Ms. Raddhika Jaiswal

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.A., LL.B.,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.

Dated this the 20th day of January, 2014.

O.S. No. 92 of 2009

BETWEEN:

Voruganti Yadagiri s/o. Narsaiah, aged 35 years, occ: Chakali, r/o. H.No. 2-3-6, Meat Market, Kamareddy town, Dist. Nizamabad. --- Plaintiff

And

1.Voruganti Narayana s/o. Balaiah, aged 55 years, occ: Caste: Profession, Chakali, r/o. H.No. 1-12/16, Bathkamma Kunta, Kamareddy.

2. Voruganti Satyavva w/o. Bhoomaiah, aged 65 years, household, r/o.H.No.1-4-29, P.M.H. Colony, Kamareddy town and Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

3. Voruganti Ganesh s/o. Bhoomaiah, aged 48 years, occ: Caste profession, Chakali, r/o.H.No. 1-4-29, PMH colony, Kamareddy town, Dist. Nizamabad. ---Defendants <> This suit coming on this day before me on 30th day of December, 2013 for hearing in the presence of Sri B. Balakrishna, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri T. Rajagopal Goud, Advocate for defendants and after hearing and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for perpetual injunction in respect of agricultural land lies in Sy.No. 728, to an extent of Ac.0.12 gts, situated at Kamareddy sivar, bounded by

East: Chakali Hanumaiah's land, West: Land of Bestha Lingamaiah,

North: Kalva & Grave yard of Hindus and south: Land of Chikulapally

Sataiah and Vagu (hereinafter referred to as“suit schedule property”).

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he acquired the same from his ancestral by way of Gift from the grand father namely Voruganti Balaiah, ;which is his self acquired property and since then his name has been entered and mutated in all revenue records and the revenue authorities after due enquiry under ROR proceedings and issued Form 1-B, Pattedar pass book and title deed in favour of the plaintiff and since then the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and that the defendants, who are strangers to the plaintiff, tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaitniff on 5.8.2009 with unsocial elements, but however, the plaintiff resisted them and the plaintiff is great apprehension that the defendants are wealthy and influential persons and they are bent upon to dispossess the plaintiff from his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and therefore, the plaintiffs pray this Court to decree the suit, with costs.

3. The defendants 1 to 3 filed their written statement denying all the averments of the plaint and stated that the suit schedule property is ancestral property of the defendants and the defendants also having equal share and they are the lawful owners and possessors of the suit schedule property. They further denied that the late Voruganti Balaiah s/o. Raaiah gifted the suit schedule property to the plaitniff, since the plaintiff did not file any copy of the gift deed before this Court and that the plaintiff did not mention anywhere in the plaint that on what date the said Voruganti Balaiah gifted the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendants further stated that they and the plaintiff are blood relatives and legal heirs of late Voruganti Balaiah and they submit that the suit schedule property Sy.No.728 an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas pertains to Voruganti Balaiah, who is elder and

Kartha of plaintiff and defenants, after the death of Voruganti

Balaiah, the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas equally divided and partitioned to the legal heirs of late V. Balaiah in the year 1992 and as per the settlement and partition, V. Balraj got Ac.

0.02 guntas, V. Narsiaha (plaintiff's father) got Ac.0.02 guntas, Pedda

Narayana got Ac. 0.02 guntas, V. Narayana got Ac. 0.02 guntas,

Sathavva got Ac.0.02 guntas, and Laxmi got Ac. 0.02 guntas, totall extent of Ac. 0.12 guntas, and since then the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's father Narsaiah sold his share of land to the defendant No.1 in the year 1993 due to his family necessities and the defendant No.1 got Ac. 0.04 guntas, then he also purchased Ac.0.06 guntas from Ch. Pentaiah through simple sale deed and total 0.10 gtas of land mutated in the name of defendant No.1 and the rvenue authorities also mutated his name entered in the ROR and issued the title deed, pattedar passbook to him. The defendant No.2 got Ac.0.02 gts. Of land acquired by way of succession from late V.

Balaiah and she gave the same to defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 also submitted the revenue records. The defendant No.1 gifted Ac.0.10 gunts of land to his son Voruganti Swamy through registered gift deed bering No. 3620/08 dated 26.7.2008 and the revenue authorities got mutated the land on the name of V. Swamy son of the defendant No.1 and the revenue authorities also issued title deed and pattedar passbook to him and requested this Court to dismiss the suit.

4. On the basis of the contentions and rival contentions, the following issues have been framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

2. To what relief?

5. In support of the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. The defendants in support of their claim, the defenant No.1 himself is examined as DW1 and they also examined two others as Dws 2 and 3 and got marked Exs. B1 to B28 on their behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the written arguments submitted by the counsel for the defendants.

