Ms. Ritika Nandikonda

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

Tuesday, on this the 10th day of February, 2026.

Present: Ms. Ritika Nandikonda, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No. 2223 of 2024

BETWEEN:

The Telangana State represented by S.I.of Police, Mills Colony, P.S., ….Complainant

AND

1. Butharaju Sandeep, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 21 years, Caste: Rajaka, Occu:Ex- Receptionist in Sri Sai Hospital, Hanumakonda, R/o.H.No.1-9-1335 Deendayal Nagar, Hanamkonda.

…..Accused

This case is coming up before me on 08.01.2026 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Smt R. Rajini Asst. Legal Aid defence counsel, Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The S.I. of Police, Mills Colony P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 331(4), 305 of BNS.

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

That, on 08-08-2024 at 13:30 hours the complainant by name Gande

Srinivas came to Police Station Mills colony and lodged a complaint in which he stated that, he running Book stall on the name of Srinivasa, he used to open the

Book stall morning 08:00 hours and 22:30 hours every day as such on 07.08.2024

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

closed his book stall at about 22:30 hours on the next day i.e., on 08.08.2024 at 08:00 hrs he went to his shop and found break down his Book stall shutter.

Immediately he went and found some Un-Known offenders gained entire into his shop by break down swatter committed theft Net cash Rs.1,90,000 from counter in his shop and also tried to theft of Veeresham Kiranam shop but nothing was found in Kiranam shop and not committed theft. Hence, the report.

3.On receipt of above report, LW8 registered the same in

Cr.No.523/2024, U/s. 331(4), 305 BNS and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1. LW-8 requested the superior officers over cell phone for providing the service of clues team. LW-8 also informed the case facts to the neighbor Police Stations and requested them to check the complicity of suspects and inform him if any developments. Further,

LW-8 visited the scene of offence i.e. Srinivasa Book stall at Fort road Warangal and secured the presence of LW-2, examined her and recorded her statements and also secured the presence of panch witnesses LWs-3 & 4 and examined the scene in their presence, entered the details of scene in crime detail form in their presence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. Meanwhile, the clues team including dog squad headed by the Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, CID

Warangal visited the scene and collected chance prints at the scene and made efforts to detect the case. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed charge sheet.

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

4.The court has taken cognizance U/s. 331(4), 305 BNS against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the accused was served with copies

U/s.230 BNSS. The accused were examined under section 263 BNSS wherein the accusation levelled against the accused was explained in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW6 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 got marked. The accused was examined under section 351 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material found against him, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is

"Whether the prosecution has established the offence U/s. 331(4), 305

of BNS, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.POINT: During the course of trial, PW1 by name G. Srinivas had deposed that, he is running a book stall in the name of Srinivas Book Stall and he used to open at 9:00 am, and close it at 10:30 pm. On 07.08.2024 at 10:30 pm, he closed his shop and went to home. On 08.08.2024 at 8:00 am, when he went to the shop, he saw that his shop’s shutter was broke open and he found missing of

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

Rs.1,90,000/- from counter of his shop. He lodged report to the police on the same day. Police examined and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is report.

During the cross examination PW1 stated that, he has studied up to MBA and he has scribed Ex.P1. PW1 further stated that he has not filed his trade license to the police and he has not submitted his shop sale and purchase accounts to the police. PW1 further stated that usually on the day to day basis an amount of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- received in his shop and it goes to

Rs.15,00,000/- per month. PW1 further stated that he is an income tax assessee and he has not furnished the same before the police. PW1 further stated that he has not mentioned the denomination of Rs.1,90,000/- in Ex.P1 and stated to the police. PW1 further stated that along with him his my wife also participated in his business. PW1 further stated that he did not know who committed theft from his shop. PW1 further stated that on the date of incident police examined and recorded his statement and he denied all suggestions.

10.PW2 by name D. Veerabhadraswamy has deposed that, PW1 running book stall beside his kirana shop in the name of Divya Kirana shop.

About one year back, on 8th day, when he went to his shop at 6:30 am, he saw that his shop and shop of PW1 shutter was broke open. Nothing was missing from his shop. He has saw that Rs.1,90,000/- was stolen from the shop of PW1.

Police examined and recorded his statement on the same day.

During the cross examination PW2 stated that, he has not lodged any report to the police regarding his shutter been broken. PW2 further stated that

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

he has not seen the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- in the shop of PW1. PW2 further stated that he has informed about incident to PW1 after a period of 15 to 20 minutes. PW2 further stated that he came to know from PW1 that his amount of

Rs.1,90,000/- was stolen and he denied all suggestions.

11.PW3 by name T. Anil Kumar had deposed that, About one year ago on 8th day, PW1 called him and informed him that, theft had occurred in his shop and hence, he went to shop of PW1. By the time they arrived the police were already present there. Police conducted Scene of Offence Panchanama in his presence and LW4. The Scene of Offence is surrounded by Ravi photo studio,

Divya kirana shop and on the opposite side an insurance company and a hotel are located. Police obtained his signature. Ex.P2 is the CDF.

