Rallabandi Santhi Latha

1 OF 10

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

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt.R.Santhilatha, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

Dated, this the 25 th day of August, 2025

C.C. No. 139 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Dharur. ….Complainant

A N D

A-1.Pinnumula Jaipaly Reddy S/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ:Business (P.Laxma Reddy Factory), R/o. H.No.4-3-35/10,VVHS Road, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

A-2. Kantham Anil Kumar, S/o. Sheshi Reddy, Aged 24 years, Occ:Driver, R/o. H.No. 4-3-35/10,VVHS Road, Tandur, N/o. Bhuthpur Village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

A-3. Nagasaram Goverdhan Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged 28 years, Occ:Supervisor, R/o. H.No.3-1-20, Vinayak Chowk, Tandur Village and Mandal.

4.Archith Kumar Kulkarni S/o. Appa Rao Kulkarni, Aged 29 years, Occ:Employee in Shree Ram Chits, Tandur, R/o. H.No.1-36, Karankote Village and Mandal.

....Accused Nos.1 to 4

2 OF 10

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri.P.Kamal Reddy, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 4, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 have been prosecuted by the State represented by the S.I of Police, P.S.Dharur for the offence Under Section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that: (i) The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Dharur on 15.03.2017 at 9:00 hours, received a complaint from E.Yadaiah, S/o. Sayanna,

R/o. Burgpally Village, in which he stated that on 14.03.2017 at about 21:30 hours, SIP-1, SIP-II, raided the Redyamma Hotel (Dhaba), Kotepally X Road,

Dharur along with himself, HC Muralidhar and PC Chennaiah. The owner of the

Hotel permitted the customers for consuming liquor in his hotel, SI conducted seizure panchanama in the mediators and while returning to Police Station, in the meanwhile, the person who consumed liquor came and started argued says that, "MAA ISTAM MEMU TRAGUTAM” and obstructed SIs and staff and wrongful confined them, abused in filthy language. On inquiry he came to know their names are 1. Jaipal Reddy, 2. K. Anil Kumar, 3. N. Goverdhan Reddy and

4. Architha Kumar Kulkarni all are belongs to R/o Tandur, thereafter they left in their vehicle bearing No.TS EP 9090 towards Tandur. Hence, the complaint.

3 OF 10 ii. Basing on the report LW-11/Sri.S.K.Shamshoddin, SI of Police, PS. Dharur, registered a case in Cr.No.16/2017 for the offence punishable under section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of of the investigation examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 to LW6, and proceeded to scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators LW9 and LW10 observed the scene minutely, brought the observations of the scene into the record in the presence of LW9 and

LW10. Caused enquiries about the incident with LW7 and LW8, examined and recorded their statements. The detail statements of the witnesses are incorporated in Part-II case diary. On 30.03.2017 at 13:00 hours the accused persons A-1 to A-4 themselves surrendered in the police station and they voluntarily admitted their guilt, on which effected their arrest, issued arrest memo against them, after informing the grounds of their arrest to them and their relatives U/sec.50 Cr.P.C.

3. The Court has taken the cognizance for offences U/Secs. 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and on appearance of accused no.1 to 4, the case copies was furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C in brevity).

4. The accused persons were examined under Section. 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, substance of allegation levelled against the accused persons were explained to them to which they 4 OF 10 pleaded not guilty andclaimedto be tried. Hence, the case is proceeded with trial.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. The learned APP has given up the remaining evidences of LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5 and LW6.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt for the offence punishable

U/Se c. 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC , beyond all reasonable doubts?.

POINT:

8. It is the case of the prosecution is that, on 14.03.2017 at about 21:30 hours, at Reddamma Hotel (Dhaba), Kotepally X- Road, Dharur Vikarabad, the A1 to

A4 were consumed liquor and started argued and obstructed SI’s and staff and wrongful confined them. Hence, the charge sheet against the accused persons.

9. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, it is essential to give a glance on the ingredients of Sec. 341 of IPC:

5 OF 10

Sec. 341 wrongful restraining:-

(i)Accused obstructed a person;

(ii)He did it voluntarily;

(iii)It prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed.

Section 186 of IPC: Obstruction of public servant in the performance of their

duties.

Section 504 of IPC: It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished.

Intentional insults that provoke breach of public peace or commission of other offence- None of the independent witnesses has stated that there is breach of public peace and no other complaints were made out to prove that accused nos.1 to 4 committed the offence thereby provoking breach of public peace.

10. To prove the alleged offence U/Sec.341 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked.

PW.1 who is the complainant wherein he deposed that on 14.03.2017, PW1 along with LW2 and LW11, LW4, LW5 upon receiving credible information regarding the illegal sale of liquor went to one Reddamma Hotel at Kotpally cross roads. While they were conducting panchanama few people A1 to A4 came to the spot and abused them in filthy language. On inquiry, they found the details of the accused persons and lodged a complaint against them. Ex. P1 is the complaint.