7.

7. ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

To prove the case, plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and he filed his chief examination and in chief examination, he reiterated all the facts as mentioned in the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is certified copy of pattedar passbook, Ex.A2 is certified copy of title deed, Ex.A3 is ROR proceedings, Exs.A4 to A6 are certified copies of pahanies for the year 190-91, 1995-96, 2000-2001 and 2005-2006 and Ex.A7 is the valuation certificate. The cross examiantin of PW1 is variance from his chief examination and in the cross examiantion, he stated that the Defendants 1 to 3 are his relatives and also stated that he does not know when his grand father late V. Balaiah died and his grand father has two sons i.e. his father (father of plaintiff) V. Narsaiah and defendant No.1 V. Narayana and defendant No.2 i.e. V. Sattavva is daughter of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 is grand son of Balaiah. PW1 admits that the suit schedule property, claimed by him is on the basis of gift, but he did not say on what date and when it was gifted and that he has also not filed original title deed and pattedar passbook or the said gift deed and he stated that the said passbook and title deed book were kept in the bank. PW1 denied that he sold away the suit schedule property through document No. 1596 of 2013. In the cross examiantion, PW1 stated that his grand father expired in the year 1992.

On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant himself is examined as DW1 and through him Exs.B1 to B20 were marked. Exs. B1 to B7 are the pahanies for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1998- 99, 2000-01, 2003-04 and 2005-06 respectively. Ex.B8 is form of title deed of V. Narayana pertaining to suit land, Exs.B9 to B12 are tax recipts showing the cist paid for the year 1993-94, 1996-97, 1993-94 and 2001-02, Ex.B13 is the certificate of mutation and Ex.B14 is the payment receipt for title deed, Ex.B15 is the original regd. Gift deed,

Ex.B16 is the original ROR, Ex.B17 is the original title deed, Ex.B18 is the orignal pasbook, Ex.B19 is the orignal pahani for the year 2009 and

Ex.B20 is the certified copy of sale deed. DW1 in his chief examination, reiterated all the contents of writetn statement. In the cross examiantion, DW1 admitted that he has not filed any partition deed or settlement deed through which he got the land of his father. He also admits that the land of Ac. 0.06 guntas purchased by CH. Pentaiah is different from that of his father's share i.e. late V. Balaiah.

The defendant No.3, who is son of defendant No.2 is examimed as DW2 and he narrated all the facts of written sttement in his chief examination and through him Exs.B21 to B25 were marked.

Exs.B21 to B25 are the pahanies for the years 1995-96, 1998-99 & 2000-01, 2002-03 & 2005-06, 2008-09 and 2008-09 (Chowpasla).

The defendants also examined DW3, who is the son of defendant No.1 and he states that defendant No.1 sold the land through registered gift deed bearing No. 3620/2008 and through him

Exs.B26 to B28 were marked. Ex.B26 is the Aadar card, Ex.B27 is the election card and Ex.B28 is the Encumbernce Certificate. During cross examination, he admits that Ex.B15 orignal regd. Gift deed disclosed that one Voruganti Pedda Narayana sold his land to Voruganti Swamy s/o. Pedda Narayana and he has not stated in his chief affidavit that

Voruganti Pedda Narayana and Voruganti Narayana are one and the same.

8.On perusal of the entire oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence, the defendants took two different contentions i.e. first; father of plaintiff sold his land of Ac. 0.02 guntas to defendant No.1 in the year 1993 and the first defendant got total land of Ac. 0.04 guntas i.e. Ac.0.02 guntas of his share in the partition and

Ac.0.02 guntas of purchased land, but to prove the fact that the father of plaintiff sold his share of land to defendant No.1, the defendnats did not file any document; secondly; the defendants contend that the plaintiff sold his land to one D. Srinivas through

Ex.B20 certificied copy of sale deed. If really, the father of plaintiff sold away his share of Ac. 0.02 guntas of land to the defendant No.1, the question of the plaintiff selling the same land to one D. Srinivas does not arise. But, it is not the case of defendants.

On close scrutiny of the entire oral evidence of plaintiff and the documentary evidence filed by him, it can be said that the plaintiff not approached the Court with clean hands, since he did not disclose his relationship with the defendants in the plaint, whereas in the cross examiantion, he admitted his relationship with defendant No.1 and so by the cross examination of PW1, it can be said that as per the succession, the right over the suit schedule property goes to the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1, but not to the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff is that by the oral gift, he acquired the suit schedule property from his late grand father for the services rendered by him, but he failed to say that when he rendered services to his grand father and for the said services rendered by him, when his grand father gifted the suit schedule property in his favour and even he did not say when his grand father died. Though PW1 filed Exs.A1 to A7, nowhere, it is mentioned that from what date or whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property. Apart from that, the plaintiff has not examined any of the witness on his behalf, in whose presence the alleged gift was made by his grand father in his favour to show that the suit schedule property is gifted by his grand father and no link document is filed to show the acquisition of the property and since then he is in possession of the same. In view of this, this Court finds that the plaintiff failed to prove his prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and also he would suffer any irreperable loss, if injunction is not granted to him, over the suit schedule property.

