hospital, Nalgonda for medical examination and if any violation marks and obtained certificates. On the same day the accused

A1 to A3 were produced before Hon’ble Magistrate where the magistrate has granted them to judicial remand. Later examined Lws 5 to 7 and after collection of medical certificates and after completion of investigation the LW14 has laid Charge sheet against the accused.

3.On filing the charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nalgonda, Special Mobile Court took the cognizance of the offence on file under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code was taken against the Accused Nalgonda vide P.R.C. No.12/2024. The Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda made over the case to this court to dispose of

according to Law vide S.C No.73/2024.

07.05.20266SC.No.73 of 2024 4.On appearance of accused before this Court, charges for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code are framed against them, the contents of the same were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Accused A1 to A3 denied the accusations leveled against them, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, Pw1 to Pw6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. MO-1 is One Knife.

6.After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C on the incriminating material and circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments from both side.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?”

POINT:

9.In this case prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw6 marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P11, MO-1 in support to their case. PW1 is Nuthanaganti

Padma/Complainant and wife of injured, PW2 is Gujja @ Yerra 07.05.20267SC.No.73 of 2024

Suresh/Eye witness, PW3 is Nuthanaganti Saidulu/Injured, PW4 is

Pagadala Raju/Eye witness, PW5 is Poojari Krishna/Eye witness, PW6 is Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet. The Learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW6 to LW13. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on police report, Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P6 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, Ex.P7 is Police Report, Ex.P8 is FIR, Ex.P9 is Crime details form, Ex.P10 is admission portion of the confession, Ex.P11 is Medical certificate of

PW3. MO-1 is One Knife.

10.On considering the evidence of PW1/complainant and wife of injured, deposed that at about 2 years ago, when PW1 went to Police station on her personal work. Police obtained PW1 signature on white paper, but PW1 do not know the contents of it. Ex.P1 is her signature on the police report, dt: 14.03.2024. Police did not examined and recorded her statement and turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas the cross examination of PW1 reported nil by the defense counsel.

11.On considering the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW5/Eye witness, deposed that they do not know anything about this case. They have not 07.05.20268SC.No.73 of 2024 witnessed anything in this case. Police did not examine and recorded their statement and turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas the cross examination of PW2, PW4 and PW5 reported nil by the defense counsel.

12.On considering the evidence of PW3/injured, PW3 deposed that at about 2 years back when PW3 was selling the toys some unknown person from backside came and hit him, and PW3 can't identify the person who hit him. Police did not examined and recorded her statement and turned hostile and did not supported the case of the prosecution, whereas the cross examination of PW3 reported nil by the defense counsel.

13.On considering the evidence of PW6 who is Investigating Officer who investigate the matter and filed the charge sheet in the present case deposed that, On 14.03.2024 at 17,.00 hours, PW6 received complaint from PW1. Basing on the complaint, PW6 registered a case in Crime

No.32/2024 under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC and issued FIR. Later PW6 recorded statement of PW3 and referred him to Government Hospital,

Nalgonda for treatment and visited scene of offence situated at Sri Laxmi

Wine Shop, Gattuppal and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW8/Yerra Srinivas and LW9/Khammam

Giri and also drawn rough sketch of scene. Ex.P9 is Crime Details Form.

07.05.20269SC.No.73 of 2024

Later PW6 recorded the statements of PW2 and PW4. On 15.03.2024 at about 15.00 hours, while checking the vehicles, three persons coming from Puttapaka village towards Gattuppal by walking. On suspicion, PW6 caught hold the said persons and on enquiry, the said person disclosed that he along with Nallavelli Shankar, Nallavelli Raju and Nallavelli

Krishna stabbed PW3 with knife and beat him with the stick as such,

PW6 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of

LW10 and LW11 and seized knife and the same was produced before the court vide CP No.7/2026 hence, marked as M.O.1. Admission portion of the confession is marked as Ex.P10. Later PW6 brought them to Police station and follow the procedure of arrest and produced them before the court for judicial custody. Later on collected MC of PW3 from LW12. In his opinion the injury received by Pw3 is simple in nature. MC of PW3 is marked Ex.P11. After collection of evidence, PW6 filed the charge sheet against the accused herein. During the course of cross examination by the learned counsel PW6 denied all the suggestions.