11.During the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that A1 to A4 were present while they were conducting panchanama at the alleged place of incident.

6 OF 10

They went to the alleged place of incident that a liquor was sold illegally to some other people. The reddamma hotel was Dhaba and all the public passing by the road stopped at the hotel for lunch or dinner. No one was present except the accused in the hotel by the time they reached the alleged spot. 5 of the police persons went to the alleged spot. He do not know the accused persons prior to the alleged incident. None of the police knew the accused persons prior to the alleged incident. Nothing was elicited, except usual suggestions.

12.When the evidences of PW2/Venkataiah and PW3/Sailu, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, deposed that they do not know anything about the case, at the request of police they signed on white papers. The evidence of

PWs.2 and 3 clearly shows that they did not support the case of prosecution and the learned APP treated the PWs.2 & 3 as hostile witnesses.

13.To prove the scene of offence panchanama, the prosecution choose to examine the PW4/Yadaiah and PW5/G.Shoban Babu who are the panch witnesses under Exs.P2 & P3, wherein they deposed that Police did not conducted any panchanama in their presence. Police obtained their signatures on white papers. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures on CDF. The evidence of

PWs.4 and 5 clearly shows that they did not support the case of prosecution, except marking of Exs.P2 and P3 and the learned APP treated the PWs.4 & 5 as hostile witnesses.

7 OF 10

14.When it comes to the evidence of PW6/SK.Shamshoddin who is the investigating officer in this case, wherein he deposed that on 15.03.2017 at 19:00 hours, PW6 received a complaint from PW1, based on which he registered a case in crime No.16/2017 for the offense under section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC. During the investigation PW6 recorded the statements of PW1, LW2 to

LW6. Further, he proceeded to scene of offense at Dharur Reddamma Hotel and conducted scene of offense panchanama in the presence of PW4 and PW5.

Further PW1 recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. On 30.03.2017 PW6 apprehended A1 to A4.

15.During the cross examination PW6, he admitted that he examined PW1,

LW2 to LW6 at PS. PW6 denied the suggestion that he has not examined PW2 and PW3. PW6 denied the suggestion that he has not conducted any scene of offence panchanama. PW6 admitted that he has mentioned in Ex.P5 that there are no physical evidence present in the scene of offence. PW6 has not examined the owner of the Reddamma Hotel as he is involved in other cases. Nothing much elicited, except usual suggestions.

16.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons is that the PW1 is the interested person who is belongs to Police department and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration without corroboration of the other independent evidence. It is further argued that the alleged incident did not take 8 OF 10 place and the A1 to A4 not obstructed of PW1. Further, the PW6 also did not examine any other independent witnesses at the spot and he did not receive any independent complaint from the independent persons surrounding at that spot and also he did not file any photographs and video of the incident along with the charge sheet. As such, there is no evidence available on record against the accused persons.

17. The learned defence counsel submitted that due to the police influence, the false case was foisted against the A1 to A4 and they did not commit any offence and there is no independent evidence to believe the version of the prosecution.

Though PW2 and PW3 are the eye witness to the case turned hostile. Further,

PWs.4 & 5 who are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama under

Exs.P2 & P3 as turned hostile and not support the case of the prosecution. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

18.Having heard the contentions and perusal of evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts with reasons discussed hereinafter. Firstly, the prosecution did not examine any other independent eye witness to support their version to prove the guilt against the accused persons and the police failed to 9 OF 10 examine the any other independent eye witness or the prosecution did not make any effort to bring as a witness in support of the evidence of PW1.

19. The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence

U/Sec.341 to show that they wrongfully restrained the PW1 by the accused persons with the aid of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the prosecution not established the guilt of the accused persons for the offence

U/Sec.341 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. When it comes to the offence under Section 186 of IPC, there is a bar to take cognizance on police report, as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. As such, Section 186 of IPC is not maintainable against the A1 to A4. Since, it is not in accordance with the provision of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

20. Lastly, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence

U/Sec.341,186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC to show that they wrongfully restrained the

Pws.1 to 6 by the accused persons with the aid of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the prosecution not established the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/Sec.341,186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the Accused nos.1 to 4 are found Not Guilty for the offence

U/Sec.341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, as such they are acquitted U/Sec.251(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six 10 OF 10 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on computer to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of August, 2025.

FAC ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1:E.Yadaiah -None- PW2: Venkataiah PW3: Sailu PW4:B. Yadaiah PW5:G.Shoban Babu PW6:Sk.Shamshoddin

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2:Signature on CDF of PW4 Ex.P3:Signature on CDF of PW5 Ex.P4:First Information Report Ex.P5:Signature on CDF

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FAC ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

1 OF 10

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

ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt.R.Santhilatha, Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

FAC I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad, Vikarabad District.

Dated, this the 25 th day of August, 2025

C.C. No. 139 of 2017

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Dharur. ….Complainant

A N D

A-1.Pinnumula Jaipaly Reddy S/o. Laxma Reddy, Aged 30 years, Occ:Business (P.Laxma Reddy Factory), R/o. H.No.4-3-35/10,VVHS Road, Tandur, Vikarabad District.

