Page No. 1 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS
JUDGE :: AT :: GODAVARIKHANI.
PRESENT: Sri R.Raj Kumar,
Senior Civil Judge-cum-
Assistant Sessions Judge,
Godavarikhani.
Tuesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2024.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 276 OF 20 16
1.Name & description of the: The State through Inspector of Police, P.S., Godavarikhani ComplainantII town (Cr.No.210/2015)
2.Name & description of the: A1. Keerthi Nagaraju, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 32 years, Mera, accusedR/o. New Maredupaka.
A2. Keerthi Pochaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 70 years, Mera, R/o. New Maredupaka (died).
A3. Keerthi Vajramma, W/o. Pochaiah, Age:65 years, Mera, R/o. New Maredupaka.
A4. Rekala Padma, W/o. Rajesham, Age: 35 years, Mera, R/o. Rompikunta (v) now at MC quarters, 8 Incline Colony.
A5. Kataram Rajeshwary @ Laxmi, W/o. Srinivas, Age: 30 years, Mera, R/o. Chandanapur (v) Kamanpur Mandal.
Note: The case against A2 was abated on account of his death.
...Accused No.1 to 5
3.Crime No.: 210 of 2015
4.Offence with which : Under Sections 498-A, 306 R/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code charged
5.P.R.C. No.: 2 of 2016 of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani
6.Plea of the accused: Not Guilty
7.Finding of the Judge: Not Guilty
8.Sentence or Order: In the result, A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/s 235 (1)
Page No. 2 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. MO-1 and MO-2 which are non valuable property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
9.Prosecution conducted by : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
10. Accused defended by: Sri G.Bhoomaiah and Md.Shanawaz Khan, Advocates
This case coming before me for disposal on 23.04.2024 in the presence of learnedAdditional Public Prosecutorand Sri G.Bhoomaiah, Advocate for A1 and Sri. Md.Shanawaz Khan, Advocate for A3 to A5, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. The Inspector of police of PS Godavarikhani II town has filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 in the Court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Godavarikhani for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in Cr.No.210 of 2015 of P.S Godavarikhani II town.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that PW1 is the resident of
Bellampally and doing gumasta work at steel shop. The deceased is daughter of
PW1. A1 is the husband of deceased, A2 and A3 are in-laws of deceased and A4 to A6 are sister-in-laws of deceased and the marriage of the deceased was solemnized with A1 about 6 years ago and they lived happily for a period of 5 years. Thereafter, A1 to A6 harassed the deceased physically and mentally for not begetting children, due to their unbearable harassment the deceased got vexed over her life on 29.11.2015 in between 1730 hours to 1830 hours the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene in front of her house at New Maredupaka village and set fire and died while undergoing treatment on 30.11.2015 at 3:40
AM at District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar. At the time of burning of
Page No. 3 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 deceased, A1 stopped flames due to which A1 received burning injuries to his left and right hands and also received burning injuries to his right side cheek. Later,
A1 admitted in Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar and got treatment. Thus, A1 to A5 committed offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
3.The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC against
A1 to A5 following committal procedure, committed A1 to A5 to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar along with case records vide PRC.No.2/2016. The
Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar took cognizance of the offences against A1
to A5 and made over the case to Court of Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant
Sessions Judge, Peddapalli for disposal according to law and later to this Court
on the point of jurisdiction after establishment of this Court.
4. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this
Court framed the charge for the offences u/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC against
A1 to A5, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and reported the closure of evidence.
6.After completion of the prosecution evidence, A1, A3 to A5 was examined
Page No. 4 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 u/s.313 Cr.P.C for the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides.
8.Now the point for determination is:
Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the A1, A3 to
A5 for the offences punishable u/Sec.498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
POINT:
9.It is the case of the prosecution in nutshell is that A1 to A6 harassed the deceased physically and mentally for not begetting children’s and due to their unbearable harassment the deceased got vexed over her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set fire and died while undergoing treatment on 30.11.2015 at 0340 hours at Government Head Quarters, Hospital, Karimnagar.