14. As seen from the evidence available on the record, it is evident that

PW1/Complainant and wife of injured who set the criminal law into motion by way of filing report before the Police, but PW1 herself turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, moreover the

PW2, PW4 & PW5/Eye witnesses were turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3 who is injured in the present case also 07.05.202610SC.No.73 of 2024 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, during the course of their cross examination by the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor nothing incriminating evidence was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution.

15. Further on considering the evidence of PW6 the Investigating Officer deposed that PW6 registered the case and examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and referred PW3 to Government Hospital,

Nalgonda for treatment, later visited scene of offence situated at Sri

Laxmi Wine Shop, Gattuppal and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators i.e., LW8/Yerra Srinivas and

LW9/Khammam Giri and also drawn rough sketch of scene, but the prosecution failed to examine LW8 & 9 as such the prosecution failed to prove that the PW6 visited to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama, drawn of rough sketch in the presence of panchas. Further on considering the evidence of PW6, on 15.03.2024 at about 15.00 hours, PW6 caught hold the accused A1 to A3 while vehicle checking and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized M.O.1 in the presence of LW10 and LW11, but the prosecution failed to examine LW10 & 11 as such the prosecution failed to prove the confession of Accused A1 to A3 and seizure of MO-1 in the presence of panchas. Further except reiterating the averments of the charge sheet nothing much incriminating evidence is elicited from 07.05.202611SC.No.73 of 2024 evidence of PW6 as such the evidence of PW6 is of nominal importance.

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence to bring home the guilt of Accused persons, hence it can be said that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges U/s 307 r/w 34 of IPC against Accused A1 to A3 beyond all reasonable doubts. In the absence of any corroborating evidence against Accused A1 to A3, the Accused A1 to A3 cannot be convicted. Hence the Accused A1 to A3 are entitled for acquittal.

Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

17. IN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One knife deposited before this court vide CP.No.7/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda 07.05.202612SC.No.73 of 2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1 is Nuthanaganti Padma/Complainant and wife of injured, PW2 is Gujja @ Yerra Suresh/Eye witness, PW3 is Nuthanaganti Saidulu/Injured, PW4 is Pagadala Raju/Eye witness, PW5 is Poojari Krishna/Eye witness, PW6 is Investigating Officer and filed charge sheet.

FOR DEFENCE -None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: -

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on police report, Ex.P2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1, Ex.P3 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2, Ex.P4 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, Ex.P5 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4, Ex.P6 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5, Ex.P7 is Police Report, Ex.P8 is FIR, Ex.P9 is Crime details form, Ex.P10 is admission portion of the confession, Ex.P11 is Medical certificate of PW3.

FOR DEFENCE :

MO-1:- One Knife

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda 07.05.202613SC.No.73 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NALGONDA.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

S.C.No. 73 of 2024

1.Date of offence:14.03.2024

2.Date of complaint:14.03.2024

3.Date of appearance of accused:15.03.2024

4.Committal order:26.06.2024

5.Date of commencement of trial:26.02.2026

6.Date of closure of trial:23.04.2026

7.Date of Judgment:07.05.2026

8.Explanation if delay if any:--

9.Complainant: The State of Telangana through Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandur.

10.Accused: A-1: Nallavelli Raju S/o Sailu, 38 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. 4- 7413, Kanakadurga Nagar, Gattuppal village & mandal, Nalgonda District.

11.A-2: Nallavelli Shanker @ Shankaraiah S/o Sailu, 37 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o. H.No.4-79, Gattupppal village and mandal, Nalgonda Dist.

12.A-3: Nallavelli Krishna S/o Sailu, 44 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 3-103, Kanakadurga Nagar, Gattuppal village and mandal, Nalgonda District..