A-2. Kantham Anil Kumar, S/o. Sheshi Reddy, Aged 24 years, Occ:Driver, R/o. H.No. 4-3-35/10,VVHS Road, Tandur, N/o. Bhuthpur Village of Makthal Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

A-3. Nagasaram Goverdhan Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged 28 years, Occ:Supervisor, R/o. H.No.3-1-20, Vinayak Chowk, Tandur Village and Mandal.

4.Archith Kumar Kulkarni S/o. Appa Rao Kulkarni, Aged 29 years, Occ:Employee in Shree Ram Chits, Tandur, R/o. H.No.1-36, Karankote Village and Mandal.

....Accused Nos.1 to 4

2 OF 10

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of APPO for the State and of Sri.P.Kamal Reddy, Advocate for the Accused Nos.1 to 4, upon perusing the material documents on record, on hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

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

1. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 have been prosecuted by the State represented by the S.I of Police, P.S.Dharur for the offence Under Section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC.

2. Brief facts of the case are that: (i) The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Dharur on 15.03.2017 at 9:00 hours, received a complaint from E.Yadaiah, S/o. Sayanna,

R/o. Burgpally Village, in which he stated that on 14.03.2017 at about 21:30 hours, SIP-1, SIP-II, raided the Redyamma Hotel (Dhaba), Kotepally X Road,

Dharur along with himself, HC Muralidhar and PC Chennaiah. The owner of the

Hotel permitted the customers for consuming liquor in his hotel, SI conducted seizure panchanama in the mediators and while returning to Police Station, in the meanwhile, the person who consumed liquor came and started argued says that, "MAA ISTAM MEMU TRAGUTAM” and obstructed SIs and staff and wrongful confined them, abused in filthy language. On inquiry he came to know their names are 1. Jaipal Reddy, 2. K. Anil Kumar, 3. N. Goverdhan Reddy and

4. Architha Kumar Kulkarni all are belongs to R/o Tandur, thereafter they left in their vehicle bearing No.TS EP 9090 towards Tandur. Hence, the complaint.

3 OF 10 ii. Basing on the report LW-11/Sri.S.K.Shamshoddin, SI of Police, PS. Dharur, registered a case in Cr.No.16/2017 for the offence punishable under section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC. During the course of of the investigation examined and recorded the statements of the LW1 to LW6, and proceeded to scene of offence, secured the presence of mediators LW9 and LW10 observed the scene minutely, brought the observations of the scene into the record in the presence of LW9 and

LW10. Caused enquiries about the incident with LW7 and LW8, examined and recorded their statements. The detail statements of the witnesses are incorporated in Part-II case diary. On 30.03.2017 at 13:00 hours the accused persons A-1 to A-4 themselves surrendered in the police station and they voluntarily admitted their guilt, on which effected their arrest, issued arrest memo against them, after informing the grounds of their arrest to them and their relatives U/sec.50 Cr.P.C.

3. The Court has taken the cognizance for offences U/Secs. 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and on appearance of accused no.1 to 4, the case copies was furnished to them as contemplated U/s.207 of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (herein after referred as Cr.P.C in brevity).

4. The accused persons were examined under Section. 251 of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec.341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, substance of allegation levelled against the accused persons were explained to them to which they 4 OF 10 pleaded not guilty andclaimedto be tried. Hence, the case is proceeded with trial.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. The learned APP has given up the remaining evidences of LW2, LW3, LW4, LW5 and LW6.

6. After completion of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence found against them, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard both sides. Now the point for determination is that:-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt for the offence punishable

U/Se c. 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC , beyond all reasonable doubts?.

POINT:

8. It is the case of the prosecution is that, on 14.03.2017 at about 21:30 hours, at Reddamma Hotel (Dhaba), Kotepally X- Road, Dharur Vikarabad, the A1 to

A4 were consumed liquor and started argued and obstructed SI’s and staff and wrongful confined them. Hence, the charge sheet against the accused persons.

9. Prior to the appreciation of prosecution evidence, it is essential to give a glance on the ingredients of Sec. 341 of IPC:

5 OF 10

Sec. 341 wrongful restraining:-

(i)Accused obstructed a person;

(ii)He did it voluntarily;

(iii)It prevented such person from proceeding in certain direction in which he had the right to proceed.

Section 186 of IPC: Obstruction of public servant in the performance of their

duties.

Section 504 of IPC: It states that whoever commits the offence of criminal

intimidation shall be punished.

Intentional insults that provoke breach of public peace or commission of other offence- None of the independent witnesses has stated that there is breach of public peace and no other complaints were made out to prove that accused nos.1 to 4 committed the offence thereby provoking breach of public peace.

10. To prove the alleged offence U/Sec.341 of IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 4, the prosecution examined the PWs.1 to 6 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked.