During the cross examination PW3 stated that, he is working as a Private

Employee in SBI main branch, Warangal and his timings are 9.00 am to 5.00 pm.

PW3 further stated that he was not served by any notice by the police for the panchanama and he denied all suggestions.

12.PW4 by name K. Uday Raj has deposed that, on 08.08.2024 around 02:30, at Fort road, Y-junction, police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of him and PW3. He has signed on the

CDF. Ex. P3 is the CDF. The scene of offence is surrounded by Ravi photo studio in the left side there is Divya Kiranam Shop and opposite Maheshwari Sanitizers.

During the cross examination PW4 stated that, at the time of the incident he was not working. PW4 further stated that police have not given any notice to

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

act as panch for the CDF and it took about 20 minutes to draft the CDF and the

CDF was drafted by SI of Police Station Mills Colony. PW4 further stated that on 8th there was a CDF with regard to this case and on 10th there was another theft committed and CDF was conducted with regard to that case on 10th and it took about 20 mins to draft the CDF. PW4 admitted that he was not a neighbor to the

CDF and also admitted that he know Srinivasa Book stall and its owner. PW4 further stated that he was not served any notice to act as panch for the CDF which was conducted on 10th and he denied all suggestions.

13. PW5 by name V. Raju has deposed that, On 17.08.2024 at 10:00 to 10.30 am, at Collector Office, police conducted Confession and Recovery

Panchanama in his presence and LW6. The accused confessed that he went into the book stall by breaking down the shutter and committed theft of

Rs.1,90,000/- form the shop of PW1. Ex.P4 is Confession and Recovery

Panchanama.

During the cross examination PW5 stated that, he has not served with any notice to the Ex.P4. PW5 further stated that he is doing finance Business. He further stated that, the Scene of Offence is busy located and surrounded with shops and hotels. PW5 further stated that himself, LW6 were present at the

Scene of Offence. PW5 further stated that inspector of police recorded panchanama in laptop and that no panchama conducted in his presence and he denied all suggestions.

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

14.PW6 by name M. Suresh wuho is investigation officer of this case has deposed that, he has received report from PW1. Basing on the report of

PW1, he has registered a case in Cr.No.519/2024 for the offence Under

Section.331 (4), 305 BNS and issued FIR. Ex.P5 is the FIR. He has examined PW1 in the Police Station and examined PW2 at the scene. On the same day, he has visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators PW3 and PW4. LW7 had apprehended the accused on 17.08.2024 in

Cr.No. 481/2024 U/s.331 (4), 305 (a) BNS of Police Station, Subedari. LW7 conducted Confession and Recovery Panchanama. He has collected attested copies of the same. Later, he has produced the accused through P.T Warrant.

After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination PW6 stated that, he has not collected any trade license, stock list or any other documents in this case. PW6 further stated that in Ex.P1, denomination was not mentioned. PW6 further stated that the distance between Scene of Offence and Police Station is one kilometer. PW6 further stated that there is a delay in lodging Ex.P1 and in FIR the same is not mentioned. PW6 further stated that, the delay is not mentioned as it was only five hours. PW6 further stated that the date and time of dispatch of FIR to the court is mentioned as 07.08.2024. PW6 further stated that he has not served any notices to the mediators of Scene of Offence Panchanama as he has secured the local mediators. PW6 further stated that in rough sketch book stall was not shown. PW6 further stated that, in the rough sketch it is mentioned as Scene of

Offence. PW6 further stated that, PW2 is neighbor of Scene of Offence

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

Panchanama and owner of Divya kirana shop. PW6 further stated that he has not taken any photos of Scene of Offence. PW6 further stated that no broken locks were collected from the scene. PW6 further stated that they have not collected any CC TV footage and it is not available. PW6 further stated that the date of visiting Scene of Offence is not mentioned in charge sheet. PW6 admitted that, no property was seized from the accused. PW6 further stated that, the accused has confessed that he has used the money for his needs. PW6 further stated that he has not collected any photos or videos from the panch for confession.

PW6 further stated that the Confession and Recovery Panchanama was conducted by LW7 and he has obtained copies of the same and he denied all suggestions.

14.The prosecution has to establish the case under sections 331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 of BNS against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to establish the offence under section 331(4) BNS., the prosecution has to establish that the accused must have committed the house trespass or house breaking in the night hours in order to commit any offence or theft. In order to establish the offence under section 305(a) BNS., the prosecution has to establish that the accused must have committed the offence of theft in dwelling house.

15. Upon perusal of the evidences of prosecution, PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident and the same is clear from the cross examination of PW1 where he stated that he does not know who committed theft from his shop.

Further, PW1 is not helpful to prove the guilt of the accused without there being

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

any supporting witness. However, PW2 is also not an eye witness as he came to know about the incident through PW1 only. There are contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 with their earlier statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statement. The panch witnesses for Crime Details Form were examined as PW3 and PW4 and their evidence discloses about conducting of scene of offfence panchanama by the Police. It is clear from the cross examination of PW3 and

PW4 that the Police did not serve any notice to them to act as panch witnesses.