13. Offence: U/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC 12Finding of Court: Found not Guilty

13. Sentence/order:

14. IN THE RESULT, Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and as such, they are acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. The case property MO-1 i.e., One knife deposited before this court vide CP.No.7/2026 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Sd/-

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Nalgonda

17.04.2026 1 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALGUDA

Dated this the 17th day of April, 2026

PRESENT: Dr. Pramila Jain

Additional Senior Civil Judge

Nalgonda FAC: Senior Civil Judge Miryalguda

H.M.O.P. No. 126 OF 2025

Between:-

Smt. Bhonagiri @ Kokku Sridevi W/o Venkateshwarlu D/o Late Mattapalli, aged: 50 years, Occu: House wife, R/o H.No.06-99 Shabu Nagar, Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda district. …. Petitioner AND Kokku Venkateshwarlu S/o Bixamaiah, aged: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o Thadakamalla village, Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District. …. Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ashok Rathod, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent set exparte, having heard and considered the record, this court pronounced the following:

: O R D E R :

1.The petitioner filed this petition under Section 13 (1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu

Marriage Act to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage dated 28.05.1993 between the Petitioner and Respondent in the interest of justice.

The brief averments of the petition are:-

That the marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed on 28.05.1993 at petitioner’s home at Miryalaguda town and Mandal, Nalgonda 17.04.2026 2 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025

District as per the customs, rites and traditions that are prevailed in their community of Hindu Religion, at the time of marriage the parents of petitioner given an amount of Rs.50,000/- in net cash to the respondent as dowry, half tulas of gold ornament house hold articles worth of Rs.50,000/- to the

Respondent. After marriage the petitioner joined into the conjugal society of respondent and both lead their happy marital life for a period of 3 years only, later the respondent addicted bad habits like drinking alcohol, betting games, and came to the house at late nights and harassed her for additional dowry, the petitioner advised him abandon bad habits and lead happy marital life for the future and stated with him that her parents unable to provide additional dowry, but he did not understand her love and affection and tortured her physically and mentally and also suspected her character. The petitioner with patience bear all the harassments of respondent and his family members for the future and grid her eye grief, even though he did not understand her love and affection. That the petitioner narrated the matter to the respondent family members, the family members of respondent also supported his bad habits and harassed her for

additional dowry. The respondent and his family members harassed the

petitioner physically and mentally for additional dowry, he warned to her that if she failed to bring additional dowry from her parents house, he will marry another lady for additional dowry, the respondent family members also supported his demand of illegal additional dowry and they also harassed her physically and mentally. Due to said reasons the respondent oftenly raised quarrels with the petitioner for additional dowry and tortured her physically and mentally, one day he raised quarrels with petitioner and beaten her indiscriminately and forcefully obtained her gold ornaments from her neck and necked out her and without mercy form his residential house in the year 1996, then she went to her parents house and since then she residing with her parents.

17.04.2026 3 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025

Later the respondent came to the petitioner parents house and abused her and her family members with filthy language and beat them with hands.

3. That the parents of the petitioner held panchayath before the elders, after hearing of both sides the elders found the fault of respondent and they suggested to him and to his family members look her good with love and affection and not harass her for additional dowry and also not threatened her and not to suspect her character, in that panchayath the respondent and his family members promised that they did not harass her for additional and he will change his behavior and not go to betting and also not receive alcohol in the presence of elders, the elders believed the respondent words on the advice of elders and her family members the petitioner went to the respondent house for lead her marital life. There the petitioner was lead happy marital life with respondent for a period of two months only, later again the respondent and his family members started their harassment for additional dowry and harassed her physically and mentally. That the respondent harassed the petitioner with filthy language and beaten her with indiscriminately and again necked out her in the year 1997 from respondent house. There is no other alternative way, she went to her parents house. Later the petitioner held panchayat before the elders and narrated the matter to them, the elders given many opportunities for reunion and he will change his attitude, but there is no change in his behavior and increased day by day harassment for additional dowry, the elders stated with her that he will not change his behavior to approach the police station Miryalaguda rural or Hon'ble court for proper remedy, there is no other alternative way to her, she lodged a complaint against the respondent, on complaint the concern police while giving the complaint to police steps the respondent and their elders present and requested the police officials for need of time then after the elders held panchayath on 12-12-1997 and resolved the problems between petitioner and 17.04.2026 4 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025 respondent on the day both are agreed to take divorce and singed the divorce paper on white paper and both are leaving separately 27 years now at present in the month of August the respondent started harassing the petitioner that respondent will join the matrimonial life and respondent is also blaming the petitioner in publicly with regarding to matrimonial life. That the petitioner came to know that the at that time i.e., 1996 respondent is having illegal contacts with one lady, the said factum was well known to the family members of respondent, even though they are supporting him and his illegal activities, the respondent intentionally deserted the petitioner lonely. At that time of village elder panchayath i.e on 12-12-1997 respondent never cared the words of petitioner, she waited with a fond hope that the respondent and his family members would change their behavior, but the Respondent and his family members increased their harassment by behaving cruelty. The petitioner family members are not in position to give additional dowry and unable maintain her they are not in position to spent for medicine and her welfare, they are old aged persons, they are suffering with old age ailments. Since then the petitioner and