PW.1 who is the complainant wherein he deposed that on 14.03.2017, PW1 along with LW2 and LW11, LW4, LW5 upon receiving credible information regarding the illegal sale of liquor went to one Reddamma Hotel at Kotpally cross roads. While they were conducting panchanama few people A1 to A4 came to the spot and abused them in filthy language. On inquiry, they found the details of the accused persons and lodged a complaint against them. Ex. P1 is the complaint.

11.During the cross examination of PW1, he deposed that A1 to A4 were present while they were conducting panchanama at the alleged place of incident.

6 OF 10

They went to the alleged place of incident that a liquor was sold illegally to some other people. The reddamma hotel was Dhaba and all the public passing by the road stopped at the hotel for lunch or dinner. No one was present except the accused in the hotel by the time they reached the alleged spot. 5 of the police persons went to the alleged spot. He do not know the accused persons prior to the alleged incident. None of the police knew the accused persons prior to the alleged incident. Nothing was elicited, except usual suggestions.

12.When the evidences of PW2/Venkataiah and PW3/Sailu, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, deposed that they do not know anything about the case, at the request of police they signed on white papers. The evidence of

PWs.2 and 3 clearly shows that they did not support the case of prosecution and the learned APP treated the PWs.2 & 3 as hostile witnesses.

13.To prove the scene of offence panchanama, the prosecution choose to examine the PW4/Yadaiah and PW5/G.Shoban Babu who are the panch witnesses under Exs.P2 & P3, wherein they deposed that Police did not conducted any panchanama in their presence. Police obtained their signatures on white papers. Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures on CDF. The evidence of

PWs.4 and 5 clearly shows that they did not support the case of prosecution, except marking of Exs.P2 and P3 and the learned APP treated the PWs.4 & 5 as hostile witnesses.

7 OF 10

14.When it comes to the evidence of PW6/SK.Shamshoddin who is the investigating officer in this case, wherein he deposed that on 15.03.2017 at 19:00 hours, PW6 received a complaint from PW1, based on which he registered a case in crime No.16/2017 for the offense under section 341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of

IPC. During the investigation PW6 recorded the statements of PW1, LW2 to

LW6. Further, he proceeded to scene of offense at Dharur Reddamma Hotel and conducted scene of offense panchanama in the presence of PW4 and PW5.

Further PW1 recorded the statements of PW2 and PW3. On 30.03.2017 PW6 apprehended A1 to A4.

15.During the cross examination PW6, he admitted that he examined PW1,

LW2 to LW6 at PS. PW6 denied the suggestion that he has not examined PW2 and PW3. PW6 denied the suggestion that he has not conducted any scene of offence panchanama. PW6 admitted that he has mentioned in Ex.P5 that there are no physical evidence present in the scene of offence. PW6 has not examined the owner of the Reddamma Hotel as he is involved in other cases. Nothing much elicited, except usual suggestions.

16.It is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused persons is that the PW1 is the interested person who is belongs to Police department and his evidence cannot be taken into consideration without corroboration of the other independent evidence. It is further argued that the alleged incident did not take 8 OF 10 place and the A1 to A4 not obstructed of PW1. Further, the PW6 also did not examine any other independent witnesses at the spot and he did not receive any independent complaint from the independent persons surrounding at that spot and also he did not file any photographs and video of the incident along with the charge sheet. As such, there is no evidence available on record against the accused persons.

17. The learned defence counsel submitted that due to the police influence, the false case was foisted against the A1 to A4 and they did not commit any offence and there is no independent evidence to believe the version of the prosecution.

Though PW2 and PW3 are the eye witness to the case turned hostile. Further,

PWs.4 & 5 who are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama under

Exs.P2 & P3 as turned hostile and not support the case of the prosecution. As such, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal on benefit of doubt.

18.Having heard the contentions and perusal of evidence on record, this court is of the view that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the A1 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts with reasons discussed hereinafter. Firstly, the prosecution did not examine any other independent eye witness to support their version to prove the guilt against the accused persons and the police failed to 9 OF 10 examine the any other independent eye witness or the prosecution did not make any effort to bring as a witness in support of the evidence of PW1.

19. The prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence

U/Sec.341 to show that they wrongfully restrained the PW1 by the accused persons with the aid of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the prosecution not established the guilt of the accused persons for the offence

U/Sec.341 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. When it comes to the offence under Section 186 of IPC, there is a bar to take cognizance on police report, as contemplated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. As such, Section 186 of IPC is not maintainable against the A1 to A4. Since, it is not in accordance with the provision of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.

20. Lastly, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence

U/Sec.341,186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC to show that they wrongfully restrained the

Pws.1 to 6 by the accused persons with the aid of cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence. Therefore, the prosecution not established the guilt of the accused persons for the offence U/Sec.341,186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

21.In the result, the Accused nos.1 to 4 are found Not Guilty for the offence

U/Sec.341, 186, 504 r/w 34 of IPC, as such they are acquitted U/Sec.251(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 4 shall be in force for a period of six 10 OF 10 months as per Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on computer to stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of August, 2025.