9.Issue No.2: To what relief:

While answering the issue No.1, it was cateogirically held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and so he is not entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants. Hence, this issue is also answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.

10. In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed, but in the circusmtnaces of the case, no order as to the costs.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2014.

Prl.Junior Civil Judge Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANTS

Pw-1: Voruganti Yadagiri DW1: V. Narayana DW2: V. Ganesh. DW3: V. Swamy.

Exhibits marked

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of pattedar passbook Ex.A2: CC of title deed Ex.A3: ROR proceedings Ex.A4: CC of pahani for 1990-91, 1995-96 Ex.A5: CC of pahani for 2000-2001 Ex.A6: CC of pahani for 2005-06 Ex.A7: Valuation Certificate.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1 : Pahani for 1990-91 Ex.B2: Pahani for 1991-92 Ex.B3: Pahani for 1992-93 Ex.B4: Pahani for 1998-99 Ex.B5: Pahani for 2000-2001 Ex.B6: Pahani for 2003-04 Ex.B7: Pahani for 2005-06 Ex.B8: Form of title deed of V. Narayana pertaining to suit land Ex.B9: Land cist receipt for 1993-94 Ex.B10: Land cist receipt for 1996-97 Ex.B11: Land cist receipt for 1997-98, 1998-99 Ex.B12: Land cist receipt for 2001-02 Ex.B13: Certificate of Mutation Ex.B14: Payment receipt for title deed Ex.B15: Original Regd. Gift deed Ex.B16: Original ROR copy Ex.B17: Original title deed Ex.B18: Original passbook Ex.B19: Original Pahani for 2009 Ex.B20: CC of regd. Sale deed No.1596/13 Ex.B21: Pahani for 1995-96 Ex.B22: Pahani for 1998-99, 2000-01 Ex.B23: Pahani for 2002-03, 2005-06 Ex.B24: Pahani for 2008-09 Ex.B25: Chowpasla Ex.B26: Aadar card of V.Pedda Narayana Ex.B27: Election card of V. Pedda Narayana. Ex.B28: Encumberance certificate.

JUDGE

1OS 111-12

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

KAMAREDDY

O.S.No. 92 of 2009

Between:

Voruganti Yadagiri....Plaintiff.

And

Voruganti Narayana and othrs....Defendants.

NOTICE

Take notice that the Judgment in the above case is goving to be pronounced today i.e. on 20.01.2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. To

1.Sri B. Bala Krishna, Advocate for plaintiff.

2. Sri T. Rajgopal Goud, Advocate for defendnts.

3. Notice Board

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT

KAMAREDDY

O.S.No. 92 of 2009

Between:

Voruganti Yadagiri....Plaintiff.

And

Voruganti Narayana and othrs....Defendants.

NOTICE

Take notice that the Judgment in the above case is goving to be pronounced today i.e. on 20.01.2014.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kamareddy. To

1.Sri B. Bala Krishna, Advocate for plaintiff.

2. Sri T. Rajgopal Goud, Advocate for defendnts.

3. Notice board

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT:- Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.A.LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2014.

C.C. No. 282 of 2011.

Between:-

The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Bibipet.

…Complainant

And

Md. Asif s/o. Md. Hymad Miya, 22 years, Dudekula by caste, occu: Tailoring, r/o. Bibipet village, N/o. Dubbvaka of Medak District. ….Accused -<>-

This case coming before me on this the 26th day of December, 2013 for hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri M.A. Muqueem, Advocate for the accused and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Bibipet had laid charge sheet against the sole accused in Crime No. 13 of 2011 of PS Bibipet for the offence under section 379 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are, that on30.04.2011 at 0130 hours, the accused snatched one tula gold chain from the neck of Kalpana and he also snatched two tula gold pustela thread from the neck of LW1-Smt. Dumpa Manasa, while they were sleeping in front of their house at Bibipet village and disappered with the booty.