As such, A1 to A5 committed the charged offences.
10.PW1 who is defacto complainant and father of deceased in this case deposed in his evidence that about 10 years ago the marriage of her daughter/deceased was performed with A1 and at the time of marriage they presented Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) cash as dowry to the accused.
After marriage his daughter/deceased joined the matrimonial society of A1 at her in laws house. They lived happily for 4 years and subsequently all the accused persons started harassing her mentally and physically demanding additional
Page No. 5 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 dowry as she was not blessed with any issues. He deposed that her daughter informed about harassment meted out to her and came to his house and he convinced her pacified and sent to her in-laws house, on 29.11.2015 at about 5:30 PM he received the phone call from unknown persons that her daughter was in a serious condition and admitted in area hospital, Godavarikhani and on that information he along with his family members rushed to the hospital and there it was informed to them that her daughter was shifted to Karimnagar Government
Hospital for better treatment . He also deposed that her daughter succumbed to the injuries on next day morning while undergoing treatment. He also deposed that her daughter doused herself by pouring Kerosene and set herself ablaze unable to bear harassment from the accused. As such she lodged report and police examined and recorded his statement.
11.PW1 deposed in his cross examination that he cannot write Telugu and
Ex.P1 was not scribed by him. He lodged report at 11:00 AM on 30th and he along with one friend by name Krishna went to police station for lodging report.
He deposed that he does not remember whether he subscribed his signature on the first page of Ex.P1 and he cannot recollect whether his report was received by
Sub-Inspector of Police or Circle Inspector of Police. He admitted that after some years after marriage his daughter and A1 lived happily. He also admitted that prior to the alleged incident in this case he never lodged any report with the police regarding the harassment by the accused and that no panchayat was held prior to alleged incident in this case. He deposed that A1 took the deceased to hospital for not getting conceived. PW1 admitted that he does not know the
Page No. 6 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 actual incident which occurred prior to the committing of suicide by the deceased. He also admitted that A1 and while trying to rescue deceased A1 sustained burn injuries to his hands. He further admitted that post marriage and till the occurrence of incident A1 and deceased lived happily. PW1 also deposed in her cross examination that he does not know whether A2 and A3 lived separately near the house of A1 prior to the marriage of A1. He deposed that A4 and A5 were living separately prior to the marriage of A1 and they were living separately at the time of occurrence of alleged incident. He also deposed that he did not lodge any report against A2 to A5 prior to the alleged incident in this case. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
12.PW2 who is sister of the deceased and elder daughter of the PW1 deposed in her evidence that the marriage of the deceased was performed six years prior to her death of deceased and after the marriage the accused persons harassed her sister stating that she is not begetting children and due to their unbearable harassment on 29.11.2015 at about 4:00 PM she committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. She deposed that on the date of committing suicide i.e., prior to committing suicide by the deceased a galata took place between accused and deceased. She deposed that after pouring kerosene upon herself her sister was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Godavarikhani and from there shifted to Karimnagar Government Hospital and while undergoing treatment she succumbed to burn injuries. She further deposed that a case was registered in that regard and police examined her and recorded her statement in
Page No. 7 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 this case.
13.PW2 deposed in her cross examination that the neighbors of deceased informed her over phone that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. She admitted that she has not stated in her statement recorded by police that the neighbors of the deceased informed her over phone that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon herself and set ablaze. She admitted that after the marriage her sister/deceased and A1 led happy marital life and they resided separately from their parents and she also admitted that A1 got treated the deceased when she did not begot children. She further admitted that prior to recording the statement of the deceased by the Thahsildar and Judicial Magistrate her parents were present in the hospital. She deposed that no panchayaths were held before elders with regard to the matrimonial disputes of A1 and deceased. She admitted that A1 and deceased resided separately away from A2 to A5. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel
for the accused.