Though the evidence of PW3 and PW4 discloses regarding conducting of scene of offence panchanama, but basing on their evidence, this Court cannot connect the accused with the alleged offence. The evidence of PW5 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama discloses that Police conducted confession and recovery panchanama where the accused confessed that he went into the book stall of PW1 by breaking down the shutter and commtited from the shop. However, the confession of the accused is not admissible in evidence as per Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Except above the witnesses, prosecution has not examined any other witnesses who saw the accused while entering into the shop of PW1 and committing theft of Rs.1,90,000/-. Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected any trace license, stock list or any otehr document in this case and the same is admitted in his cross exmaination and PW6 also not mentioned in Ex.P1 and the delay was not mentioned in Ex.P1.

Further, PW6 not seized any property from the accused and PW6 did not seize any broken locks. PW6 did not mention the denomination in Ex.P1.

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

16. It is settled law that to establish the case of theft that there must be the direct eye witnesses or circumstantial witness to prove the alleged offence against the accused. On perusal of the evidences on record, there are no direct witnesses or eye witnesses examined on the face of the record to reveal that there was direct nexus of commission of time with that of the accused. In the present case, none of the witnesses deposed that the accused had trespassed into the shop of PW1 at night hours and tried to commit theft of

Rs.1,90,000/-. Therefore, in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PW6 and the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable under Sec.331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 BNS against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.

17.IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 BNS, and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under Section 271(1) of BNSS and the bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-

I.Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CC No. 2223 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- Defense:-

PW1 : G. Srinivas. -None-

PW2 : D. Veerabhadraswamy.

PW3: T. Anil Kumar

PW4: K. Uday Raj.

PW5: V. Raju.

PW6: M. Suresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the Report.

Ex.P2: is the CDF.

Ex.P3: is the Confession and Recovery Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is the FIR.

For Defense:

-Nil-

Sd/-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

Friday, on this the 10 th day of February, 2026.

Present: Ms. Ritika Nandikonda, I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No. 2132 of 2024

BETWEEN:

The Telangana State represented by S.I.of Police, Mills Colony, P.S., ….Complainant

AND

1. Butharaju Sandeep, S/o. Saraiah, Age: 21 years, Caste: Rajaka, Occu:Ex- Receptionist in Sri Sai Hospital, Hanumakonda, R/o.H.No.1-9-1335 Deendayal Nagar, Hanamkonda.

…..Accused

This case is coming up before me on 08.01.2026 for hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P. for the complainant and Smt R. Rajini Asst. Legal Aid defence counsel, Counsel for the accused; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1. The S.I. of Police, Mills Colony P.S., laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 331(4), 305 r/w 62 BNS.

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

That, on 10-08-2024 at 13:15 hours the complainant by name Gande

Srinivas came to Police Station Mills colony and lodged a complaint in which he stated that, he running Book stall on the name of Srinivasa, he used to open the

Book stall morning 09:00 hours and 22:30 hours every day and as such on

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

09.08.2024 closed his book stall at about 22:30 hours on the next day i.e., on 10.08.2024 at 08:00 hrs he went to his shop and found break down his Book stall shutter. Immediately he went and found some out that Un-Known offenders gained entire into his shop and tried to theft. Hence, the report.

3.On receipt of above report, LW8 registered the same in

Cr.No.523/2024, U/s. 331(4), 305 r/w 62 BNS and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation,

LW8 examined and recorded the statement of LW1. LW-8 requested the superior officers over cell phone for providing the service of clues team. LW-8 also informed the case facts to the neighbor Police Stations and requested them to check the complicity of suspects and inform him if any developments.

Further, LW-8 visited the scene of offence i.e. Srinivasa Book stall at Fort road

Warangal and secured the presence of LW-2, examined her and recorded her statements and also secured the presence of panch witnesses LWs-3 & 4 and examined the scene in their presence, entered the details of scene in crime detail form in their presence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. Meanwhile, the clues team including dog squad headed by the

Inspector of Police, FPB Unit, CID Warangal visited the scene and collected chance prints at the scene and made efforts to detect the case. After completion of investigation, LW8 filed charge sheet.

4.The court has taken cognizance U/s. 331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 BNS against the accused nd issued summons to the accused.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

5.On appearance of the accused, the accused was served with copies

U/s.230 BNSS. The accused were examined under section 263 BNSS wherein the accusation levelled against the accused was explained in Telugu to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 got marked. The accused was examined under section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating material found against him, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP and learned counsel for the accused and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is

"Whether the prosecution has established the offence U/s. 331(4),

305(a) r/w 62 of BNS, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9.POINT: During the course of trial, PW1 by name G. Srinivas had deposed that, he was running a book stall in the name of Srinivas Book Stall and he used to open at 9:00 am, and close it at 10:30 pm. On 10.8.2024 at 10:30 pm, he closed his shop and went to home. On 09.08.2024 at 8:00 am, when he went to the shop, he saw that his shops shutter was broke open and found that some unknown offender gain entered into his shop and tried to commit theft. He lodged report to the police on the same day. Police examined and recorded his statement. Ex.P1 is report.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