3.Basing on the report given by LW1, LW8-Althaf Hussain, Sub

Inspector of police PS Bibipet registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2011for the offence under section 379 IPC and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the place of offence and in the presence of mediators, he conducted scene of offene panchanama and drew rough sketch of the in Crime Detail Form, then he also examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 and 3 ad on 4.5.2011, te police party conducting night patrolling duty at Bibipet and when they reached near bus stand at about 0500 hours, and on seeing them, the accused tried to escape, but he was apprehended, and on interrogaiton, he confessed to have commited this offence. As such, his confesional statement was recorded in the presence of mediators and recovered one pusthela thread and gold chain at his instance from his house, then produced him

before this Court for judicial remand and after completion of

investigation, LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 379 IPC.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under section 379 IPC against the accused and proceeded with.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C. and charge there upon was framed against the accused for the offence under section 379 IPC and read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses as PWs 1 to 6,got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.Os 1 and 2.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offence 379 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The case of the prosecution is, that on30.04.2011 at 0130 hours the accused snatched one thula gold chain and two thulas gold pusthela thread from the neck of Pws 1 and 2 while they were sleeping in their house at Bibipet village and ran away.

The prosecution in order to to prove its case against the accused for the offence under section 379 IPC, examined as many as six witnesses as Pws 1 to 6, got marked Exs.P1 to P4 and M.Os 1 and 2.

PW1 is the complainant and victim, PW2 is the victim, PW3 is the witness, PW4 is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama, PW5 is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanhama and

PW6 is the investigating officer, who did the entire investigation and filed charge sheet.

PW1, who is the complainant and victim and she states that on 29.04.2011 at 11 p.m. she along with her family members slept outside the house at Bibipret village, then the accused came to her sister-in- lawsdaughter Kalpana and took her gold chain, thereafter, he came to her and took her gold pustela thadu and that when she made hues and cries, the accused ran away and that on the next day, she gave Ex.P1 complaint and M.O1 is the her pustela thread, which was taken as her interim custody.

PW2-Kalpana is another victim and she states that on 29.4.2011 at 11 p.m. they slept in the varandah, since it was summer, then she heard the cries of PW1 as thief thief and when she also found her gold chain was missing and M.O2 is her gold chain, took her interim custody.

PW3-D. Laxmi, mother-in-law and grand mother of Pws 1 and 2 deposed that about two years back during summer, PW2 came to her house and when they slept in the varandah, she came to know that the gold chains of Pws 1 and 2 were snatched away.

PW4-Narsiulu, panch witness for scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P2 deposed that about two years back, police conducted Ex.P2 in his presence and that he along with LW4 attested Ex.P2

PW5-K. Rajaiah is the panch witness for confessional and recovery panchanama Ex.P3 and he deposed that on 4.5.2011, police enquired with the accused and that the accused confessed that he kept gold items in his house, then they proceeded to the house of accused situated near bus stand area Bibipet and police recovered M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused in his presence and drafted Ex.P3 panchanama, which bears his signature.

PW6-Althaf Hussain, Investigating Officer stated that on 30.4.2011 at 9.30 a.m. on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint from PW1, he registered a case in Crime No. 13 of 2011 for the offence under section 379 IPC and issued Ex.P4 FIR, visited the scene of ofence and in the presence of PW4 and LW4, he conducted Ex.P2 CDF and on 4.5.2011, he arrested the accused and recovered M.Os 1 and 2 from the possession of accused in the presence of PW5 and another under Ex.P3 confessional and recovery panchanama.

11.The prosecution to establish its case for the offence under section 379 IPC, it must prove that accused has to take the property belonging to Pws1 and 2, without their knowledge and consent. In the instant case, Pws 1 and 2 identified their respective properties as M.Os 1 and 2 and they also identified the accused, who was present in the

Court. PW6, who is the investigating officer and who conducted Ex.P3 confession and recovery panchanama Ex.P3 in the presence of PW5, stated that he conducted Ex.P3 on 4.5.2011 and recovered M.Os 1 and 2 under Ex.P3 i.e. after four days of the incident, but PW1 in cross examination clearly stated that after two days of the incident when she went to the police station, police shown her M.Os 1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention here that the date of incident is on the night of 29.4.2011, but as per the statement of PW1, she went to the police station after two days of the incident i.e. 01.05.2011 and as per the evidence of PW6, he arrested the accused and recovered M.Os 1 and 2 on 4.5.2011, which means that PW6 discovered M.Os 1 and 2 at first and subsequently after four days of discovery, he recorded the confessional panchanama and recovered M.Os 1 and from the house of accused at his instance. In property offences, the prosecution must establish that the accused confessed the offence and in pursuance of the said confession, the police recovered objects from the possession of the accused, but as discussed supra, PW6 discovered the property and leisurely recorded the confessional statement of the accused and recovered M.Os 1 and 2 statating that on the date of recording of confessional statement of accused itself, he recovered M.Os 1 and 2 from the house of accused at his instance. As per Sectin 27 of Indian