FAC ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

APENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1:E.Yadaiah -None- PW2: Venkataiah PW3: Sailu PW4:B. Yadaiah PW5:G.Shoban Babu PW6:Sk.Shamshoddin

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1:Complaint -Nil- Ex.P2:Signature on CDF of PW4 Ex.P3:Signature on CDF of PW5 Ex.P4:First Information Report Ex.P5:Signature on CDF

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

FAC ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

1 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. R.SANTHILATHA, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad.

Dated this the 21 st day of April, 2026

CC. No.191 of 2025

(Cr.No.21 of 2025 of W.P.S. Vikarabad.)

Between: The State - Rep., through the Inspector of police, W.P.S. Vikarabad.

......Complainant.

And

Nemalika Prashanth Kumar S/o Kistaiah, Age:35 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o:H.No.6-41, Inapur Village, Vikarabad

.....Accused

This case coming on this the before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and in the presence of Learned counsel for the accused person K.Gopal; and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

[1]. The Inspector of Police, Women Police Station Vikarabad, filed charge sheet in Crime No.21/2025 against the accused, for the offence punishable under Section 85 and 118(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (hereinafter referred as BNS) and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(herein after called DP Act).

[2]. (i). The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.03.2025 at about 1700 hours, received a Telugu Written complaint from LW-1/Aatugalla Mounika. In which, she stated that on 12.12.2028 her marriage performed with accused

before the elders. At the time of marriage on demand of accused, her parents

given an amount of Rs.50,000/- cash, 5 thulas gold and other utensils as a shape of dowry. After that they lived their nuptial life happily for a period 6 2 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

months and blessed with two children. Thereafter, accused started consuming alcohol each and every day by saying that the dowry given by her parents at the time of marriage is insufficient and demanded to bring

additional dowry from her parents and harassed her physically and mentally

and also her husband was suspecting on her character, whenever she talks with others. In this regard panchayath was held before the village elders and admonished him but he did not change his behavior. In this regard she gave complaint at WPS Vikarabad and they held counseling to him, during the counseling he agreed to look after her very well, and took her to marital house, but he did not change his behavior and on 27.03.2025 the accused took her phone and beat her severely with sticks due to which she received blood injuries on his body parts. Thereafter she went to her parental house.

(ii). Basing on the above complaint, the LW.10/M.Sravanthi, Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Crime No.21/2025, U/Sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and Secs.3 & 4 of DP Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW3 and collected the Aadhaar cards and marriage photo LW1 with the A1.

Further LW10 sent the LW1 to community health center, Vikarabad for treatment and LW9 treated the LW1 and issued medical certificate, in which she opined that the injuries are “Simple in Nature”. Later visited the

Chittigadda village and examined the LW4 to LW6 who are the village elders and attended their panchanyath. Later visited the scene of offence along with the LW1 and conducted scene of offence panchanama in presence of

LW7 and LW8. On 08.04.2025 the accused surrendered in WPS, Vikarabad admitted his guilty of offence. LW10 served a notice under section 35(3) of

BNSS to the accused. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet 3 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

against accused for the offence punishable U/sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and

Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act. Hence, the case.

[3]. After filing the charge sheet by the police, cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Sec.85 and 118(1)of BNS and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P.

Act against the accused.

[4]. On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to him as contemplated U/s.230 of Bharatiya Nagarika Surakhsa Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred as BNSS in brevity).

[5]. The accused was examined U/s.262 of BNSS for the offence punishable

U/Sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and Secs.3 & 4 of DP. Act, charges were framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[6]. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the LW1/A.Mounika who is the complainant as PW1 and LW3 who is the father of victim examined as PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P3. The learned APP has given up the evidence of LW.2, LW4 to LW10 as PW1 and

PW2 compromised with accused. There is no incriminating evidence found against accused. As such, U/s.313 Cr.PC is dispensed.

[7]. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record of either side.

[8]. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for

an offence punishable U/Sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and U/Secs.3 & 4

of DP Act, beyond reasonable doubt or not?” 4 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

Point:

[9]. The Crux of the prosecution case is that, the PW1’s marriage performed with accused. At the time of marriage, her parents have given an amount of Rs.50,000/-, 5 thulas gold and other house hold articles as a shape of dowry. After marriage, they both lived happily for period of 6 months and blessed with two children. Thereafter the accused addicted to alcohol and demanded additional dowry from PW1 and harassed her physically and mentally by suspecting her character and beat her with stick.

Thus, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/Sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

[10]. To prove the alleged above said offences against accused, the prosecution examined the PW.1 and PW2, wherein they deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case and also deposed that they compromised the case with accused out of the court. The learned APP declare the PW1 and PW2 as hostile. During the cross-examination of PW1 nothing was elicited.

[11]. The nature of cruelty and harassment not established by the prosecution as per the essential ingredients for the offence U/sec.85 of BNS.