During the cross examination PW1 stated that, he has studied up to MBA and he has scribed Ex.P1. PW1 further stated that he has not filed his trade license to the police and he has not submitted his shop sale and purchase accounts to the police. PW1 further stated that usually on the day to day basis an amount of Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- received in his shop and it goes to

Rs.15,00,000/- per month. PW1 further stated that he is an income tax assessee and he has not furnished the same before the police. PW1 further stated that along with him his wife also participated in his business. PW1 further stated that he did not know who committed theft from his shop. On the date of incident police examined and recorded his statement and he denied all suggestions.

10.PW2 by name T. Anil Kumar has deposed that, about one year ago on 10th day of August, 2024, PW1 called him and informed him that, theft had occurred in his shop and hence, he went to shop of PW1. By the time they arrived the police were already present there. Police conducted Scene of

Offence Panchanama in his presence and LW4. The Scene of offence is surrounded by Ravi photo studio, Divya kirana shop and on the opposite side an insurance company and a hotel are located. Police obtained his signature. Ex.P2 is the CDF.

During the cross examination PW2 stated that, he is working as a Private

Employee in SBI main branch, Warangal and his timings are 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.

PW2 further stated that he was not served by any notice by the police for the panchanama and he denied all suggestions.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

11.PW3 by name K. Uday Raj had deposed that, on 10.08.2024 around 02:30, at Fort road, Y-junction, police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of him and PW2. He has signed on Ex.P2.

The scene of offence is surrounded by Ravi photo studio in the left side there is

Divya Kiranam Shop and opposite Maheshwari Sanitizers.

During the cross examination PW3 stated that, at the time of the incident he was not working. PW1 further stated that police have not given any notice to act as panch for the CDF and it took about 20 minutes to draft the CDF and the

CDF was drafted by SI of Police Station Mills Colony, it took about 20 minutes to draft the CDF. PW3 admitted that he was not a neighbour to the CDF and also admitted that he know Srinivasa Book stall and its owner. PW3 further stated that he was not served any notice to act as panch for the CDF which was conducted on 10th and he denied all suggestions.

12.PW4 by name V. Raju has deposed that, on 19.08.2024 at 10:00 to 10:30 am, at Collector Office, police conducted Confession and Recovery

Panchanama in his presence and LW6. The accused confessed that he went into the book stall by breaking down the shutter and committed theft form the shop of PW1. Ex.P3 is Confession and Recovery Panchanama.

During the cross examination PW4 stated that he has not served with any notice to the Ex.P4. PW4 further stated that he is doing finance Business. PW4 further stated that the Scene of Offence is busy locality and surrounded with

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

shops and hotels. PW4 further stated that himself, LW6 were present at the

Scene of Offence and inspector of police recorded panchanama in laptop and that no panchanama conducted in his presence.

13. PW5 by name M. Suresh who is investigation officer of this case has deposed that, he has received report from PW1. Basing on the report of PW1, he has registered a case in Cr.No.523/2024 for the offence Under Section.331 (4), 305 R/w. 62 BNS and issued FIR. Ex.P4 is the FIR. He has examined PW1 in the

Police Station and examined PW2 at the scene. On the same day, he has visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of mediators

PW3 and PW4. LW7 had apprehended the accused on 17.08.2024 in Cr.481/2024

U/s.331 (4), 305 (a) BNS of Police Station, Subedari. LW7 conducted Confession and Recovery Panchanama. He has collected attested copies of the same. Later, he has produced the accused through P.T Warrant. After completion of investigation, he has filed charge sheet.

During the cross examination PW5 stated that, he has not collected any trade license, stock list or any other documents in this case. PW5 further state that in Ex.P1, denomination was not mentioned. PW5 further stated that the distance between Scene of Offence and Police Station is one kilometer. Col.

No.14 of FIR kept blank. PW5 further stated that, the delay is not mentioned as it was only five hours. PW5 further stated that the date and time of dispatch of

FIR to the court is mentioned as 07.08.2024. PW5 further stated that he has not served any notices to the mediators of Scene of Offence Panchanama as he has

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

secured the local mediators. PW5 further stated that in rough sketch book stall was not shown. PW5 further stated that, in the rough sketch it is mentioned as

Scene of Offence. PW5 further stated that PW2 is neighbor of Scene of Offence

Panchanama and owner of Divya kirana shop. PW5 further stated that he has not taken any photos of Scene of Offence. PW5 further stated that no broken locks were collected from the scene and they have not collected any CC TV footage and it is not available. PW5 further stated that date of visiting Scene of Offence is not mentioned in charge sheet. PW5 admitted that, no property was seized from the accused. PW5 further stated that, the accused has confessed that he has used the money for his needs. PW5 further stated that he has not collected any photos or videos from the panch for confession. PW5 further stated that the

Confession and Recovery Panchanama was conducted by LW7 and he has obtained copies of the same and he denied all suggestions.