Respondent both are living separately from their matrimonial life for the last more than 27 years. Hence, this petition.

4.After receiving notice, the respondent appeared on 28.10.2025 and the matter is coming for filing vakalath and counter, inspite of conditional order, the respondent did not choose to appear before the court and there is no representation on his behalf. Hence, he was set exparte on 23.02.2026.

5. The petitioner herself examined as PW1 and one Raparthy Jangamma examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 through PW1. Ex.P1 Wedding

Card, Ex.P2 Marriage photo.

17.04.2026 5 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

7.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled to decree of divorce by dissolving her marriage with the respondent, as prayed for?”

POINT:-

8. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner got marriage with the respondent on 28.05.1993 at petitioner’s home at Miryalaguda town and

Mandal, Nalgonda District as per the customs, rites and traditions that are prevailed in their community of Hindu Religion. Ex.P1 & P2 which proves that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband.

9. The main contention of the petitioner is that after marriage the petitioner joined into the conjugal society of respondent and both lead their happy marital life for a period of 3 years only, later the respondent addicted bad habits like drinking alcohol, betting games, and came to the house at late nights and harassed her for additional dowry and tortured her physically and mentally and also suspected her character. The petitioner with patience bear all the harassments of respondent and his family members. One day he raised quarrels with petitioner and beaten her indiscriminately and forcefully obtained her gold ornaments from her neck and necked out her and without mercy form his residential house in the year 1996. Later the respondent came to the petitioner parents house and abused her and her family members with filthy language and beat them with hands. That the parents of the petitioner held panchayath before 17.04.2026 6 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025 the elders, in that panchayath though respondent and his family members promised that they did not harass her for additional and he will change his behavior and not go to betting and also not receive alcohol in the presence of elders, but after two months again the respondent and his family members started their harassment for additional dowry and harassed her physically and mentally and beaten her with indiscriminately and again necked out her in the year 1997 from respondent house. Later on 12-12-1997 elders held panchayath and resolved the problems between petitioner and respondent on the day both are agreed to take divorce and singed the divorce paper on white paper and both are leaving separately 27 years, now at present in the month of August the respondent started harassing the petitioner that respondent will join the matrimonial life and respondent is also blaming the petitioner in publicly with regarding to matrimonial life.

10. Further the petitioner also got examined PW2 who is a third party in the present case, PW2 also supported the version of petitioner but the respondent even failed to appear before the court and cross examine PW.1 and PW2 in order to disprove all the allegations as alleged by the petitioner against respondent. The evidence of PW2 is corroborating with the version of PW1.

The Respondent though received summons, failed to appear before the Court and failed to file counter, hence he was set ex-parte. As such, it appears that the

Respondent is admitting the case of the petitioner as the evidence of PW1 and

PW2 is unchallenged and is believable. I hold this point in favour of the petitioner.