Admittedly, the demand of additional dowry is not proved by the prosecution, as such the harassment or cruelty against the PW.1 does not arise and it cannot be relied and also there is no evidence to prove that accused beat the PW1 with stick for the offence U/s.118(1). There is no evidence on record except PW1 who is the complainant and PW2 who is the father of the complainant and they turned hostile. Hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for offence U/s.85 5 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

and 118(1) of BNS. Accordingly, the point no.1 is answered against the prosecution.

[12]. Since the prosecution failed to prove the main offence U/sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS against the accused person, the prosecution also did not place any evidence in order to attract the offence U/secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

When it comes to the offence U/secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act., as per the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act the initial burden is on the accused person to prove the fact that the accused person have not taken any dowry or they did not demand dowry from the PW.1 during their wedlock. The enactment of

Dowry Prohibition Act is not like other enactments since the onus of proof is on the accused alone, whereas in all the criminal offences the prosecution has to establish the guilt of the accused person. In the facts of the case, the accused person not examined to discharge their burden cast upon him as per the provisions of the Act, but main offence U/sec.85 of BNS could not establish the guilt against the accused person. There is no evidence on record about the demanding of dowry as stated the above in the entire evidence of the prosecution to substantiate it, which would not sufficient to establish the offence U/secs.3 & 4 of DP Act.

[13]. Therefore, the very defacto-complainant P.W.1 has turned hostile and not supported the version of prosecution, the examination of remaining list of witnesses is a futile exercise and waste of precious time of the court as well as a litigant public. The prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. In view of hostile nature of evidence of P.W.1, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that during pendency of this case the defacto-complainant and accused seemed to have settled the matter out 6 of 6

CC.No.191 of 2025

of the court. Hence, there is no evidence in this case to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

[14]. In the result, accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable U/Sec.85 and 118(1) of BNS and Secs.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and he is acquitted under section 271(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of accused person shall stand discharged after expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated U/s.481 of BNSS.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT VIKARABAD.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:Defence:-None-

PW1: A.Mounika PW2: A.Mallaih

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution: For defence:--Nil--

Ex.P1: Signature on report

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement

Mos. Marked -Nil-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT VIKARABAD.

1 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. R.SANTHILATHA Judl. Magistrate of First Class At Vikarabad.

Dated this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

CC.No.779 of 2020

(Cr.No.340/2020 of P.S. Vikarabad)

Between: The State - Rep., through the Sub-Inspector of police, P.S. Vikarabad.

.....Complainant.

AND Kummarapally Rajashekar S/o Anjaneyulu, Age:24 years, Occ:Private Job, R/o:H.No.3-90, Madgulchittampally, Vikarabad.

.....Accused

This case is coming before me for hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P for the state and in the presence of counsel for the accused G.Gopal Krishna; and after having stood over for consideration, the court delivered the following:-

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

[1]. The Sub-Inspector of police, Vikarabad Police station, filed charge sheet in Crime No.340/2020 against the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.338 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Secs.181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred as MV Act).

[2].The brief facts of the prosecution case as set out in the charge sheet are that ;

(i). That on 20.10.2020 at 1215 hours received a complaint from Uradi Pavani W/o Narsimulu. In which she stated that on 19.10.2020 at about 1845 hours, her husband Uradi Narsimulu, after completion of duty, while returning to his village Gottimukla from Vikarabad on his motor cycle vide Br.No.TS34C8285, on the 2 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

way near Gottimukla Kaman while turning, one motor cycle driver

Br.No.AP28DD1791 who was proceeding towards Vikarabad from

Pargi drove his motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and hit his husband vehicle, due to which he received injuries to face and his vehicle damaged.

(ii). Upon receipt of the above complaint, the

LW10/G.Rajashekar has been registered a case in Cr.No.340/2020,

U/s.337 of IPC and the investigation entrusted to the

LW11/Laxmaiah. During the course of investigation LW11 examined and recorded the statement of LW1 to LW5 at police station.

Thereafter LW11 proceeded to scene of offence situated at

Gottimukula Kaman, Vikarabad and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also drawn rough sketch in the presence of mediators i.e., LW7/K.Ramakrishna and LW8/V.Narsimulu. After that the LW11 proceeded to Gottimukkula and recorded the statement of

LW6 who is the injured person.

(iii). While the investigation is in progress, on 02.11.2020 at about 1400 hours the accused surrendered before the LW11 and released on bail and issued 41A Cr.PC notice to the accused. The

LW9/Medical officer treated the injured person and issued opinion that the injured person/LW6 received injuries are “Grievous in

Nature”. On the strength of medical report, the section of Law has been altered from 337 to 338 of IPC and the accused was not having license. After completion of investigation, charge sheet filed against the accused for the offence U/s.338 of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of

MV Act.

3 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

[3]. After filing the charge sheet by the police, cognizance was taken for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 MV Act against the accused.