14.The prosecution has to establish the case under sections 331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 of BNS against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In order to establish the offence under section 331(4) BNS., the prosecution has to establish that the accused must have committed the house trespass or house breaking in the night hours in order to commit any offence or theft. In order to establish the offence under section 305(a) BNS., the prosecution has to establish that the accused must have committed the offence of theft in dwelling house.

15. Upon perusal of the evidences of prosecution, PW1 is not an eye witness to the incident and the same is clear from the cross examination of PW1

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

where he stated that he does not know who committed theft from his shop. It is also clear from the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P1 that there is no theft committed from the shop of PW1. Further, PW1 is not helpful to prove the guilt of the accused without there being any supporting witness. The panch witnesses for

Crime Details Form were examined as PW2 and PW3 and their evidence discloses about conducting of scene of offfence panchanama by the Police. It is clear from the cross examination of PW2 and PW3 that the Police did not serve any notice to them to act as panch witnesses. Though the evidence of PW2 and

PW3 discloses regarding conducting of scene of offence panchanama, but basing on their evidence, this Court cannot connect the accused with the alleged offence. The evidence of PW4 who is the panch witness for confession and seizure panchanama discloses that Police conducted confession and recovery panchanama where the accused confessed that he went into the book stall of

PW1 by breaking down the shutter and commtited from the shop. However, the confession of the accused is not admissible in evidence as per Section 25 and 26 of Evidence Act. Except above the witnesses, prosecution has not examined any other witnesses who saw the accused while entering into the shop of PW1.

Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected any trace license, stock list or any otehr document in this case and the same is admitted in his cross exmaination and PW5 also not mentioned in Ex.P1 and the delay was not mentioned in Ex.P1. Further, PW5 not seized any property from the accused and

PW5 did not seize any broken locks.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

16. It is settled law that to establish the case of theft that there must be the direct eye witnesses or circumstantial witness to prove the alleged offence against the accused. On perusal of the evidences on record, there are no direct witnesses or eye witnesses examined on the face of the record to reveal that there was direct nexus of commission of time with that of the accused. In the present case, none of the witnesses deposed that the accused had trespassed into the shop of PW1 at night hours and tried to commit theft.

Therefore, in view of discrepancy in the evidence of PW5 and the available evidence is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the offences punishable under Sec.331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 BNS against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused person is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, point is answered.

17.IN THE RESULT,the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.331(4), 305(a) r/w 62 BNS, and hence the accused is entitled for acquittal under Section 271(1) of BNSS and the bail bonds if any shall stand cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade – III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of February, 2026).

Sd/-

I.Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

CC No. 2132 of 2024, dt: 10.02.2026.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Defense:-

PW1 : G. Srinivas. -None-

PW2 : T. Anil Kumar.

PW3: K. Uday Raj.

PW4: V. Raju.

PW5: M. Suresh.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: is the Report.

Ex.P2: is the CDF.

Ex.P3: is the Confession and Recovery Panchanama.

Ex.P4: is the FIR

For Defense:

-Nil-

Sd/-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

1

O.S.No.217 of 2024 dt.29.08.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 29th day of August, 2024

Present: Ms. Ritika Nandikonda, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 217 of 2024

Between:-

Vanam Sandya Rani, W/o. V. Manoj Kumar, D/o. Late N. Nagesh Age: 37 years, Occu: Household, R/o.H.No.18-8-118/1, Laxmi Nagar, Kareemabad, Warangal District. …Plaintiff

And

1.Dodla Vijaya, W/o. Dodla Bikshapathi, Age: 63 years, Occu: House hold.

2.Dodla Bikshapathi, S/o. Sailu, Age: 68 years, Occu: Business.

3.Dodla Surender, S/o. Bikshapathi, Age: 40 years, Occu: Private Driver.

4.Dodla Madhavi, W/o. Surender, Age: 35 years, Occu: House hold.

All are R/o. H.No.18-8-118, Laxmi Nagar, Kareemabad, Warangal District.

...Defendants

***

This suit is coming up before me on 05.08.2024 for hearing in the presence of Sri Rajoju Venugopal, Advocate for plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 remained ex- parte; and upon perusing the material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following :

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

[1]This suit is filed by the plaintiff praying this Court to pass a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, workers, workmen folk and agents etc., and all those persons are acting for and on behalf of the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

[2]. The averments of the plaint, in brief, are as follows:

That the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of suit schedule 2

O.S.No.759 of 2023 dt.18.06.2024

property i.e., House bearing No.18-8-118/1, admeasuring to an extent of 97-78 Sq.

