Smt. Rajitha Gopu

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT THUNGATHURTHY

Friday, this the 7 th day of February, 2025

Present:- Smt. Rajitha Gopu, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, FAC: Junior Civil Judge, Thungathurthy

OS. No. 79 of 2021

Between:

1.Eedunuri Hanuma Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age: 73 Years,

2.Eedunuri Indira W/o. Hanuma Reddy, Age: 65 Years,

3.Eedunuri Ashok Reddy, S/o. Amrutha Reddy, Age: 61 Years, All are Agriculturists R/o. Adivemla Village of Jajireddygudem(Arvapally) Mandal, Suryapet District.

... Plaintiffs.

AND Bandari Narsaiah, S/o. Sailu, Age: 68 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adivemla Village Jajireddygudem (Arvapally) Mandal, Suryapet District.

... Defendant.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. K. Venkateshwarlu, Advocate for the Defendants stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their agents, servants and workmen etc., from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule land.

2. Brief averments of the plaint: -

It is submitted that the plaintiff No 1 and 2 are husband and wife, father of

Plaintiff No. 3 and father of the plaintiff No. 1 are own brothers. The Plaintiff No. 1 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 Gts. in Sy. No. 25/Aa and

Ac. 0-15 Gts. in Sy. No. 64/E/1. The Plaintiff No. 2 is the owner and possessor of Ac.

5-00 Gts. in Sy. No. 64/E/2. The Plaintiff No. 3 is the owner and possessor of Ac. 0- 27 Gts. in Sy No. 25/A/2 and Ac. 2-12% Gts. in Sy. No. 64/Aa/2. Total extent Ac.

(9.08% Gts. in single compact which is ancestral property situated at Adivemla

Revenue village of Jajireddygudem Mandal. Though the patta of the suit land stood individually but they are jointly cultivating the said land. The said property herein after referred as SUIT LAND.

3.It is submitted that the plaintiffs are the owners and possessors and have been cultivating the suit land jointly. The Revenue authorities after making thorough enquiry about possession and ownership had issued e-pattadar Pass books to them individually. The names of the plaintiffs are recorded in all the revenue records as owner and possessors the copy of e-Pass book, C.C. of I-B (ROR Namoona) (2 sheets),

Dharani Pahani for year 2021 (2 sheets) of plaintiff No. 1.

4. It is submitted, that the suit land became more valuable as the same is fertile land, and they are getting good yield, the same was became eyesore to the defendant. The defendant asked the plaintiffs to sell Ac. 1-00 Gts. for which the plaintiffs refused. As such, the defendant developed to knock away the suit land by illegal motives, developed grudge on him and is making efforts to occupy the part of the suit land with the help of anti-social elements in the village. On 30-05-2021, when the plaintiffs and their labour cleaning the suit land by removing the waste plants for next crop, all of sudden, the defendant along with anti-social elements made attempt to occupy the suit land and tried to stop the plaintiffs work. With a great difficulty with the assistance of the adjacent land owners, the plaintiffs could resisted the illegal attempts of the defendant over the suit land and sent them out but the defendant threatened that at any moment, he will occupy the suit land with the help of the anti-social elements. Hence suit.

The brief averments of the written statement of defendant.

5. It is submitted that the defendant did not know the relationship of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs are different persons and having individual capacity of cultivation, as such the plaintiffs should have filed the suit separately. It is partly true that, the plaintiff No.1 is the owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac. 1-14 Gts., in Sy.

No. 25/Aa and Ac. 0-15 Gts., in Sy.No. 64/E/2. The plaintiff No.2 is the owner and possessor of Ac. 5-00 Gts., in Sy.No. 64/E/2. The plaintiff No.3 is the owner and possessor of Ac. 0-27 Gts., in Sy.No. 25/A/2 and Ac. 2-12 1/2 Gts in Sy.No. 64/Aa/2.

Total extent Ac. 9-08 1/2 Gts., in single compact which is ancestral property situated at Adivemla Revenue village of Jajireddygudem Mandal.

6. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are owners and possessors and have been jointly cultivating the suit land. The Revenue authorities after making thorough enquiry and confirmation of possession and ownership had issued e-pattadar pass books individually to them. The names of the plaintiffs are recorded in all the revenue records as owners and possessors. The documents filed by the plaintiffs are created in collusion of the Revenue people.

7. It is submitted that the suit land became more valuable and the same is fertile land, and they are getting good yield, the same was became eyesore to the defendant.

It is utterly false to say that, the defendant asked the plaintiffs to sell Ac. 1-00 Gts., for which the plaintiffs refused. It is false to say that, the defendant developed the malicious intention of knocking away the suit land by illegal motives and developed grudge upon the plaintiffs. It is utterly false to say that, with such un-holy intention, the defendant is making efforts to disturb the work and occupy the part of the suit land with the help of anti-social elements in the village. On 30-05-2021, when the plaintiffs and their labour cleaning the suit land by removing the waste plants for next crop, all of sudden, the defendant along with anti-social elements made attempt to occupy the suit land and tried to stop the work of the plaintiffs. It is also false to say that with great difficulty with the assistance of the adjacent landowners, the plaintiffs could resist the illegal attempts of the defendant over the suit land and sent them out from the suit land. It is false that, ever since the defendant is making every effort to display his brutal force to occupy the suit land and he is challenging that at any moment, he will occupy the suit land with the help of the anti-social elements. In such circumstances when the plaintiffs right to be in a position is being invaded and they threatened to be dispossessed thus, denied all the material allegations levelled against him.

8. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are Law binding persons and alone none of support in the village, and whereas the defendant is having men and material, influential person and supported by anti-social elements in the village. It is false to say that now the defendant is mustering his further strength for invade once again to occupy the suit land and if the defendant succeeds in his illegal attempts, the plaintiffs will be put to heavy loss and they may deprive of ownership rights over the suit land.

9. It is submitted that at first, on 15-05-1980 the house of the defendant smashed in fire accident, then the Mandal Revenue Officer, came to the spot, and he decided that the defendant is a poor person, as such the M.R.O. has allotted Ac. 4-00 of land in Sy.No. 37 which is assigned land and submerged land to the defendant. Since then he in actual possession and enjoyment of said land. His name is also recorded continuously in all the pahani pathriks. It is submitted that the plaintiffs are having the land in Sy. No. 25 which is adjacent to the land of the defendant. But the plaintiffs who are activist of leading party, they are trying to occupy the land of the defendant, as such the defendant placed the matter before the elders, but they did not heed the words of elders and that, they have filed this false case and got injunction from the

Hon’ble Court. Under the guise of the injunction order, they are trying to enter into

the land of the defendant. As such the suit is filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed by them in the suit and I.A filed by him. The defendant is filed all the relevant documents.

10. Basing on the pleadings of both parties this court has framed the following issues for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is in legal, physical and actual possession of

suit lands within the boundaries as on the date of filing the suit?

ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as

prayed?

iii) To what relief?

11. In order to prove the claim of the plaintiff got examined himself as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11.

Point:

12. To prove the claim of plaintiff, Pw1 filed chief affidavit by reiterating the contents of plaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. Ex.A1 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff No.1, Ex.A2 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff No.2, Ex.A3 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff No.3, Ex.A4 is online copy of 1-B (ROR) form, Ex. A5 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the name of Plaintiff No.1, Ex.A6 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy. No. 64/E/1, Ex.A7 is online copy of

Dharani portal in respect of Sy.No. 25AA, Ex.A8 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the Name of Plaintiff No.2, Ex.A9 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy. No.

64E/2, Ex.A10 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the name of Plaintiff No.3, Ex.A11 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy. No. 64AA/2.

13. No defence evidence is filed to rebut the testimony of plaintiff/Pw1. The case of plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule land and to establish same has filed Ex.A1 to A11, where the plaintiff is in Possession the suit schedule land. Hence the testimony Pw1 remained unchallenged. Hence there is no rebuttal evidence to disprove the testimony of Pw1.Hence, the unchallenged testimony of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1 to A.11 proves that the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.

14. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed without costs, restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 7th day of February, 2025.

Sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

THUNGATHURTHY.

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

Pw1: E. Hanuma Reddy -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

1.Ex.A1 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff

No.1.

2.Ex.A2 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff

No.2.

3.Ex.A3 is original E pattadar pass book cum title deed belonging to the plaintiff

No.3.

4.Ex.A4 is online copy of 1-B (ROR) form.

5.Ex. A5 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the name of Plaintiff No.1.

6.Ex.A6 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy. No. 64/E/1.

7.Ex.A7 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy.No. 25AA.

8.Ex.A8 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the Name of Plaintiff No.2.

9. Ex.A9 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy.No. 64E/2.

10.Ex.A10 is C.C of 1-B (ROR) form reflecting the name of Plaintiff No.3.

11. Ex.A11 is online copy of Dharani portal in respect of Sy.No. 64AA/2.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

Sd/-

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

THUNGATHURTHY.

-1- P.R.C No.7/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: SURYAPET (Dated this the 11th day of May, 2026)

Present: Smt. Rajitha Gopu, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet

P.R.C.No. 7 of 2026

BETWEEN:

The State rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town. …Complainant AND

1.Banothu Upender, S/o. Late Bixam, Age:42 yrs., Occ: Driver,

2.Banothu Sharadha, W/o.Upender, Age:40 yrs., Occ: Tailoring,

3.Banothu Gangaraju, s/o. (Late) Bixam,

4.Banothu Mangamma, W/o.Gangaraju All are R/o.Thettekunta thanda, H/o. Kotapahad (v) of Athmakur(s) Mandal of Suryapet District.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned A.P.P., appearing for the State and of Sri. A. Papa Rao, Counsel Advocate on behalf of the accused, and after having stood over for consideration today, the Court has committed the following:-

:: COMMITTAL ORDER::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Athmakur(s) filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.122 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 108 r/w.sec.3(5) of BNS.

-2- P.R.C No.7/2026

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: On 15-06-2025 at 16:30 hours the complainant/Banothu Balu went to the police station and lodged a complaint stating that his wife name is Vijaya aged about 36 years. They were blessed with two children i.e. one daughter Akhila, now aged about 15 years and son Gabbar Singh, now aged about 14 years. From the last one year Banothu Upender has been harassing his wife sexually. In this regard they reprimanded him on several times, but he didn't change his behavior. Further the Banothu

Vijaya used to express her grievance with Lws 4 & 5 about the sexual harassment of Banothu Upender and insulting of A2 to

A4 alleging that she has illegal intimacy with the A1 and due to which she disgusted on her life. However, they consoled her whenever she express her grievance to them. While the matter was stood thus, on 13-06-2025 he had gone to coolie works and his wife also went to collie work in the village to plant cotton seeds. At that time, his daughter Akhila was present at home alone. On the same morning at about 08:00 hours Banothu Upender made a call to his wife's phone