14.PW3 who is maternal uncle of the deceased deposed in his evidence in similar lines of PW2 as to the committing of the suicide by the deceased in this case and recording of his statement in this case. In his cross examination he admitted that the deceased in this case is his relative and her father is his brother-in-law. He admitted that A1 and deceased resided separately away from
A2 to A5 i.e., adjacent to the house of A1. He denied the suggestions which are
Page No. 8 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
15.PW4 who is circumstantial witness as per the case of the prosecution deposed in his evidence about committing of suicide by the deceased by setting herself ablaze and that she undergone treatment on 30.11.2016 in hospital at
Karimnagar and was succumbed to injuries. He also deposed that police did not examine and did not record his statement in this case.
16.PW5 who is one of the panch witness for Ex.P3/Crime Detail Form deposed in his evidence that police observed the scene of offence in this case and prepared crime details from in this case in his presence. He deposed that he does not know whether LW12/T.Kumar was also present at the scene of offence and whether he has also put his signature along with him in Ex.P3. In his cross examination put by the learned counsel for the accused he deposed that police did not seize anything in his presence at the alleged scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that police did not prepare Ex.P3 in his presence but he is deposing false. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
17.PW6 and PW7 who are circumstantial witnesses in this case as per the case of the prosecution have deposed in this case that they do not know anything about the facts of this case and that police did not examine and did not record their statement, they turned hostile.
Page No. 9 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
18.PW8 who is panch witness for Ex.P7 deposed in her evidence that police of
Godavarikhani II town held inquest over the dead body of deceased who set herself ablaze as she was harassed by her in-laws and husband and sisters of husband of deceased stating that she is not begetting children. She also deposed that police conducted Ex.P7 in her presence and in presence of LW10/Samudrala
Krishna and LW11/M. Chitti Raju. In her cross examination she deposed that she does not remember date of conducting Ex.P7. She also deposed that she does not remember the number of signatures put by her in Ex.P7. She also deposed that her signature in Ex.P7 was obtained by police of Karimnagar. She deposed that she has put her signature in Ex.P7 between 11:00 am to 12:00 noon. She denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to her by the learned counsel for the accused.
19.PW9 is the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased deposed in his evidence that on 30.11.2015 he received a requisition from SHO., Godavarikhani II town and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, accordingly, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased at
Government Hospital, Karimnagar on 30.11.2015 after securing the presence of witnesses i.e., PW8, LW10/S.krishna and LW11/M. Chetti Raju. He deposed that he found burn injuries all over the body of the deceased and on his dictation S.I.
of police scribed the contents of the inquest panchanama/Ex.P7. He also deposed that he handed over the Ex.P7 to S.I. of police, Godavarikhani II town.
In his cross examination he deposed that police have not recorded any separate statement to that effect that S.I. of police scribed the contents of Ex.P7 on his
Page No. 10 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 dictation. He admitted that he has put his signature in Ex.P7 only on one page.
He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
20.PW10 who is photographer deposed in his evidence that on 30.11.2015 police of P.S., Godavarikhani II town called him to Government Hospital,
Karimnagar and accordingly he went to mortuary room of the hospital and there he captured the photographs of the deceased and handed over those photographs to the police. He also admitted that police examined and recorded his statement in this case. In his cross examination he deposed that he has given the negatives of the photos captured in this case to police but not given any Pen Drive or C.D.
containing the photographs to police. He denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel for the accused that he did not capture any photographs in this case but he is deposing false at the instance of police.
21.PW11 who is one of the investigating officer in this case deposed in his evidence as to the course of investigation conducted by him in this case. In his cross examination he deposed that the contents of Ex.P7 was scribed by him. He admitted that in column number 7 of Ex.P3 it was mentioned that only 5 liters
Kerosene tin was seized from the scene of offence and that there is no mention about the seizure of 4 match box sticks in it. He admitted that in column number 4 (VIII) and (IX) pertaining to type of place of occurrence and type of property involved were kept blank. He deposed that they have not examined doctors at Government Hospital at Godavarikhani who referred deceased for
Page No. 11 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 better treatment to Government Hospital, Karimnagar. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel
for the accused.