Yds situated at Laxmi Nagar, Kareemabad of Warangal District. The plaintiff has acquired the said property from her mother by name Nalla Prameela W/o Late

Nagesh through a Registered Gift Deed vide Doc. No. 5367 of 2015, Dated: 29th of

May, 2015 and delivered the possession on the same day. The plaintiff's mother has purchased the above said property from Dodla Vijaya W/o Bikshapathi (Defendant

No.1) by paying the valuable sale consideration through Registered Sale Deed Vide

Doc. No. 2173 of 2008 Dated: 9th May, 2008 (link document). The defendant No.1 and 2 are wife and husband and whereas defendant No.3 is the son of defendants

No.1 and 2 and defendant No.4 is the wife of defendant No.3.

It is further submitted that, the defendant No.1 Dodla Vijaya has acquired the house property bearing No.18-8-118 admeasuring to an extent of 304-98 Sq. Yds, situated at Laxminagar, Kareemabad, Warangal from her husband Dodla Bikshapathi (Defendant No.2) through Registered Settlement Deed vide Doc. No.3523 of 2001,

Dated: 23-07- 2001(link Document) and out of the said property, Dodla Vijaya

(defendant No.1) has sold the part of the house property bearing No.18-8-118 admeasuring to an extent of 97-78 Sq.Yds to the mother of plaintiff i.e Nalla

Prameela through Registered Sale Deed Vide Doc. No. 2173 of 2008 Dated: 9th May, 2008 (link document). Around all these back ground, after purchasing of the above said property by the mother of the plaintiff her name was mutated by allotting the

House Bearing No. 18-8-118/1 before the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation,

Warangal and since then she in absolute possession of the said property.

Subsequently after execution of Registered Gift Settlement Deed vide Doc. No. 5367 3

O.S.No.217 of 2024 dt.29.08.2024

of 2015, Dated: 29th of May, 2015 by the mother of plaintiff in favour of plaintiff, her name was mutated before the Greater Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal and since then she in absolute possession of the said property and paying the property taxes regularly. The mother of the plaintiff passed away on 18-02-2018 due to ill-health. The said property herein after called as schedule mentioned property annexed to the plaint and petition.

It is further submitted that, the schedule property house is an old house having Mangalore tiles roof. The plaintiff's house and the house of defendant No.1 are adjacent to each other having joint wall in between them towards southern side which is specifically mentioned in Annexure-1-A of the Registered Document vide

Doc. No. 2173 of 2008, Dated 09- 05-2008, which was executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Nalla Prameela who is the mother of the plaintiff. As the roof structure has become old and in order to make some renovations for the roof the plaintiff has started works by appointing the laborers on 10-03-2024. All the defendants who belong to same family have unnecessarily started interfering and obstructed the works of plaintiff's renovation works over the schedule property. It is very well known that, the defendant No.1 has sold the schedule property to mother of plaintiff and in turn her mother has gifted the same to the plaintiff. The same is in the knowledge of the all the defendants but unnecessarily without any reasons they are interfering and disturbing the schedule property of plaintiff.

It is further submitted that, on 17-03-2024, when the renovation works were going on again the defendants with un-social elements came to schedule property 4

O.S.No.759 of 2023 dt.18.06.2024

and threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences and obstructed the works, but with the help of passersby, the plaintiff could retain her property. Later while returning the defendants threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences stating that they would come back again with their supporters and obstruct and disturb the renovation works over the schedule property and the plaintiff is under life threat from the defendants. In fact, the defendant No.1 has registered the schedule property in favour of the mother of plaintiff and the same is continued in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff is under surprise that, after the execution of registered deed in favour of plaintiff family, why the defendants are creating helm problems over the schedule property of plaintiff. The defendants with an ill-motive are trying to grab the schedule property of plaintiff without having any semblance of rights to enrich wrongful gain. Several times plaintiff strongly opposed and objected the defendants about their illegal activities over the schedule property but there is no change in their illegal activities. Presently, the plaintiff is residing in the schedule property without having any roof for it as the the roof portion is removed to get new roof over the schedule house. Due to the illegal acts of the defendants, the plaintiff is facing much hard ship residing in the schedule property. Therefore, the threat of the defendants are lurking in the mind of the plaintiff that they would dispossess her from the schedule property. Hence, this suit.

[3] The defendants were set exparte on 05.08.2024.

[4]In order to prove the suit claim before this court, the plaintiff filed chief affidavit and reiterated the contents of plaint and got herself examined as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex. A8 in her favour i.e., Ex.A1 Certified copy of Registered Gift 5

O.S.No.217 of 2024 dt.29.08.2024

Settlement Deed No.5367/2015, Dt.09.05.2008; Ex.A2 Certified copy of Registered

Sale Deed No.2173/2008, Dt.09.05.2008; Ex.A3 Certified copy of Registered Gift

Settlement Deed No.3523/2001, Dt.23.07.2001; Ex. A4 Original Encumbrance

Certificate, Dt.02.04.2024; Ex.A5 Two positive photographs along with CD; Ex.A6

Death Certificate of N. Prameela, Dt.18.02.2018, Ex.A7 Original three property tax receipts of H.No.18-8-118/1; Ex. A8 Online generated property tax receipt of

H.No.18-8-118/1.