Evidence Act, there should be statement first and it should be followed by discovery, but in this case, first there is recovery followed by statement and such statement is not admissible in evidence, secondary, it is not free from all reasonable doubt as if PW1 had seen M.Os 1 and 2 in the police station after two days of incident and she ought to have seen the accused there itself shown by the police, since she stated in her statement that she can identify the accused if shown to her, but the investigating officer has not made any efforts to get the test identification parade conducted, instead of showing the accused to PW1 in the police station. Had there been test identification and Pws 1 and 2 identified the accused in the Test identification parade, their evidence can safely be believed, but here, the evidence of PW1 with regard to the identification of the accused for the first time in the Court on 5.9.2013 after the incident, which took place on 30.04.2011, i.e. after a lapse of nearly two and half years, without being tested by a prior test identication parade, the identification of the accused by PW1, creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. In this regard, the learned counsel

for the accused relied on a decision reported in 2002(2) ALD (Crl.) 729

(SC), which is squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

12.In view of the above, this Court finds that the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is artificial but not natural and further in view of the inconsistency and contradictions in their evidence, as discussed supra, it does not inspire confidence to place reliance upon, this Court therefore disbelieves the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and thus their testimony is excluded from consideration, there is no any other worthwhile material to bring home the guilt of the alleged offence.

Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of the alleged incident the accused went to the house of PW3 and snatched away

M.Os 1 and 2 from Pws 1 and 2 and the same were recovered by PW6. I, therefore have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the alleged offence beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, Accused is found not guilty of the offence under section 379 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bond of the accused shall stand cancelled.

The interim custody of M.Os 1 and 2 with Pws 1 and 2, shall be made absolute.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of January, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Kamareddy. Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:-

Pw-1: Smt. Dumpa Manasa, complainant. None Pw-2: Kum. Byagari Kalpana Pw-3: Smt. Dumpa Laxmi Pw-4: Kurla Narsimulu Pw-5: Kurla Rajaiah Pw-6: Althaf Hussain, I.O. Exhibits Marked.

Ex.P-1: Complaint given by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P-2: CDF Ex.P-3: Confessional and recovery panchanama Ex.P-4: FIR.

M.O1: Pusthela thread M.O2: Disco gold hain.

Judge.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT:- Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.A.LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

Dated this the 6th day of January, 2014.

C.C. No. 615 of 2011.

Between:-

The State Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor. …Complainant

And

1.Kammary Banuchandram s/o. Late Venkata Narsaiah, 50 years, Kammari by caste, occ: Mechanic, Aanuchandram bikemechanic shop, near old petrol bunk, r/o. Ramayampet village and Mandal, Dist. Medak.

2. Kammari Bhumaiah s/o. Late Venkata Narsaiah, 46 years, occ: Mechanic, Kammary by caste, occ: Mechanic, Banuchandram bikemechanic shop, near old petrol bunk, r/o. Ramayampet village and Mandal, Dist. Medak.

3. Kammari Srinu s/o. Late Venkata Narsaiah, 40 years, occ: Mechanic, Banuchandram bikemechanic shop, near old petrol bunk, r/o. Ramayampet village and Mandal, Dist. Medak. …A1 to A3.

This case coming before me on this the 30th day of December, 2013 for hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri Nanda Ramesh, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Bhiknoor had laid charge sheet against A1 to A3 in Crime No. 220 of 2011 of PS Bhiknoor for the offences under sections 447, 427, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are, that due to some land dispute in between the accused and LW1-Kottadi Arjun, on 3.9.2011 at 10.00 a.m. A1 to A3 criminally trespassed into the agriculture land of LW1, situated at Bagirthipally village, abused him and his wife in filthy language and damaged standing maize crop to a tune of Rs.35,000/-. Thus, the acts of A1 to A3 constitute the offences under sections 447, 427, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC.

3.Basing on the report given by LW1, LW6-Babu Jani, Asst. Sub

Inspector of the station, registered a case in Crime No. 220 of 2011 for the offences under sections 447, 427, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC and section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 3, proceeded to the scene of ofence, conducted the scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of mediators in CDF and on 30.9.2011, LW7-G. Shekhar, Sub Inspector of the station, arrested A1 to A3 and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As such, they were produced before this Court for judicial remand and filed charge sheet against A1 to A3.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on fileunder sections 447, 427, 506 (ii) r/w 34 IPC against the accused and proceeded with.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C. A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty when examined u/s 239 C.P.C. and the charges there upon were framed against them for the offences under sections 447, 427, 506 (ii) r/w 34

IPC, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied the same and reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offences under sections 447, 427, 506

(ii) r/w 34 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P3. PW1 is the defacto complainant. Pws 2 and 3 are the witnesses to the alleged incident, PW4 is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and PW5 is the investigatign officer.