11. In order to grant the relief of divorce for the petitioner, the petitioner has to prove her allegation with cogent and convincing evidence, here in the present 17.04.2026 7 of 7 HMOP No.126/2025 case the petitioner examined PW1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 to prove the same, as such there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence

before the court to prove all the allegations alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the

petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

12. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner performed with the respondent on 28.05.1993 from the date of this order. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NALGONDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: Bhonagiri @ Kokku Sridevi -None- PW2: Raparthy Jangamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: Wedding Card-Nil- Ex.P2: Marriage photo

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NALGONDA

FAC: SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE:

AT NALGONDA

Present: Dr.Pramila Jain,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda

(Friday, this the 24th day of April, 2026)

O.S. No. 178 of 2025

(Old O.S.No.25 of 2017)

BETWEEN:

1. Narabothula Venkateshwam S/o Narsimha, Age: 48 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Regatte village, Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda District.

… Plaintiff

AND

1. Kadari Peddulu S/o Ramulu, Age: 65 years,

2. Kadari Yadaiah S/o Ramulu, Age: 44 years,

3. Kadari Pullaiah S/o Maisaiah, Age: 77 years,

All are agriculturists and R/o: Regatte village, Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda District. … Defendants

The suit coming before me on 15-04-2026 for hearing and for disposal in the presence of Sri.Palreddy Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.G.Venkata Ramana Reddy, Advocate for defendants having stood over for consideration, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff under order VII Rule 1 & 2 R/w

Sec.26 of CPC against the defendants for grant of Perpetual Injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents, henchmen, legal heirs and relatives from causing interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

1

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

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

It is submitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.1-19 gts in Sy.no.1156,

Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.no. 1154 and Ac.0.07 gts in Sy.no. 1169 of Regatte village of Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda District which is clearly shown in the plaint schedule and herein after called as suit schedule property. It is submitted that the Revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed infavour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the land in Sy.no.1169 admeasuring Ac.0-7 gts was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants through registered sale deed bearing no.11225 of 2013.

3.It is submitted that the defendants having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants are obstructing the plaintiff from cultivating the said land and the defendants also creating boundary dispute in Sy.no. 1169. The Mandal

Surveyor of Kanagal mandal had surveyed the land and according to tippon and conducted a panchanama before the punches on 08.12.2016. Even after conducting of the said panchanama by Mandal

Surveyor, the defendants did not change their attitude towards the plaintiff and creating problem to him. On 12.01.2017 the defendants 2

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

along with their family members came to the suit schedule property and tried to stop the agricultural operations taken up by the plaintiff.

However the plaintiff with the help of adjacent land owners protected his possession over the suit schedule property. It is submitted that the defendants may once again try to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in future and in that event the plaintiff may not be in a position to protect his possession over suit schedule property. Thus the plaintiff is compelled to approach the Hon’ble court seeking the relief of the perpetual injunction. Hence, the petition.

4.On receipt of summons the counsel for Defendant no.1 filed written statement and also filed adoption memo on behalf of defendant no.2 and 3 by contending that the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. It suffers from the defect of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi and as such it is liable to be dismissed in limine without any consideration. The plaintiff did not approach the Hon’ble court with clean hands and as such he is not entitled for the equitale relief of injunction. The plaintiff was or is never in possession of the suit schedule property within the boundaries mentioned therein at any point of time. Further denied all the contents laid in the petition and further contended that the plaintiff is never in possession of the land measuring Ac.0-07 gts in Sy.no. 1169 within the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed, basing on 3

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

the said registered sale deed, the plaintiff is trying to encroach the lands in Sy.no. 1168 and to close the water channel, which flows from

Jelalpeta tank to Regatte tank.