22.PW12 who is the Judicial Magistrate who recorded Ex.P10 deposed in her evidence that on 29.11.2015 at 10:25 PM she received requisition through Head
Constable No.798 of outpost police, District Head Quarters Hospital, karimangar for recording statement of injured/Keerthi Laxmi and immediately she reached hospital by 10:35 PM and identified injured with the help of duty doctor at casuality. She deposed that she obtained certification from the doctor about the condition of the patient and as per the certification of doctor the patient was in conscious, coherent and in fit state of mind to give her statement and after ascertaining the mental condition of the injured she recorded her statement after disclosing her identity. In her cross examination she deposed that the declarant/deceased has not stated anything about lodging of any report against her husband or in-laws. She denied the suggestion put to her by the learned counsel for the accused that she recorded statement of the deceased which was tutored to the deceased.
23.PW13 is the investigating officer who conducted further investigation and who filed charge sheet in this case deposed in his evidence as to the course of investigation conducted by him in this case. In his cross examination he deposed that he does not remember who captured photographs of MO.1 and 2 and the person who captured it was not examined as witness and no C.D or Pen-Drive
Page No. 12 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 containing the photographs of MO-1 and 2 was filed in this case. He deposed that they have not examined the doctor who initially treated the deceased at
Government Hospital, Godavarikhani as witness in this case. He admitted that
A1 and deceased used to reside separately i.e., away from the accused persons.
He denied the suggestion put to him by the learned counsel for the accused that the deceased sustained burn injuries when she was attending works in the kitchen and no incident occurred as alleged in this case and the accused persons are no way concerned with the allegations levelled against them in this case but he is deposing false. He denied the suggestions which are against the case of the prosecution put to him by the learned counsel for the accused.
24.A careful perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses and material on record discloses that excepting family members of the deceased examined in this case by the prosecution, other circumstantial witnesses have not deposed in their evidence specifically about the alleged harassment meted out by the accused persons to the deceased and the mode of any such harassment and date, time and other particulars of such alleged harassment. PW6 and PW7 who circumstantial witness in this case have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner, in these circumstances the version of family members of the deceased i.e., PW’s 1 to 3 with regard to the alleged harassment by the accused persons to the deceased cannot be believed as they are interested witnesses in this case and furthermore, when no specific instances of harassment were deposed by the circumstantial witnesses examined in this case by the prosecution. As per the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
Page No. 13 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 examined in this case other accused persons i.e., A2 to A5 used to reside separately i.e. away from the A1 and deceased in such circumstances how they alleged to have harassed the deceased is not established by the prosecution.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the accused contended that the allegations levelled against accused persons for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is not established by the prosecution. He also contended that mere allegations of harassment is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable under section 498-
A of IPC and harassment i.e., cruelty of accused persons of must be of such a nature that it should have driven the deceased to commit suicide, only in such circumstances the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC attracts against the accused persons who said to have caused cruelty to the deceased. Therefore, he contented that in the present case the prosecution has not established the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased by the accused persons was of such a nature that it has driven the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under section 498-A of IPC is not proved by the prosecution. As per a decision in Dudekula Muntimadugu Rahim Vs. State of
A.P., reported in 2003 0 supreme(AP)1102, the provisions in Sec.498-A IPC and
Section 113-A of Evidence Act, it is clear that “cruelty” under both the Sections is one and the same and once the accused is acquitted under Section 498-A of IPC, he cannot be convicted by drawing the presumption under Section 113-A of
Evidence Act to convict him under Section 306 of IPC. Therefore, in the present case the prosecution failed to establish the allegations levelled against accused persons for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC as such by drawing presumption under section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act the accused persons
Page No. 14 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 cannot be convicted under Section 306 of IPC. The learned counsel for the accused also contended that as per the version of prosecution witnesses examined in this case no report was lodged against A1 and other accused persons with regard to any alleged harassment prior to the death of deceased. Therefore, it goes to shows that there were no differences or matrimonial disputes between
A1 and deceased with regard to any issues more particularly with regard to the deceased not begetting children. Further as per the version of one of the family members of the deceased who was examined in this case, A1 got treated the deceased with regard to her infertility, in such circumstances the allegations levelled against accused persons that they harassed the deceased that she is not begetting children cannot be believed and all these aspects goes to show that there was no abetment by the accused persons to the deceased to commit suicide.