No.9032026638 and same was attended by his daughter. On hearing the voice of his daughter, Upender scolded her saying that, as to why she answering the phone call instead of her mother and asked to give the phone to her mother. After a -3- P.R.C No.7/2026 while, Upender came to their house and scolded his daughter saying, as to why her mother is not answering the phone call and left away. After that, the A2/Banothu Sharadha (wife of

A1) along with A3 and A4 went to the house of complainant and his wife abused the Banothu Vijaya alleging that, she has illegal intimacy with her husband(A1). Followed by the above incident and due to the continuous sexual harassment of A1 and insulting abusive words with intent to outrage her modesty, Vijaya felt in severe mental depression presuming that, if the same issue came to notice of her husband (LW1) and to the villagers, she will be dishnoured before them and as well as in the society. Vexed on her life followed by the same, the deceased went to their field, consumed the “Terror super” pesticide poison in order to commit suicide. After a while at about 13.00 hours the deceased returned back to home from her field and started vomiting in the bathroom. At that time the LW2 (daughter of deceased) noticed that some pesticide smell is emanating from the mouth of deceased/B.Vijaya.

Immediately LW2 informed the matter to the complainant and with the help of their neighbour LW7/Lunavath Suresh, the deceased was taken on his motor cycle in order to take her to

Govt. General hospital, Suryapet for treatment besides calling the 108 ambulance. When she was taken to at a little -4- P.R.C No.7/2026 distance, in the meantime 108 ambulance was came there and the deceased was shifted to Govt. General hospital, Suryapet for treatment on 15-06-2025 the deceased/Banothu Vijaya was lost her breath while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

Hence, the complainant requested to legal action against accused.

3.Based on the contents of above complaint of LW1, LW-15.P.

Janakiramulu, ASI/1563 of P.S. Athmakur (S) registered a case in Cr.No.122/2025 U/s 108 r/w 3 (5) BNS-2023 (306 r/w 34

IPC) and took up the investigation, as the SI of Police is on leave.

4.During the course of investigation, the LW-15 ASI/1563 examined the complainant as LW-1 at PS and recorded his statement. Subsequently LW-14 visited the 1st scene of offence located in front of the house of deceased at ThettekuntaThanda

H/o Kotapahad (v) of Athmakur (s) Mandal, in the presence of

Lws-8 and 9 and drafted the Crime Detail Form-l and observations of crime scene. Thereafter the LW-14 along with the above mediators Lws-8 & 9 visited the 2nd scene of offence i.e., agricultural field of complainant located at the outskirts of Thettekuntathanda and drew the physical features of the scene in the presence of above mediators. During the examination the complainant stated that his wife/deceased was -5- P.R.C No.7/2026 consumed the "Terror Super" pesticide poison and at time of treatment to his wife, he shown the same pesticide bottle to the Medical Staff and they thrown the same in dust bin. Hence the same was not recovered. Later LW-15 ASI/1563 visited the

Govt. General Hospital, Suryapet, examined the LWs-2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter LW-15 held inquest over the dead body of deceased Banothu Vijaya, w/o Balu, in the presence of Lws-10 & 11 and subjected the dead body for autopsy. The LW-14/Dr.A.Kranthikiran, Asst. Professor,

Forensic Medicine & Toxicology. Govt. Medical College,

Suryapet conducted the autopsy and preserved the viscera of deceased, reserving his opinion pending for FSL report. After the inquest the dead body was handed over to the kith and kin of deceased for funeral rites.

5.Later LW-16/G. Rajashkhar, Circle-Inspector of Police, Suryapet

Rural Circle took-up the further investigation of this case, verified the investigation done by the LW-15 ASI/1563, visited the scene of offence, examined the LWs 1 to 4 orally and found their versions are corroborating with their earlier version given

before LW-15 ASI/563. As such the LW-16 did not prefer to re-

record their statements, verified the investigation done by LW- 15 ASI/563 and found on proper lines.

-6- P.R.C No.7/2026

6.On 18-06-2025 morning at about 08:00 hours on receipt of reliable information and as per the instructions of LW-16, the

LW-15 along with his staff and WPC 6123 rushed to Athmakur-

S cross roads, Athmakur-S (V & M) and apprehended the accused persons viz., A-1 BanothuUpender and A-2 Banothu

Sharadha. Conducted confession of A-1 and A-2 voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and LW-16/CI of

Police, Suryapet Rural Circle secured in the presence of Lws-12 and 13 and recorded the Confessional Statement of A-1 & A-2 one after one and seized Oppo Company Mobile phone with JIO network SIM No.7975558051, its IMEI No.866875065291153 & 866875065291146, which the A-1 used for sexual harass of deceased, under the cover of same panchanama from his possession duly affixing the signed chits of panch witnesses.

After completion of the Confession & seizure panchanama of A- 1, the LW-16 Cl of Police, Suryapet Rural Circle arrested of accused A-1 & A-2 by issuing the arrest memos against them duly informing to them and their relatives about the grounds of arrest U/S 47 & 48 BNSS-2023 and sent them to the Hon'ble

Court for Judicial Remand.

7.In due course of investigation, the LW-16 Cl of Police, Suryapet

Rural Circle visited the Thettekunta Thanda H/o Kotapahad (v) of Athmakur (s) Mandal, examined the LWs-5 & 6 who are the -7- P.R.C No.7/2026 known persons to the deceased and recorded their statements, in which they corroborafed the versions of LWs-1 to 4. Further they stated that the deceased Banathu vijaya W/o.Balu used to express about the sexual harassment of A-1 Banoth Upender and insulting of A-2 to A-4 alleging the has illegal intimacy with the A-1 and due to which she disgusted on her life. However they consoled her whenever she expresses her grievance them.