5.Further contended that no panchanama was conducted by mandal surveyor in collusion with the plaintiff and the defendants along with their family members never tried to stop the agricultural operations of the plaintiff as such the question of protection of his possession over the suit land does not arise at all and that the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit and the alleged date of cause of action is fictitious and invented for the purpose of this suit. Further contended that the defendants have got the agricultural lands in Sy.no. 1169 apart from other lands situated at Regatte village of Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda

District. The plaintiff has got the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.1- 19 gts in Sy.no. 1156 and Ac.1-02 gts in Sy.no.1154 situated at Regatte village of Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda District towards northern side of one Kadari Chandraiah’s land. There is a water channel in between the land in Sy.no.1168, 1169 and passing from Jilalpeta tank to Regatte tank, which flows north to south. The plaintiff, defendants and others are using the said water channel as a way to drive their cattle to reach their lands in summer season only. Taking undue advantage of patta in the land in Sy.no. 1169, the plaintiff is trying to close the water channel and make a road in order to go his lands in Sy.no. 1154 and 1156 4

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

though he has got a separate way to reach his lands. Even though the plaintiff is trying to distribute the water channel in order to cause loss and harm to the defendants and other farmers. If the plaintiff closes the water channel, the water flow passing over the lands of the defendants and other farmers and it would be damage to the standing crop of the defendants and other farmers. The defendants and other farmers have got bore wells in their lands and if the water channel was closed, the bore walls of the defendants and other farmers would be dried up.

Taking undue of registered sale deed in land in Sy.no. 1169, the plaintiff is trying to encroach the land in Sy.no. 1168 and to close the water channel and caused damage to the defendants and other farmers. The land in Sy.no.1154 and 1156 are contiguous one and they are separated from the land in Sy.no. 1169, but the plaintiff had wrongly mentioned in the plaint that the lands in Sy.nos 1154, 1156 and 1169 are contiguous one. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the equitable relief of injunction and it is liable to be dismissed without any consideration.

6. During the course of trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of defendants no one was examined and no documents were marked.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

8.On the basis of above pleadings the following issues are framed for settlement of Trial.

1). Whether the plaintiff is in the possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property or not ?

2). Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Perpetual

Injunction with respect to suit schedule property or not ?

3). To What Relief ?

Issue no. 1 & 2.

9. In order to prove the contention, the Plaintiff filed chief affidavit of

PW1 and reiterated the averments of plaint and got marked Ex. A1 to

A5. Ex.A1 is Original Pattadar Passbook no.88362 issued by Thasildar,

Kanagal, Ex.A2 is C.C of Registered sale deed no.11225 of 2013, Ex.A3 is Meeseva copy of R.O.R I.B certificate, dated: 17.12.2016, Ex.A4 is

Pahanies for the year 2015 and 2016, dated: 21.01.2017, Ex.A5 is

Panchanama issued by Mandal Surveyor, Kanagal, dated: 08.02.2016.

10.The Contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of Agriculture land admeasuring Ac.1-19 gts in

Sy.no.1156, Ac.1.02 gts in Sy.no. 1154 and Ac.0.07 gts in Sy.no. 1169 of Regatte village of Kanagal mandal, Nalgonda District and Revenue authorities have issued pattadar passbook and title deed infavour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. That the land in

Sy.no.1169 admeasuring Ac.0-7 gts was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendants through registered sale deed bearing no.11225 of 2013. 6

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

That the defendants having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and obstructing the plaintiff from cultivating the said land and the defendants also creating boundary dispute in Sy.no. 1169. Even after conducting of the panchanama by

Mandal Surveyor, the defendants did not change their attitude towards the plaintiff and tried to stop the agricultural operations taken up by the plaintiff. Further the defendants filed the written statement before the court, but the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to prove the same as defendant failed to cross examine the PW1. As seen on record and coupled with the documents Ex.A1 to A5 proves that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit as the evidence of the PW1 and documents

Ex.A1 to A5 remained unchallenged by the defendants by way of leading their evidence. Hence in view of above discussed circumstances the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered infavour of the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.3:-

12.In view of the above discussions and findings given under issue no.1 & 2, this point is also decided in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the

Issue no.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

7

OS No. 178 of 2025 Perpetual Injunction Dt: 24-04-2026.

COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT NALGONDA

13.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs.