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

[6]. The point for consideration is:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for?

[7].POINT :

a) The case of the plaintiff is that, she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. To substantiate her claim, plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief-affidavit and got marked the documents i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.

b)One person by name N. Sravanthi @ A. Bhargavi was examined as PW2, who corroborated the case of the plaintiff and he also reiterated the contents of plaint that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

b) On going through the oral evidence of PW1 with the documentary evidence 6

O.S.No.759 of 2023 dt.18.06.2024

i.e., Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, it is evident from the contents of the documents that by virtue of

Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, all rights and possession were delivered in favour of the plaintiff as she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

[8] Summons served personally to defendants inspite of the defendants failed to appear before the court and there was no representation on behalf of defendants and hence, the defendants were set exparte on 05.08.2024. There is no evidence placed on record by the defendants to rebut the evidence of plaintiff and the evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged. In these circumstances, it is proved by the Plaintiff through Ex.A1 to A8 that she is in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, this court is of opinion that it is just and necessary to restrain the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the Plaintiff.

[9.] IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed without costs, granting the relief of of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, workers, workmen folk and agents etc., and all those persons are acting for and on behalf of the defendants from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of August, 2024.

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

Appendix of Evidence 7

O.S.No.217 of 2024 dt.29.08.2024

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

PW.1 : V. Sandya Rani - None -

PW.2 : N. Sravanthi @ A. Bharagavi

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs

Ex.A1 Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed No.5367/2015, Dt.09.05.2008.

Ex. A2 Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed No.2173/2008, Dt.09.05.2008.

Ex.A3 Certified copy of Registered Gift Settlement Deed No.3523/2001, Dt.23.07.2001.

Ex.A4 Original Encumbrance Certificate, Dt.02.04.2024.

Ex.A5 Two positive photographs along with CD.

Ex.A6 Death Certificate of N. Prameela, Dt.18.02.2018.

Ex.A7 Original three property tax receipts of H.No.18-8-118/1.

Ex.A8 Online generated property tax receipt of H.No.18-8-118/1.

For Defendants:

-Nil-

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

1 C.C.No.231 OF 2017 Dt.06.09.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I. ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

WARANGAL

Friday, on this the 6th day of September, 2024

Present: Ms Ritika Nandikonda, I.Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal.

C.C. No.231 of 2017

Between:

Telangana State represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mills Colony ….Complainant

And

1. Arivikotla Sharath Babu, S/o. Lae Yellaiah, Age: 32 years, Caste: SC Mala, Occu: DCM Driver, R/o. Vepukuntla Village, Raghunathapalem Mandal of Khammam District, (AP-36-Y-4203 DCM Driver).

2. Banoth Ashok, S/o. Chinna Babu, Age: 23 years, Caste: Lambada, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.6-70, Lingya Thanda, Kuravi Village and Mandal, Warangal.

…..Accused Nos. 1 and 2

This case is coming up before me on 22.08.2024 for hearing in the presence of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri G. Vidya Sagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused Nos. 1 and 2; upon perusing the evidence and material on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Mills Colony Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 r/w 34 of I.P.C., Sec. 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

2. Brief averments of the charge sheet: On 28-01-2017 at 19.15 hours, the complainant/Mydam Shekar lodged a complaint in P.S. Mills colony and stated that, on 28-01-2017 evening at about 17:30 hours while his father

Mydam Mallesham was returning to their house on his bicycle, in order to go to

Jakkuloddi village, while he was crossing the main road near Ursu Bypass, at the same time one DCM van bearing No. AP-36-Y-4203 which was proceeding from 2 C.C.No.231 OF 2017 Dt.06.09.2024

Mamnoor to Hanamkonda and its driver drove the Van in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle of his father. As a result of which his father received severe injuries over his head, left hand and other parts of his body and died on the spot. Where at the same time the DCM van driver without stopping his DCM while he was proceeding, their villagers i.e., Suresh/LW5,

Shyam/LW6 chased said Van, where said Van driver also dashed a Scooty bearing

No.TS-03-EA-9308, due to which two persons who were proceeding on said

Scooty also received severe injuries. Upon which said Suresh/LW5 and Shyam /LW6 shifted the injured persons to Hospital through 108 Ambulance and informed the same to him. Knowing the same he went to the spot and found out that his father died due to oozing severe blood. On enquiry about the DCM van driver, they came to know that his name was Arivikotla Sharath Babu and in said

DCM there are several Oxen under transportation. While said DCM van driver was transporting Oxen in the vehicle has drove his Van in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the bicycle of his father and in addition dashed to another motor cycle and managed to escape. Hence, the report.

3.Basing on the above report, (LW16) who is the Investigating

Officer of the case, had registered a case in Crime No. 26/2017 for the offences under Sec.304-A, 337 of I.P.C, Sec. 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and during the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, drew rough sketch, and after completion of the entire investigation, he had served notice under Sec.41A

Cr.P.C. to the accused and filed a charge sheet in the present case.