8.While the investigation is in progress, the accused persons viz.,

A-3 BanothuGangaraju and A-4 BanothuMangamma got the

Anticipatory Bail from the Hon'ble Principal District & Sessions

Judge Court at Suryapet vide Dis.No.1548/2025, Dt.19-07-

2025 in Crl.M.P.No.246 of 2025 with directions to surrender

before the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet

within a week from the date of order and on such surrender, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge Court at

Suryapet shall release the petitioners/A-3 & A-4 on their executing personal bonds for Rs.15,000/- each with to sureties each for like sum, to its satisfaction and shall submit permanent residence proof.

9.In compliance to the directions of Hon'ble Principal District &

Sessions Judge Court at Suryapet, the accused A-3 & A-4

surrendered before the Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, -8- P.R.C No.7/2026

Suryapet vide Proceedings Dis. No. 1548/25, Dated: 19-07- 2025 and released on bail duly obtaining the two Sureties.

10.On 15-06-2025 the LW-16 forwarded the viscera of deceased to

Regional Forensic Science Laboratory. Khammam vide FSL File

No.RFSL (KMM)/699 TOX/494/25 for analysis and report. The

RFSL authorities after analyzing the viscera of deceased, furnished the report vide RFSL/KMM/TOX/494/25, D1.22-07- 2025 stating that "Items 1 to 4 are analyzed and "Organophosphate" an insecticide poison is found in items 1, 2 and 3, but not item 4 which is common salt received as sample of preservative".

11.Based on the RFSL report, the LW-14 Dr. A. Kranthikiran, Asst.

Professor, Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Govt. Medical

College, Suryapet furnished the Final Opinion stating the cause of death of deceased was due to "Organophosphatean

Insecticide poisoning".

12.The accused A1 & A2 were released on 11-07-2025 vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.230 of 2025 Cr.no.122 of 2025 of the Hon’ble Prl.

Dist. Sessions Judge, Suryapet dated 10-07-2025

13.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 108 r/w.

3(5) of BNS-2023against Accused and on appearance of the accused, the copies of case record was furnished to them U/s.

230 of BNSS.

-9- P.R.C No.7/2026

14.On perusal of the material available on record, such as complaint, remand report, statements of witnesses reveals that there is prima-facie case for the offence under Section 108 r/w. 3(5) of BNS against accused A1 and the offence U/s. 108 r/w. 3(5) of BNS is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.

Hence this case is committed for trial to the Court of Sessions,

U/s. 232 (a) BNSS.

15.The office is directed to transmit the entire case records and material objects if any to the Court of Sessions under Sec.232

(c) BNSS.

16.The committal order shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor,

Suryapet as required U/s 232 (d) BNSS.

17.The accused on being questioned submitted, that he has sufficient means to engage counsel to defend him before the

Court of Sessions.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L -

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE AT

THUNGATHURTHY

(Dated this the 13th day of March, 2025)

Present: Smt. Rajitha Gopu, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet, FAC: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thungathurthy

C.C.No. 764 of 2024

BETWEEN:-

The State through S.H.O. PS Noothankal. ….Complainant. AND

A1. Mamidi Gopi. S/o. Nagaiah (late), Age: 25 Years. Occ: Auto driver, R/o. NSP Camp, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District.

A2. Jadav Shirisha, W/o. Ganesh, Age: 19 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Back side of boys Schools, Nayanagar, Kodad Town, Suryapet District.

A3. Mamidi Nagamani, W/o. Gopi, Age: 23 Years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. NSP Camp, Huzurnagar Mandal, Suryapet District.

…..Accused.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing, on 13.03.2025 in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri. B. Sathish, Legal Aid Defense counsel, for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day., and this Court delivered the following:- :: JUDGMENT ::

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Noothankal, filed charge sheet against the accused

No. 1, 2 & 3 for the offence under Section 457, 380 IPC in Cr. No. 91/2024.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2024 at 20:00 hours the complainant/Badavath Ramesh went to Noothankal police station and lodged a complaint in which he stated that, on 06.04.2024 they are inaugurated

Kanakadurgamma temple in his village, his villager Banothu Ravuja used to open the temple gates every day morning and close in the evening. As usually on 25.06.2024 morning at 06:30 A.M, his villager went to Kanakadurgamma temple to open the temple gates and he found missing of Hundi. On 24.06.2024 night at 10:00 hours to 25.06.2024 morning at 06:30 hours, some un-known persons criminally trespassed into the temple and committed theft of Hundi from the temple, having an amount of Rs. 3,000/- approximately. Hence he lodged report

before the police and requested to take necessary action.

3.On the strength of the report of the Lw.1, a case in Cr. No. 91/2024, U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC have been registered by Lw.11-SI of police.

4.During the course of investigation, LW.11-SI of police examine and recorded the statement of PW.1 and visited the scene of offence along with Clues team and IT

Cell team at Kanakadurgamma temple, Dirshinapally Village of Noothankal Mandal,

Suryapet District and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn the rough sketch of scene, examined recorded the statement of witnesses i.e.,

Lw.2/Banothu Ravuja & Lw.3/Badavath Chakradar.