PW1-K. Arjun, who is the defacto complainant and victim stated that he cultivated the maize crop in his land bearing Sy.No. 296 and and one day when his wife went to the agricultural land, found A1 to A3 were removing maize crop and when his wie tried to stop them, A1 to

A3 threatened to beat her and that she came and informed him, then he gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police.

PW2-S.Ramesh whose land and the land of PW1 are abutting to each other and he saw A1 to A3 damaging maize.

PW3-K.Sathavva, wife of PW1 states that about two years back when she went to her fields situated at Bagirthipally village, she found

A1 to A3 damaging the maize crop and that when she questioned, A1 to

A3 threatened her with dire consequences, then she went to the house and informed the same to PW1, who gave complaint to the police.

PW4, who is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama deposed that about two years back, police conducted Ex.P2 CDF in his presene and that he along with another attested the same and Ex.P2 is the CDF, bears his signature.

PW5-Babu Jani is the investigating officer and he states that on 13.9.2011, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, he registered a case and issued Ex.P3 FIR, visited the scene of offence on the next day and conducted Ex.P2 CDF, then he handed over the CD file to LW7, who arrested the accused and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation.

11.To prove the offence under section 427 IPC, the prosecution must prove that A1 to A3 damaged the maize crop of PW1 by causing mischief and loss to the amount of the PW1 and to prove the case for the offence under section 447, the prosecution must prove that A1 to

A3 entered into the land of PW1 with intent to commit an offnece or insult on any way and for doing this threatened or caused grievous hurt to PW1 or his wife as required under setion 506 (ii) IPC.

In the instant case, on hand, the incident had occurred as per

Ex.P1 complaint given by PW1 on 3.9.2011 in his land in Sy.No. 294, but in the evidence, PW1 stated that the incident occurred in Sy.No. 296.

So, there is contradiction in respect of the land in which the alleged incident occurred in the evidence of PW1 with that of his own complaint Ex.P1. Further, the prosecution had failed to collect any document to show that PW1 is owned and possessed the land, in which the alleged incident had occurred. PW1 in cross examination stated that one Balaraju, Narayana and Siddiramulu are his neighbours of his agriculture land, whereas, PW3, who is the wife of PW1 stated that one Bagaiah is their neighbour, but the prosecution failed to examine any of them. Further, the prosecution had also failed to get the damaged maize crop photographed and filed before this Court to show that PW1 sustained a loss of an amount of Rs.35,000/-. PW5 is the investigating officer, who received the Court referred complaint Ex.P1 on 6.9.2011 and issued FIR on 13.9.2011. So, there is a delay of more than ( 7 ) days in issuing the FIR, PW5 is not explained the said delay though he examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 to 3 and conducted Ex.P3 CDF on the same day of receipt of complaint from the Court. PW5 further stated in his evidence that on the next day of receipt of Ex.P1 complaint i.e. on 14.9.2011, he visited the scene of offence and conducted Ex.P2 CDF, but on perusal of Ex.P2 reveal that on 13.09.2011 itself, it was conducted. At any rate, the unexplained delay of more than seven days in issuing the FIR, would give rise to any amount of suspicion about the truth of the allegations in the FIR.

It is therefore concluded that the FIR is doubtful.

12. For the foregone discussion, I am of the opinion that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of Pws 1, 2 and 5 and with

Ex.P2, as discussed supra. Further, Pws 1 and 3 are interested witnesses, since they are husband and wife respectively and as per their version, it seems that there is land dispute in between them and the accused and due to the said dispute, they constrained to filed a private complaint in order to compromise the said civil dispute, this

Court therefore finds that the evidence of Pws 1 and 3 is not believable and the FIR under Ex.P3 is not true and genuine. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that on the date of the alleged incident

A1 to A3 trespased into the land of PW1 and damaged the maize crop to a tune of Rs.35,000/- and threatened PW3 with dire consequences, beyond all reasonable doubt.

13. In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences under sections 447, 427, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

Unmarked case property order, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of January, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Kamareddy. Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:-

Pw-1: Kottadi Arjun, complainant-None- Pw-2: Sriramulu Rmesh Pw-3: Smt. Kotadi Sathavva Pw-4: P. Sathaiah Pw-5: Babu Jani, I.O. Exhibits Marked.

Ex.P-1: Complaint given by PW1-Nil- Ex.P-2: CDF Ex.P-3: FIR.

Judge.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT:- Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.A.LL.B., Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Kamareddy.

Dated this the 18th day of Jauuary, 2014.

M.C.No.42 of 2010.

Between:- Namala Manemma w/o. Yadagiri, aged 39 years, occ: Household, r/o. Yellammagalli, Ramareddy village. S.S.Nagar Mandal, presently r/o. Posanipet village o S.S.Nagar Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad.