(Typed by Stenographer Grade-III, to my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 24th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

PW-1 Narabothula Venkateshwam

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

--Nil--

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 is Original Pattadar Passbook no.88362 issued by Thasildar,

Kanagal,

Ex.A2 is C.C of Registered sale deed no.11225 of 2013,

Ex.A3 is Meeseva copy of R.O.R I.B certificate, dated: 17.12.2016,

Ex.A4 is Pahanies for the year 2015 and 2016, dated: 21.01.2017,

Ex.A5 is Panchanama issued by Mandal Surveyor, Kanagal, dated:

08.02.2016.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Sd/-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NALGONDA

8

Page 1 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT NALGONDA

Present:- Dr. Pramila Jain,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda.

(Wednesday, this the 29th day of April, 2026)

H.M.O.P No. 50 of 2025

Between:

Miryala Sreelatha W/o Thiramdas Sravan Kumar, D/o: Miryala Narsimha, Age: 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.6-166/F, Munugode Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

...Petitioner

AND

Thiramdas Sravan Kumar S/o Yadagiri, Age: 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o: H.No.19-128, Muthireddy Kunta Colony, Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District.

...Respondent

This petition is coming before me on 22-04-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Gali Srinivas, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri.Kurra Yadagiri, Advocate for Respondent having been heard and stood over for consideration till to-day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. The petitioner filed this petition under Section 13 (1)(ia) (ib) of

Hindu Marriage Act to grant divorce by dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent held on 22.02.2019 in the interest of justice.

2. The brief averments of the petition are:-

It is submitted by the petitioner that the Petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the Respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 22- 02-2019 at Sri Laxminarsimha Temple, Pathagutta, Yadagirigutta Town

Page 2 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, as per the Hindu Rites and customs prevaild in Padmashali Community. The said Marriage is an arranged marriage. Immediately after marriage the petitioner joined the company of Respondent at Miryalaguda Town, Nalgonda District, at the time of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000-00 cash, 5 tulas of gold, 10 tulas of silver to the Respondent and his family members as dowry on their demand and also presented house hold articles. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived together happily as wife and husband at Miryalaguda Town for only 6 months, but they were not blessed with children, later some disputes arose between the couple and they could not pull together as wife and husband because of their indifferent temperaments. Thereafter, the

Respondent and his brothers started demanding the Petitioner to bring

additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Since there was no

source, the petitioner and her parents could not satisfy the demand of the Respondent and his brothers. As such they started to harass the petitioner both mentally and physically, day by day the harassment has been increased which was unbearable by the petitioner. The harassment of the respondent and his brothers against the petitioner is for payment of debts to be cleared by the respondent who spent the said debt amount for his lavish enjoyment i.e., Consumption of Alcohol, Cigarette

Smoking, moving with unknown ladies. While so, she along with her

Page 3 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 parents placed the matter before the elders, who pacified the matter and advised the respondent and his brothers not to harass the petitioner and sent the petitioner to the house of the Respondent, inspite of that, the respondent and his brothers again used to abuse the petitioner with dire consequences and the respondent was under the influence of his brothers used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately and at last she was driven out her from their house in the first week of November, 2020 by threatening her she shall not return back unless she brings additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- meanwhile, the respondent also absconded without clearing debts and as such the petitioner was harassed by the persons who gave debt to the respondent. As such the petitioner had no other go except to live with her parents at Munugode village and Mandal from that date. On the other hand, the respondent started creating troubles in the peaceful life of the petitioner, with the aid of his brothers

Prasad and Kishore. Thus, the respondent had not only subjected the petitioner to severe cruelty but also wantonly deserted the petitioner by the respondent continuously from November 2020 onwards till today.

There is no hope that the conduct of the Respondent will be changed and that there is no scope of peaceful life for this petitioner to lead happy marital life with the Respondent and on the other hand, there is every danger to the life of the petitioner in his hands if the marriage tie

Page 4 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 is still in force. Therefore, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition seeking divorce from him.

4.Notice was served on the respondent, Vakalath filed by Sri.Kurra

Yadagiri and reported no counter.

5.The present HMOP was made over to this court from the court of

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda on 11-07-2025.

6.The petitioner herself examined as PW1 and one

G.Sathyanarayana examined as PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 & P2 through PW1. Ex.P1 Marriage Wedding card, Ex.P2 is Marriage photo.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

8. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce by

dissolving her marriage with the respondent, as prayed for?”