5.On 27.06.2024, Lw.11 received information from incharge clues/finger prints team vide Cr.No. 91/24/781/Suryapet/AFIS/FPB/TG/2024, dated: 26.06.2024 and informed that chance print disclosed in Cr.No. 91/2024 has been processed for matching against finger print and found ideatified with right middle finger impression of Jadhav Shirish, D/o. Ganesh, Age: 19 Years, Occ: House wife, R/o.

Kodad, Suryapet Dist.

6.On 05.06.2024, Lw.10 arrested A-1/Mamidi Gopi arrested the accused at in Cr.No.

225/2024, U/Sec. 379 IPC of Kodad town and he confessed before Lw.11 about commission of this crime in Cr. No. 91/2024, U/Sec 457, 380 IPC of Noothankal and remanded to judicial custody and he was produced on PT warrant on 11.07.2024 before the court and regularized in this case. After completion of investigation, Lw11-SI of police filed charge sheet against the accused.

7. On 05.07.2024 the accused persons A-2/Jadav Shirisha & A-3/Mamidi Nagamani were arrested and sent to Judicial remand through the Hon’ble Court and lodged them in District Jail Nalgonda.

8.This case was taken on cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 457, 380 of IPC against the accused.

9.On appearance of the accused, copies furnished to them as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. Accused were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, charge framed for the offence under secs. 457, 380 IPC and the contents of charge is read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

10.To substantiate the case of prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Ex. P1 to P7 on their behalf. The learned APPO, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW7, given up the examination of remaining witnesses and reported their evidence is closed.

11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and for which they denied all the allegations and reported no defense evidence on their behalf.

12.Heard both sides and perused the record.

13.Now the point for determination is: “Whether prosecution has proved guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable U/s.

457, 380 IPC ?”

14.The evidence of Pw1 reveals that their police their committee appointed Lw2 to took after kanakadhurgamma temple morning and evening. on 25.06.2024, at about around 06:00 A.M. Lw2 called him and stated that when he opened temple doors he observed that some unknown persons committed theft of Hundi of

Kanakadhurgamma temple. On that he went to kanakadhurgamma temple and

Hundi was missing. He lodged report before the police.

15.The evidence of Pw2 reveals that on 25.06.2024, at about around 06:00 A.M, he opened temple doors he observed that some unknown persons committed theft of Hundi of Kanakadhurgamma temple. Upon his information, PW1 came to

Kanakadhurgamma temple and found Hundi was missing. On that PW1 lodged the report. Police examined recorded his statement.

16.The evidence of Pw.3 reveals that on 24.06.2024 some unknown persons committed theft of hundi from kanakadurgamma temple and he had know the same from Pw2. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

17.The evidence of Pw4 reveals that on 25.06.2024 police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence along with LW.5 at kanakadhurgamma temple and drawn rough sketch and there after he affixed his signature on scene of offence panchanama.

18.The evidence of Pw.5 reveals that on 05.07.2024, at about afternoon 01:30 P.M police called him Errapahad cross road, Noothankal and conducted confession cum recovery panchanama in his presence. A2 and A3 confessed about the commission of offence in his presence and recovered one mobile phone from A3, Rs. 1000/- from A2 after redover the contents police obtained his signature on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 confession cum recovery panchanama of A2. And

Ex.P4 confession cum recovery panchanama from A3. MO1 Mobile phone, MO2 cash Rs.1000/-.

19.The evidence of Pw6 reveals that on 05.07.2024 in the morning, police called him to gold shop, main road, kodad, in his presence A1 confessed about commission of offence and out of such money he purchased two mobiles. Ex.P5 confession panchanama of A1.

20.The evidence of Pw7 reveal that on 25-06-2024 at 20:00 hours, he received a report from Pw1 basing on which, he registered a case in Cr.No. 91/2024 for the offence U/Sec. 457, 380 IPC and issued FIR. Ex. P6 is FIR. He recorded the statement of PW.1 at police station. On 25-06-2024 he visited scene of offence situated at Kanakadurgamma temple, Dirshinapally village, secured the presence of Lw-4/R.Ayodhya and PW-4 and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch Ex.P7 scene of offence panchanama. He recorded statement

Pw-2 and 3, he with the help of clue team collected finger prints of suspects over the Hundi. Thereafter clue team gave oral information stating the finger print of

A2 tallied with the finger print over the Hundi. On 05-07-2024 he found A2 and A3 in suspicious manner at Errapahad X road bus stand, upon enquiry A2 and A3 confessed in the presence of Pw-5 and Lw-7 that they have committed commission of offence along with A1. He recorded confession cum seizure panchanama of A2 and A3. He produced A2 and A3 before the court for the judicial remand. Lw-10 produced A1 before the court on PT warrant. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

21.From the above discussion, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove the fact of commission of theft or receiving of stolen property by the accused and the investigation officer seized Mobile phone, cash Rs.1000/-.from Accused.

Accordingly point is answered. Hence, I found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380 IPC, and convicted him U/Sec. 264 BNSS.

22.In the result, the accused is sentenced for the offence punishable u/sec. 457, 380

IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 11.07.2024 to 13.03.2025 (246 days) are sentenced for the offence punishable u/Sec. 457, 380 IPC to undergo simple imprisonment for a period from 05.07.2024 to 13.03.2025 (231 days), under gone by the accused shall be given set off under section 468 BNSS.