[4]. On appearance of the accused, case copies furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

[5]. The accused is examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V

Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The substance of accusation levelled against him read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[6]. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined the complainant LW.1/Uradi Pavani as PW1,

LW.2/M.Sreesailam as PW2, LW6/U.Narsimulu as PW3 and

LW5/U.Ananthaiah as PW4 and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. The learned APP has given up the remaining evidence of witnesses i.e.,

LW3, LW4, LW.7 to LW11 as defacto-complainant compromised the matter outside the Court.

[7]. After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence appeared against the accused, the examination U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

[8]. Heard both sides. Perused the entire material on record.

[9]. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

accused for an offences punishable U/Sec.338 of IPC and

Sec.181 and 196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

[10]. Point:- To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of M.V Act, the prosecution shall establish that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed PW3, due to which PW3 received bleeding injury and his vehicle was damaged.

[11]. To prove the above offence against the accused, the prosecution choose to examine the PW1 to PW4. Wherein, they deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case.

Police did not examined and not recorded their statements. Further deposed that they compromised the matter with accused person out of the court. The learned APP has declared the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 as hostile as they did not support the case of prosecution. The learned APP given up the evidences of LW3, LW4, LW.7 to LW11 as the PW1 to PW3 compromise the case out the of the court.

[12]. From the above evidence it is clearly manifest that the PW.1 who lodged the report and initiated criminal action in this case and the PW2 to PW4 did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile without stating anything in connection with this case and of PW1 to PW4 in their chief examination they deposed that they compromised with accused persons out of the court. In addition to that the prosecution has not examine the other witnesses as the

PW1 to PW4 compromised with accused persons.

[13]. It is a well settled law is that where the prosecution did not examine its witnesses and others afford them to be cross- examination is itself amounts to abandoning of one’s own witness, such an approach seriously effected to the credibility of the 5 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

prosecution case held in a case Sukhawanth Vs. state of Punjab

AIR SC 1601. Therefore, in the absence of any independent witnesses and the non-examination of investigation officer to prove the guilt of the accused person, it is not safe to convict the accused person, basing on the lack of evidence on record. Hence, the prosecution has also failed to prove the guilt of the accused person.

[14]. On perusal of the evidence on record and other averments in the charge sheet it reveals that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case of the prosecution and interestingly the person who initiated the criminal action did not support the case of prosecution and failed to prove the guilt of the accused person.

[15]. On careful consideration of entire evidence of PWs.1 to 4, this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused person for the charged offences U/Secs.338 of IPC and Secs.181 and 196 of MV Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Therefore, the point is answered accordingly.

[16]. In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs.338 of IPC and Sec.181 and 196 of MV

Act, as such accused is acquitted U/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons is set at liberty in this case. The bail bonds of accused person shall stand in force for a period of six months as per Sec.437-

A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on computer by stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of April, 2026.

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

VIKARABAD.

6 of 6

CC. No.779-2020

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution:For Defence: PW1: Pavani - None- PW2: Srisailam PW3: Narsimulu PW4: Ananthaiah Exhibits marked For the Prosecution: For defence: Ex.P1: Signature on report -Nil- Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement Ex.P4: 161 Cr.PC statement Ex.P5: 161 Cr.PC statement Mos. Marked-NIL-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

AT VIKARABAD.

1 Of 6

OS.No.251-2025

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

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLAS AT VIKARABAD,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. R.SANTHILATHA Prl.Junior Civil Judge -cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Vikarabad.

Dated this the 16 th day of April, 2026

O.S.No.251 of 2025

Between:

1. Smt. Sharada Bhimayya Munnur W/o Late Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur, Age:66 years, Occ:House wife, R/o:3-48A, Girgetpally (Rural), PO: Anantagiripally, Vikarabad.

2. Ms. Rupali Bhimayya Munnur D/o Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur, Age:43 years, Occ:Self employee, R/o:#6/2024, Samata Nagar CHSL, Shripad Dongre Marg, Opp. J.K.Gram, Samatha Nagar, Thane, Jekegram, Maharastra.

3. Mrs. Anjali Bhimayya Munnur D/o Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur, W/o Adinath Samant, Age:33 years, Occ:Self employee, R/o:#6/204, Samata Nagar, CHSL, Shripad Dongre Marg, Opp:J.K.Gram, Samatha Nagar, Thane, Jekegram Maharastra.

...Plaintiffs

And

1. The Tahsildar, Vikarabad Mandal & District.

2. All concerned. …Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 07.04.2026 in the presence of Shalini Advocate for the plaintiffs and written statement of defendant No.1 and 2 are set exparte; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of Petitioners side and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

[1].This suit is filed for declaration to declare the plaintiffs are legal heirs of late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur who died on 15.12.2019.

Any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2 Of 6

O.S.No.251-2025

[2].The gist of the contents of the plaint is as follows:

(a)That, the Plaintiff No.1 is wife of deceased Late Sri

Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are daughters of deceased Late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur and he is died on 15.12.2019 leaving behind plaintiffs herein as only surviving legal heirs. The death certificate of deceased Late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya

Munnur, issued by Government of Maharashtra, department of health,

Lokmanya -Savarkar Prabhag Samiti, The Municipal corporation of the city of Thane.