POINT:- 9.The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner got arranged married with the respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 22- 02-2019 at Sri Laxminarsimha Temple, Pathagutta, Yadagirigutta Town and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District, as per the Hindu Rites and customs prevaild in Padmashali Community. The Ex.P1 & P2 proves that the petitioner and respondent are legally wedded wife and husband.

Page 5 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025

10.The further contention of the petitioner is that after marriage the petitioner joined the company of Respondent at Miryalaguda Town,

Nalgonda District, at the time of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner gave Rs.1,00,000-00 cash, 5 tulas of gold, 10 tulas of silver to the Respondent and his family members as dowry on their demand and also presented house hold articles. After the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent lived together happily as wife and husband at

Miryalaguda Town for only 6 months, but they were not blessed with children, later some disputes arose between the couple and they could not pull together as wife and husband because of their indifferent temperaments. Thereafter, the Respondent and his brothers started demanding the Petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents. Since there was no source, the petitioner and her parents could not satisfy the demand of the Respondent and his brothers. As such they started to harass the petitioner both mentally and physically, day by day the harassment has been increased which was unbearable by the petitioner and respondent who spent the said debt amount for his lavish enjoyment i.e., Consumption of Alcohol,

Cigarette Smoking, moving with unknown ladies. While so, she along with her parents placed the matter before the elders, who pacified the matter and advised the respondent and his brothers not to harass the petitioner and sent the petitioner to the house of the Respondent, inspite

Page 6 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 of that, the respondent and his brothers again used to abuse the petitioner with dire consequences and the respondent was under the influence of his brothers used to beat the petitioner indiscriminately and at last she was driven out her from their house in the first week of

November, 2020 by threatening her she shall not return back unless she brings additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- meanwhile, the respondent also absconded without clearing debts and as such the petitioner was harassed by the persons who gave debt to the respondent. As such the petitioner had no other go except to live with her parents at Munugode village and Mandal from that date. On the other hand, the respondent started creating troubles in the peaceful life of the petitioner, with the aid of his brothers Prasad and Kishore. Thus, the respondent had not only subjected the petitioner to severe cruelty but also wantonly deserted the petitioner by the respondent continuously from November 2020 onwards till today. There is no hope that the conduct of the

Respondent will be changed and that there is no scope of peaceful life for this petitioner to lead happy marital life with the Respondent and on the other hand, there is every danger to the life of the petitioner in his hands if the marriage tie is still in force, but the respondent failed to disprove all the allegations alleged by the petitioner by way of cross examination as the respondent neither filed counter nor contested the matter even after giving sufficient time.

Page 7 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 11.Further the petitioner also got examined PW2 who is a maternal father in law of petitioner, PW2 also supported the version of the petitioner, but the respondent even failed to appear before the court and cross examine PW2 in order to disprove all the allegations as alleged by the petitioner against respondent. The evidence of PW2 is corroborating with the version of PW1. Though the Respondent received summons, she neither filed counter nor contested the matter even after giving sufficient time. As such, it appears that the Respondent is admitting the case of the petitioner as the evidence of PW1 and PW2 is unchallenged and is believable. I hold this point infavour of the petitioner.

12.In order to grant the relief of divorce for the petitioner, the petitioner has to prove that there was physical and mental torture by the respondent. It is for the petitioner to prove his allegation with cogent and convincing evidence, here in the present case the petitioner examined

PW1 & PW2 and got marked Ex.P1 & P2 to prove the same, as such there is sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the court to prove all the allegations alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for the relief as prayed for. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly.

Page 8 of 8 29.04.2026 HMOP No.50/2025 13. IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of the Petitioner performed with the

Respondent on 22.02.2019 from the date of this order. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NALGONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

PW1: Miryala Sreelatha-None- PW2: G.Sathyanarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Petitioner: For Respondent:

Ex.P1 Marriage Wedding card, -Nil- Ex.P2 is Marriage photo,

Sd/-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

NALGONDA