23.The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda is hereby directed to release the accused forthwith if their detention is not required in any other cases. The case property i.e., Mobile phone, cash Rs.1000/-. shall be given to LW1/B. Ramesh under proper acknowledgment and identification after lapse of appeal time and file the report before this court to that extent.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of March, 2025.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: JFCM, Thungathurthy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION

PW-1: B. RameshComplainant

PW-2: B. Ravuja Cir-witness to the incident

PW-3: B. Chakradar Cir-witness to the incident

PW-4: B. Badhragiri Panch for scene of offence panchanama

PW-5: D. Venkataiah Panch witness for confession & recovery of accused

A.2 & A.3

PW-6: Ch. Krishna Reddy Panch for confession of Accused A1

PW-7: Sri. J. Saidulu IO and filed charge sheet

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P-1: is the report of Pw.1.

Ex.P-2: is the scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P-3: is the confession & recovery of Accused A2 & A3.

Ex.P-4: is the confession & recovery of Accused A2 & A3.

Ex.P-5: is the confession of accused A.1.

Ex.P-6: is the FIR.

Ex.P-7: is the Scene of offence panchanama.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

1. MO1 Mobile phone,

2. MO2 cash Rs.1000/-.

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

FAC: JFCM, Thungathurthy.

1 M.C. NO. 53/2025

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: AT SURYAPET

Dated, this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Present: Smt. Rajitha Gopu,

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum -Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet.

M.C. No. 53 OF 2025

Between:

1.Kancharla @ Yangoju Unitha, W/o.Ramachary, Age:21 years, Occ:Housewife,

2.Yangoju Yanvi Sri, D/o.Ramachary, Age: 2 years, Occ:Minor, Both are R/o.H.No.1-1-119/1/5/2/2, Thallagadda, Suryapet Town and District. Presently residing R.K. Garden, Opp. SV Degree college, Suryapet Town and District.

...Petitioners

And

Kancharla Ramachary, S/o.K.Lingachary, Age:29 years, Occ:Hotel Management, R/o. Thallagadda, Suryapet Town and District.

...Respondent.

This Petition is coming before me for final hearing on 23-01- 2026 in the presence of Sri. Poloju Madhu, B. Srinivas, Advocates for the Petitioner and of Respondent was set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.The present petition is filed u/s.144 of BNSS, by the petitioners seeking maintenance from the Respondent.

2.The brief facts of the petition is that the petitioner no.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 5-2-2022 at Padmasali colony, Tirumalagiri

Mandal, Suryapet district as per Hindu rights and customs 2 M.C. NO. 53/2025 prevailing in their caste. At the time of the marriage, the parents of the petitioner no.1 gave dowry an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs, gold ornaments worth of Rs. 5 lakhs and household articles worth of

Rs. 3 lakhs and also open plot worth of Rs. 15 lakhs. After their marriage, the petitioner and respondent lived together under one roof for about 2 years at Suryapet Town and district and due to wed lock, they blessed with a daughter namely Yanvi Sri, age 2 years.

3.The petitioner further stated that since one year, the respondent is having illegal intimacy with another lady and thereby he harassed the petitioner physically and mentally. When she asked about his illegal intimacy and requested not to do like that, but respondent beat the petitioner indiscriminately, stating that since

before their marriage, he is in love with said lady and he will

continue illegal relation with her and also respondent demanded the petitioner to bring additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs from her parents' house. The respondent addicted to bad vices and also used to consume alcohol daily and harassed her with a demand of additional dowry and also pressurized her to sleep with him as per his wish and will at the time of her menstrual period also, the petitioner no.1 unable to bear the harassment and torture of the respondent, as he never treated her with love and affection and 3 M.C. NO. 53/2025 also took her gold ornaments given by her parents at the time of the marriage and said ornaments are not returned till today to her.

4.The petitioner no.1 further stated that she informed illegal activities of the respondent to his parents and family members i.e., Sharadda first wife of Lingachari, Padma, second wife of

Lingachari, and his sister by name late Kiranmai and her husband Praveen Kumar, but at that time all the family members of the respondent supported the acts of the respondent and abused the petitioner no. 1 in filthy language and demanded

additional dowry and also to register the open plot in the name

of the respondent. Therefore, the petitioner no. 1 informed the same to her parents wherein they approached the respondent and requested not to harass the petitioner, but there is no change in the attitude of the respondent. Petitioner no. 1 waited with a fond hope on one or other day, for bright future of the petition no. 2, but all the hopes are proved futile. Therefore, unbearable harassment of the respondent, his family members, the petitioner no.1, the parents placed this matter before the elders, namely, Yadagiri and T. Somanarayana, where the respondent reprimanded to look after the petitioner no. 1 well, wherein the respondent assured before the elders that he will 4 M.C. NO. 53/2025 never repeat his illegal acts against the petitioner no. 1 and took the petitioner no. 1 to his conjugal society and thereby lived near

Thallagadda, Suryapet town. The parents of the petitioner no. 1 were as given, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the respondent for starting fast food center business at Thallagadda and it runs successfully for a year and they earned Rs.1 lakh per month and the amount received by the respondent mother used to mismanage the same. Therefore, the parents of the petitioner no. 1 asked to return said Rs.4 lakhs but the respondent and his parents dodged the matter on one pretext or other. Further stated that the respondent used to reside out of the state and not coming home for days together and respondent is living with another lady. If the petitioner no.1 informed about the respondent staying outside of the state, the family members of the respondent also supported the same.

5.The petitioner further stated that the respondent and his family members having grudge against the petitioner no.1 necked out her from the house of the respondent. Though the petitioner no.1 made call to the respondent but he never come back to take her to his company. Therefore, the petitioner no.1 lodged a complaint against the respondent and his family members on 13- 05-2025 and the police inquired the matter, registered a case in 5 M.C. NO. 53/2025

Cr.no. 104 of 2025 dated 13-05-2025 under section 85 BNS and section 3 & 4 of DP Act. The petitioner no.1 is leading miserable life along with her child and became dependent on her parents for their livelihood. Therefore the present petition is filed seeking maintenance for her and for her children i.e., petitioner no.2.