(b). That it is necessary for the plaintiffs to obtain a legal heir certificate for legal status and domestic purposes. As per the Law property devolves on surviving legal heirs by operation of Law i.e., plaintiffs are entitled to inherit and succeed the estate of Late Sri

Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur as every department is insisting that there should be a family declaration certificate issued by competent civil court by following due process of Law.

(c). Plaintiffs submitted that they approached the Tahsildar on 20.07.2025 and requested orally to issue a Legal heir certificate in the name of plaintiffs. However, the Tahsildar has refused to issue a legal

Heir certificate to the plaintiffs and stated that he has no power to issue and refused their status as legal heirs. Hence, the suit.

[3].On the other side defendant No.1 set exparte on 27.10.2025 and defendant No.2 set exparte on 18.11.2025.

[4]. On behalf of the Plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3 herself examined as

PW.1 and Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on plaintiffs side.

3 Of 6

O.S.No.251-2025

[5]. Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and perused the record.

[6]. Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of

declaration of legal heirs of late Sri. Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur

or not?

Point :

[7].The suit is filed by the plaintiff No.1 to 3 for the relief of declaration with a prayer to declare the legal heirs and successors of deceased Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur, who died on 15.12.2019.

[8]. In order to declare the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased/Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur, the relationship between the plaintiff No.1 is wife of deceased and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the daughters of deceased- Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur must be proved.

[9]. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Plaintiff No.3 herself examined as PW1, and she reiterated the averments mentioned in the plaint, Ex.A1 to A5 marked on her behalf. Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of

Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur along with translation, Ex.A2 is the Xerox copy of Aadhar card of Munnur Bhimayya vide No.226362115377,

Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Rupali Bhimayya Munnur vide No.817938369106, Ex.A4 is the Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of

Anjali Bhimayya Munnur vide No.466996233839 and Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Sharadha Bhimayya Munnur vide

No.436993691877.

4 Of 6

O.S.No.251-2025

[10]. On perusal of Ex.A1 it is undisputed that Bhimayya Anthayya

Munnur, who died on 15.12.2019. In Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 plaintiffs No.2 and 3 were shown as daughters of Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur. In

Ex.A5 plaintiff No.1 was shown as wife of deceased/Bhimayya Anthayya

Munnur. PW1 during her chief examination deposed that her father was died on 15.12.2019 leaving behind them as legal heirs and successors to succeed the estate of the deceased. Except them and there are no other legal heirs of Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur.

[11]. After perusing the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A5, it is established that PW.1 and plaintiff No.2 are the daughters of

Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur and plaintiff No.1 is wife of deceased/Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur. After perusing the Ex.A1 to A5 coupled with evidence of PW1 it is established that plaintiff No.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of deceased Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged.

[12]. As per section 34 of Specific Relief Act:-

Any person entitled to any legal character right or status may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title to such character right or status and this court may in its discretion make a declaration that he is so entitled.

[13]. In view of above Provision of Law and from the evidence of

PW.1 coupled with from the contents of Ex.A1 to A5, plaintiffs established that late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur died on 15.12.2019 and plaintiffs are the legal heirs of late Sri Bhimayya

Anthayya Munnur. Hence, this Court opines that the plaintiffs are 5 Of 6

O.S.No.251-2025

entitled for the declaration as legal heirs of late Sri Bhimayya

Anthayya Munnur.

[14]. The un-challenged evidence of the Plaintiffs both oral and documentary evidence established the claim of the Plaintiffs. The defendants remained set ex-parte. During the proceedings there is no contest from the defendants or from any other person to deny the legal status of relationship of the plaintiffs with the deceased late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur. Therefore, this court of the consider view that the plaintiffs are entitle the relief of declaring the plaintiffs as legal heirs of late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya Munnur.

There is no relief or any finding in respect of the any immovable land or any property as mentioned in the pleadings.

[15]. In the result, the suit is decreed exparte, declaring the plaintiff No.1 to 3 are Legal Heirs of late Sri Bhimayya Anthayya

Munnur. There is no finding or order in respect of the title and ownership of any property. However, there is no order as to costs. IA’s pending if any stands closed.

Typed to my dictation on computer by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD.

- Appendix of Evidence-

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:--NIL--

PW1: Anjali Bhimayya Munnur 6 Of 6

O.S.No.251-2025

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1: Original death certificate Bheemayya Anthayya Munnur along with translation Ex.A2: Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Munnur Bheemayya vide No.226362115377 Ex.A3: Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Rupali Bheemayya Munnur vide No.817938369106(Compared with original) Ex.A4: Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Anjali Bhemmayya Munnur vide No.466996233839(Compared with original) Ex.A5: Xerox copy of Aadhaar card of Sharadha Bheemayya Munnur vide No.436993691877(Compared with original)

For Defendants:

--NIL--

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

VIKARABAD.