…Petitioner

And

Namala Yadagiri s/o. Balaiah, aged 44 years, occ: Agriculture, r/o. Ramareddy village of Sadashivnagar Mandal, Dist. Nizamabad. …Respondent. -<>- This case coming before me on this the 9th day of January, 2014 for hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri G. Shankar Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri B. Damodhar Reddy, Advocate for the respondent and after hearing and having stood over for consideration the Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This is an application filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- towards her maintenance since the respondent having sufficient means deliberately and intentionally deserted her.

2.The brief facts of the petition are, that the petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was held on 2.4.1994 and at the time of her marriage with the respondent, her parents presented net cash of Rs.50,000/-, two thulas of gold and other household articles to the repsondent. After the marriage, both the petitioner and respondent lived happily for a period of ten years, there after the respondent started harassing her demanding additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- at the instigation of his relatives and used to beat the petitioner mercilessly and tried to kill her by setting her to ablaze, but she escaped from it and though there were panchayats held, the respondent did not heed to the caste elders and 10.6.2010 in the panchayat, the respondent demanded Rs.1 lakh as additional dowry and bet the petitioner mercilessly and since then the petitioner has been residing separately from the respondent. The petitioner further alleged that the respondnet is having five acres of land at Mohsampur village and from it he used to get an income fo Rs.5 lakhs per annum. Apart from that, the respondent is also working as labour and getting Rs.5,000/- per month and also by running auto and he used to get an amount of R.10,000/- per month. The petitioner also submits that she cannot do any work and she has no income source to maintin herelf and she is depending on the mercy of her parents and the respondent having sufficient means of income to maintain the petitioner, intentionally avoiding to provide maintenance to the petitioner and so the petitioner requested this Court to award a monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/-.

3.The respondent filed counter denying all the allegtions of the petitioner in the petition except admitting his relation ship with the petitioner and stated that the petitioner used to absond from his house, without information or knowledge of the respondent by threatening him to shift the residence to her parents house. The respondent further stated that he is a daily labourer and he used to getan income of Rs.50/- per day, when the work is available and that he has no other soruce of income as stated by the petitioner and that he is not in a position to pay the separately monthly maintenance to the petitioner. He further stated that he is ready to take back the petitioner, if she is ready to join his company. He also stated that the petitioner is doing beedi rolling work through which she gets an income of Rs.3,000/- per month and so she is having sufficient income to maintain herself and requested to dismiss the petition.

4. Heard both side.

5.Now, the points for determination are;

1. Whether the petition can be allowed?

2. To what relief?

6.POINT: The petitioner in order to prove her case, she herself is examined as PW1 and she also examined her father as PW2. To rebut the evidence of Pws 1 and 2, the respondent himself is examined as RW1.

PW1 as petitioner, reiterated all the facts as mentioned in the main petition. In the cross examiantion, she states that she did not file any police record showing that she filed a case against the respondent and his parents when they attempted to commit murder by pouring kerosene on her. She also says that she did not file any document to show that the respondent possessed landed property or that he is the owner of autos.

The evidence of PW2, who is none other than the father of PW1 corroborates the evidence of PW1 and in the cross examiantion he states that he did not file any documents to show that the respondent is owned and possessed agricultural lands or autos as stated by him in the chief examiantion. PW2 also stated that he is ready to send PW1 with the respondent, if the respondent is ready to take back PW1, whereas, PW2 stated that she is not ready to go with the respondent as the respondent harass her and she is having threat to her life.

The respondent as RW1 reiterated all the facts as mentioned in his counter to disprove the case of petitioner and in cross examiantion, he admits that he did not provide any maintenance to the petitioner, since her date of separation.

7.Admittedly, PW1 is the legally wedded wife of RW1 and PW1 is residing separately from RW2. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent is not providing any maintenance to the petitioner from her separation with him. Pws 1 and 2 stated that there were panchayats held in the presence of elders, but none of them were examined in support of their version that the respondent is having landed property and also having autos and through them, he is getting income to maintain the petitioner or that the respondent demanded any additional dowry in their presence. On the other hand, the respondent is also not filed any document to show that the petitioner is a beedi roller and having sufficient means to maintain herself.

So, when the respondent admitted PW1 as his wife and when he did not file any document to show that PW1 is a beedi roller, it is his bounden duty of the respondent to maintain his wife i.e. petitioner herein though he is not having sufficient means. Considering the contentions and rival contentions of the parties, if an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month is awrded to the petitioer towards her maintenance, it would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month from the respondent from the date application and the respondent shall pay the same.