Since the respondent is doing hotel management job with an income of Rs.70,000/- salary in Pune and respondent is having joint and ancestral family properties and the same were mutated in the name of the father of the respondent and getting good income and having own houses in their joint family. The family members of the respondent are having their own properties in their names and family members are hale and healthy and also having their own source of income for their livelihood. The respondent has no other obligation except the petitioners herein.

Hence, present petition is filed seeking monthly maintenance of

Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner no.1 and Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner no.2 from the respondent.

6.Notice given to the respondent despite notice having been served, the respondent absent. Therefore he was set ex parte.

7.Heard peruse the case record.

8.Now the Point for consideration:

Whether the petition of the petitioners is allowed as prayed for?

6 M.C. NO. 53/2025

9.The petitioner, referred to as PW1, submitted a chief affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition. In support of her case

Ex.P1 to P3 marked.

10.Despite she filed assets and liabilities but how much amount is earning by the respondent is not shown. According to petitioner she is not doing any work and she has one daughter. While so she stated that the respondent being a Hotel Management job with an income of Rs.70,000/- in Pune. She testified said effect in her evidence the said aspect remain unchallenged consequently this court has no other option except to believe the version of the petitioner, even with regard to the source of the income of the respondent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the present day cost of living especially having due regard to the status of the parties in the society I am of the opinion that the respondent has got capacity to pay maintenance to the petitioners Rs.4,000/- per month, which in my concerned opinion it is just reasonable towards the bare necessities of the petitioner like food clothing and shelter.

Therefore, I am inclined to order the said amount as maintenance to the petitioners payable by the respondent.

11. In the result, this petition is partly allowed by granting monthly interim maintenance of Rs.4000/- per month each to the 7 M.C. NO. 53/2025 petitioner no. 1 & 2 from the date of this order. The respondent is ordered to pay monthly interim maintenance to the petitioners every month on or before 10th day of every succeeding month till disposal of the main MC. The office is directed to supply the copy of order to the petitioner no.1.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Suryapet

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1: Kancharla @ Yangoju Unitha.

FOR RESPONDENT:

- Nil -

Exhibits Marked

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: is marriage photos of the petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P2: is marriage card of the petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P3: is date of birth certificate of petitioner no.2.

FOR RESPONDENT:

- Nil -

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Suryapet.

-1- P.R.C No.6/2026

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: SURYAPET (Dated this the 11th day of May,2026)

Present: Smt. Rajitha Gopu, Prl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Suryapet

P.R.C.No. 6 of 2026

BETWEEN:

The State rep., by Sub-Inspector of Police, Athmakur(s). …Complainant AND Karengula Lingaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:36 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Epoor village, Athmakur(s) mandal, Suryapet District.

…Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned A.P.P., appearing for the State and P.Pradeep Kumar, counsel Advocate on behalf of the accused, and after having stood over for consideration, today, the Court has committed the following:

:: COMMITTAL ORDER::

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Suryapet II Town filed charge sheet against accused in Cr.No.99 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Section 108 of BNS.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: On 29-04-2025 at 11:00 hours the complainant/Ravula Mallaiah filed a written complaint at Seerole PS Mahaboobad District stating that, his younger brother Ravula Naresh was fell in love with his villager

Shaik Rubeena and both are in love. On 10-04-2025 at about -2- P.R.C No.6/2026 13:00 hours when he was at his house, his younger brother made a phone call and informed him that when he was at Air

Filling Machine shop of Shaik Lal S/o Sondumiya at their village, Karengula Lingaiah beating him. On that information he immediately rushed there and found that Karengula Lingaiah was quarrelling and beating his younger brother with his hands. When he asked his brother about the issue, he told that

Karengula Lingaiah also loving Shaik Rubeena as such he quarreled with him and beat him. While the matter stood thus, on 27-04-2025 morning his younger brother informed to him that he is going to their relative's house and left the house. On the same day at about 13:00 hours, one Ragipalli Vinay made a phone call to him and informed that, his younger brother was consumed Herbicide poison at Mango Garden near Toll Plaza,

Chinthapally village. Immediately he and P. Ramesh both of them rushed to the Mango garden located near the Toll Plaza at the outskirts of Chinthapally and found that his younger brother was lying on the ground. When he asked his younger brother, as to why he was consumed the poison, he told that

Karengula Lingaiah quarreled with him on 10-04-2025 alleging that "Nuvvu Addu Tholagithe Nenu Rubena Pelli

Chesukuntamu" and also harassing him continuously whenever he happened to meet him. Due to which he vexed upon his life -3- P.R.C No.6/2026 and consumed the herbicide poison. Immediately he and

P. Ramesh both have taken his younger brother to GGH

Mahabubabad in an Ambulance and admitted him for treatment. On the same day at about 19:00 hours they shifted him and admitted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for better treatment. On 28-04-2025 at about 17:30 hours his younger brother was died while undergoing treatment in the hospital.

Hence, the complainant requested to take necessary action against the Karengula Lingaiah.

3.Based on the above report, the LW-19 P. Veeraiah, HC78 of

Seerole P.S of Mahaboobad District registered a case in Cr. No.

99/2025. U/s 108 BNS and took up the investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, the LW-19 HC 78 examined and recorded his statement as LW-1 at PS Seerole.