Therefore, the allegations levelled against the accused persons for the offence under section 306 of IPC is also not proved by the prosecution.
25.The learned counsel for the accused also contended that there many lacunas in the investigation conducted by the police as one of the investigating officer examined in this case has categorically admitted in his evidence that in column no.7 of Ex.P3 it was mentioned that only 5 liters of kerosene tin ie., MO-1 was seized from the scene of offence and there was no mention about the seizure of 4 match box sticks i.e., MO-2. Therefore, it casts doubt as to the actual seizure of MO-1 and 2 by the police as per the procedure. He further contended that column no.4 (VIII) and (IX) of Ex.P3 were also kept blank, it clearly goes to show the lapses in the investigation conducted by the police.
Page No. 15 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
26.The prosecution failed to establish the occurrence of alleged incidents between the deceased, P.W.1 and accused persons. As per Section 107 of IPC a person abets the doing of a thing, who – instigates any person to do that thing; or engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
27.In Gurcharan Singh v. St. of Punjab, 2017 (1) ALD (Crl.) 343 it was held that there must be predicating existence of a live link or nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor - basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment thereof. It was further held that to constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative, that any severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this indictment, that remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section 306 IPC, that contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment and that Section 306 IPC thus criminalizes the sustained incitement for suicide.
28.The prosecution has not established from the evidence of independent witnesses that the accused persons by their acts have abetted the deceased to
Page No. 16 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016 commit suicide and that they have committed the charged offences with an commonintention. In these circumstances, from the discussion above, I opine that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, hearsay evidence, suspicion, and that there is no proper or reliable evidence to prove the involvement of accused for any alleged abetment leading to suicide of deceased or the guilt of accused. Though as such there is sufficient evidence as to suicidal death, I further opine that the prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts and that the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of such doubts.
29.From the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under
Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt.
Hence, the A1, A3 to A5 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered against the case of the prosecution.
30.In the result, A1, A3 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences under section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1, A3 to A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. MO-1 and MO-2 which are non valuable property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced
by me in the open Court on this the 23 th day of April, 2024.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI.
Page No. 17 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For the prosecution:
PW.1 (LW.1)Burra GangaramComplainant/father of the deceased
PW.2 (LW.2)Keerthi BhagyaElder daughter of PW1
PW.3 (LW.3)Guduri VykuntamMaternal uncle of deceased
PW.4 (LW.4)Thirunahari Neighbor of deceased, eye witness Venkataramurthy
PW.5 (LW.5)Mandala SrinivasNeighbor of deceased, eye witness and panch for CDF
PW.6 (LW.7)Mandala ChilakammaNeighbor
PW.7 (LW.8)Thogiri SwapnaNeighbor of deceased, eye witness
PW.8 (LW.9)Gooduri BhargaviPanch witness for inquest
PW.9 (LW.13)M. Jayachandra ReddyTahsildar who conducted the inquest panchanama
PW.10 (LW.6)Erroju RavindracharyPhotographer
PW.11 (LW.16)K. Bhaskara Rao,Ist Investigating Officer
PW.12 (LW.15)T. MadhavMagistrate who recorded the dying declaration
PW.13 (LW.17)Ch. Deva ReddyInvestigating Officer who filed charge sheet
For the defence:
--- Nil ---
Exhibits marked
For the prosecution:
Ex.P1Report
Ex.P2Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4
Ex.P3Crime Details Form
Ex.P4Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5
Ex.P5Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6
Ex.P6Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7
Ex.P7Inquest panchanama
Page No. 18 of 18 SC No.276 of 2016
Ex.P8First Information Report
Ex.P9Requisition
Ex.P10Dying Declaration
Ex.P11Forwarding letter dated:03.12.2015.
Ex.P12P.M.E report.
For the defence:
---Nil---
Material Objects Marked:
MO-1: 5 Liters Plastic Can
MO-2: Four match sticks
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,
GODAVARIKHANI.