8.In the result, the petition is allowed in part and the petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,500/- from the respondent from the date application. The petitioner is directed to furnish the Bank Account number to the respondent. The respondent is directed to pay the monthly maintenance amount on or before 10th of every calendar month by depositing the amount in the bank account furnished by the petitioner, under intimation to this Court.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 18th day of January, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C. Kamareddy. Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined on behalf of Petitioner Respondent PW1: Namala Manemma RW1: Namala Yadagiri PW2: V. Balaram. Exhibits Marked. Nil

Judge.

6

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS, KAMAREDDY.

PRESENT:- Ms. Radhika Jaiswal, B.A.LL.B.,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2014.

C.C. No. 337 of 2012.

Between:-

The State Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Devanpally. …Complainant

And

1.Barathkayala @ Bharath Sailu s/o. Gangaram, aged 30 years, Gosangi by caste, occu: Business, r/o. Dharpally village and Mandal.

2. Bharathkayala Gangaram s/o. Veerappa, 60 years, Gosangi by caste, occu: Begging.

3. Smt. Bharathkayala Nagavva w/o. Gangaram, 55 years, Gosngi by caste, occu: housewife.

4. Bhrathkayala Ramaswamy s/o. Gangaram, 40 years, Gosangi by caste, occu: Business.

5. Smt. Bharathkayala Rani w/o. Ramaswamy, 36 yrs., Gosangi by caste, occu: Housewife.

6. Smt. Baja Pochavva @ Pochamma w/o. Baja Narsaiah, 38 lyrs., Gosangi by caste, occ: business.

7. Baja Narsaiah s/o. Baja Kashiram, 40 yrs., Gosangi by caste, occu: Agirll, All r/o. Dharpally village and Mandal of Nizamabad Dist.

8. Baja Kashiram s/o. Ramaiah, 60 years, Gosangi by caste, r/o. Beedi workers colony, Adloor village of Kamareddy Mandal. (The names of A3 to A5 are deleted from the case after obtaining permission from the Court) (Case against A1 is abated) ….A2, A6 to A8.

This case coming before me on this the 8th day of January, 2013 for hearing and disposal in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri G. Shanker Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and after hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Devanpally had laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 72 of 2012 of PS Devanpally for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are, that about four years back, the marriage of LW21Smt. Bharathkayala Swaropa with A1 was held and at the time of marriage, the parents of LW1 gave net cash of Rs.25,000/-, and gold and silver ornaments, household articles and cooking utensils to the accused and after the marriage, both LW1 and

A1 lived happily for some period, thereafter, all the accused start6ed harassing LW1 demanding additional dowry of one lakh and on 14.3.2012, the accused went to the parents's house of LW1 and forced LW1 to put her signature on some stamp papers posing those as divorce papers and beat LW1 and threatened her with dire consequences. Thus, the acts of the accused constitute the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3.Basing on the report given by LW1, LW7-S. Saidaiah, Sub

Inspector of the station, registered a case in Crime No. 72 of 2012 for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of

Lw1, proceeded to the scene of ofence, conducted the scene of offence situated at Adloor village and examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and accused were arrested and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. As such, LW7 produced them before this Court for judicial remand and filed charge sheet after completion of the investigation against A2 and A6 to A8, since A1 died and case against him is abated.

4.After filing the charge sheet, the case was taken on file under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P.

Act against the accused and proceeded with.

5.Copies of case documents were furnished to A2 and A6 to A8 as provided under section 207 Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty when examined u/s 239 C.P.C. and the charges there upon were framed against them for the offences under sections 498-A, 406, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined only the defacto complainant as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with, as there is no incriminating circumstance appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witness.

8.Heard the arguments of the learned APP and the learned counsel

for the accused.

9.Now, the point for determination is whether the prosecution could able to prove the offences under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT: The prosecution has examined only the defacto complainant as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2. The offences against the accused are under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act, but PW1, who is the defacto complainant and who is the main witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Though the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor cross examined her at length, nothing has been elicited from her in support of it and in cross examination she denied to have stated before the police as in Ex.P2.

Since the main witness did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile, the learned Asst. Public prosecutor gave up LWs 2 to 7 stating that no purpose would be served even if they were examined.

So, absolutely, there is no evidence against the accused to connect with the alleged offences under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and

Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the benefit of doubt shall be given to the accused.

11.In the result, A2, A6 to A8 are found not guilty of the offences under sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A2, and A6 to A8 shall stand cancelled.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of January, 2014.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C, Kamareddy. Appendix of evidence. Witnesses examined on behalf of For Prosecution For Defence:-

Pw-1: Smt. Bharathkayala Swaroopa,complainant None

Exhibits Marked.

Ex.P-1: Complaint given by PW1 -Nil- Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C.statement of PW1.

Judge.