Subsequently HC-78 proceeded to the scene of offence i.e. near

Toll Plaza at the outskirts of Chinthapally village in the presence of Lws-12 and 13 searched for the poison bottle, but it was not found. Later he visited the MGM Hospital, Warangal and examined and recorded their statements of LWs-2 to 6.

Thereafter LW-19 HC 78 get the dead body of deceased was photographed with the LW-6 and held inquest over the dead body of deceased Ravula Naresh S/o Kotaiah in the presence of

LWs-14 and 15 and subjected the dead body for autopsy. The -4- P.R.C No.6/2026

LW-18/Dr. Sk. Khaja Moinuddin, Professor, Forensic Medicine &

Toxicology, Kakatiya Medical College, Warangal conducted the autopsy and preserved the viscera of deceased, reserving his opinion pending for FSL report. After the inquest the dead body was handed over to the kith and kin of deceased for funeral rites.

5.Later the LW-20/Ch. Nagesh, Sub-Inspector of Police, Seerole

PS of Mahaboobad District took-up the further investigation of this case, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of witnesses LW-1 to 6, re-examined them and found their versions are corroborating with their earlier version given

before LW-19 HC 78. As such LW-20 not preferred to re-record

their statements, verified the investigation done by LW-18 HC 78 and found it on proper lines.

6.On 21.07.2022, the LW-20 deposited the Material Objects

Viscera of deceased in FSL at RFSL. Khammam and obtained acknowledgment vide FSL file No. RFSL(KMM)/523,

TOX/374/2025, Date: 16.05.2025. The LW-20/Sub-Inspector of Police, Seerole PS of Mahaboobad District transferred the CD file to SHO Athmakur-S Police Station through Supdt. of Police,

Mahaboobad District. On receipt of the above CD file on transfer through the Supdt. of Police, Suryapet vide

Proceedings C.No.95/D5-DCRB/SRPT/2025, Dt.14-05-2025, -5- P.R.C No.6/2026

LW-21 B. Srikanth Goud/Sub-Inspector of Police, Athmakur-S

PS re-registered this case vide Cr.No.99/2025 U/S 108 BNS- 2023 and informed to me. On that LW-22/G. Rajashekhar,

Circle-Inspector of Police, Suryapet Rural Circle have took up the investigation.

7.During the course of investigation, LW-22 have visited the

Aipoor village of Athmakur-s Mandal, visited the scene of crime at the Air Filling shop situated at Main road, Aipoor village, in the presence of Lws-12 & 13, further visited the deceased house examined and recorded their statements of LWs-7 to 10.

8.Later on 23.07.2025 1, LW-22 visited Aipoor village, where he examined and recorded statement of Shaik Rubeena as LW-11.

9.On 05.07.2025, LW-22 have received the FSL report vide File

No. RFSL/KMM/523, TOX/374/2025. Dt. 16.05.2025 in which the RFSL authorities opined that "Items 1. to 4 are analyzed and found "Paraquat Dichloride" a Herbicide poison in item

No's. 1, 2 and 3.

10.On 10.09.2025, I, LW-22 have obtained the PME report (final opinion report) vide P.M. No. 662/2025, Date: 29.04.2025 in respect of deceased Ravula Naresh from the Medical Officer,

LW-18. Dr. SK. Khaja Moinuddin. Professor. Forensic Medicines & Toxicology, Kakatiya Medical College. Warangal, in which the

Medical Officer basing on the FSL report vide File No.

-6- P.R.C No.6/2026

RFSL/KMM/523, TOX/374/2025, Date: 18.06.2025 furnished the cause of death of deceased, is due to "Paraquat Dichloride poisoning".

11.On 22.05.2025 the LW-21 along with staff apprehend the accused person viz. Karengula Lingaiah and in the presence of

Lws-16 & 17 and recorded the Confession Statement of accused. In pursuance of confessional statement of the accused, LW-22 have seized his Mobile phone without SIM, in which he used to talk to Shaik Rubeena, with whom the deceased was in love, under the cover of same panchanama duly affixing the signed chits of panch witnesses. After completion of the Confession & seizure panchanama of accused and arrest of accused by issuing the arrest memo against him duly informing to him and his relatives about the grounds of arrest U/S 47 & 48 BNSS-2023. After completion of entire investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

12.The accused was released on 05-06-2025 vide orders in

Crl.M.P.No.158 of 2025 Cr.no. 99 of 2025 of the Hon’ble I Addl.

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, I/C.I Addl. Dist. Sessions Judge,

Suryapet dated 03.06.2025

13.Cognizance was taken for the offence under Section 108 of

BNS-2023against Accused and on appearance of the accused, -7- P.R.C No.6/2026 the copies of case record was furnished to them U/s. 230 of

BNSS.

14.On perusal of the material available on record, such as complaint, remand report, statements of witnesses reveals that there is prima-facie case for the offence under Section 108 of

BNS against accused and the offence U/s. 108 of BNS is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Hence this case is committed for trial to the Court of Sessions, U/s. 232 (a) BNSS.

15.The office is directed to transmit the entire case records and material objects if any to the Court of Sessions under Sec.232

(c) BNSS.

16.The committal order shall be notified to the Public Prosecutor,

Suryapet as required U/s 232 (d) BNSS.

17.The accused on being questioned submitted, that he has sufficient means to engage counsel to defend him before the

Court of Sessions.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 11th day of May, 2026.

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SURYAPET.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

- N I L -

PRL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

SURYAPET.