4.The court has taken cognizance on 06.09.2017, for the offences under Sec.304-A, 337 of I.P.C, Sec. 11 of Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, against the accused and issued summons to the accused.

5.On appearance of accused before this Court, the accused were served with copies U/s.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under Sec.251

Cr.P.C wherein the substance of accusations of the accused, was explained in

Telugu for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C.No.231 OF 2017 Dt.06.09.2024

6.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were got marked. As there is no incriminating evidence available on record, the examination under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

7. The learned APP has given up LW2, LW4 to I.O as matter was compromised.

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

9. Now the point for determination is "Whether the prosecution has

proved the allegations against the accused for the offences under Sec.304-A,

337 of IPC Sec. 11 of Prevention of Cruelty Animals Act, beyond all

reasonable doubt or not?"

10.POINT: During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 by name, M. Shekar, deposed that his father used to work in puncher shop. While he was traveling from Shambunipet to Jakkaloddi in the year 2017, DCM van came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed his father, due to which his father sustained head crush injury in the evening hours. He does not know how the incident occurred and who drove van. By the time he went to the

M.G.M Hospital, Warangal his father the deceased died. He received information from one person by name Sreenivas who is an Auto Driver. He does not know the contents of the police report. At the instance of police he signed on report and that he does not know the contents of the police report as he has illiterate.

Police did not examine him. Ex.P1 is his signature on report. The learned APP has made PW1 as hostile and during the cross-examination. Ex.P2 is sec, 161

Cr.P.C., statement which got marked.

Further, on behalf of prosecution PW2 by name, N. Venkateshwarlu, who was injured and eye witness of case deposed that he along with his daughter was proceeding on motor cycle at 5.30 pm, due to collusion of vehicles, he fell 4 C.C.No.231 OF 2017 Dt.06.09.2024 down and he was shock when he opened his eyes, he saw one dead body and cycle on the road beside him and the people who were nearby shifted them to

M.G.M Hospital, Warangal, but he cannot say how the accident took place. His daughter LW4 is at present at Hyderabad and perusing her studies, hence she cannot come to court to depose her evidence, he and his daughter sustained injuries and his bike was damaged. He cannot say how he sustained injures.

Police did not examine him. The learned APP has made PW2 as hostile and during the cross-examination Ex.P3 is sec, 161 Cr.P.C., statement which got marked.

11.In order to establish the offences U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC, Sec.11 of

Prevention of Cruelty Animal Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has drove his vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the Bicycle of the

Deceased / Mydam Mallesham, due to which, the deceased who is father of the complainant sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries and LW3/N.

Venkateshwar Rao got injured. Upon perusing the entire evidence on record, the defacto – complainant admitted that he has signed on the Ex.P1 report at the instance of police officials and does not know the facts of the case and PW2 who is an eye witness to the incident also stated that he does not know the facts of the case and hence, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the ingredient U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC Sec. 11 of prevention of cruelty Animal Act, against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences U/s.304-A, 337 of IPC, Sec. 11 of Prevention Cruelty Animals Act.

Hence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal U/s.255 (1) of Cr.P.C and the bail bonds if any are stands cancelled after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed my dictation by Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of September, 2024.)

Sd/-

I.Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class Warangal.

5 C.C.No.231 OF 2017 Dt.06.09.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution Defense:-

PW1 : M. Shekar. - None -

PW2 : N. Venkateshwar Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1.

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2.

For Defense:

-Nil-

Material objects marked: -Nil-

Sd/-

I.Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Warangal

1O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Monday, this the 09th day of September, 2024

Present:- Ms Ritika Nandikonda, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

O.S.No. 310 of 2021

Between:

Canara Bank a body constituted and functioning under the banking companies (acquisition and transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having it’s Head Office situated at Bangalore, Karnataka state and a branch office amongst other places at Kakatiya Colony, Hanumakonda, represented by it’s branch GPA Holder, Rakesh Veerabathini, S/o. Prasad, Age: 30 years, Occu: Manager, Canara bank, Kakatiya Colony branch, Hanumakonda, Warangal,, R/o. Hanumakonda.

... Plaintiff

And

1. Paka Rajanarsu, S/o. Not known, Age: 66 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.16-6-176, Perukawada, Warangal.

2. Paka Karunakar, S/o. Rajanarsu, Age: 43 years, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.16-6-176, Perukawada, Warangal.

3. Paka Rajeshwari, D/o. Rajanarsu, Age: 37 years, Occu: Household, R/o.H.No.16-6-176, Perukawada, Warangal.

4. Shaik Jahangir, S/o. Chotemiya, Age: 45 years, Occu: BSNL Employee, R/o. H.No.15-3-39, Rangampet, Warangal. (Suit against Defendant No.4 is abated)

...Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 12.08.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Bh. Nageshwar Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff and Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 remained exparte and Suit against Defendant No.4 is abated: upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the counsel for plaintiff; and having stood for consideration till this day, the Court passed the following:

2O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed under Section 26 r/w Order 4 Rule 1 C.P.C., for recovery of Rs.8,67,533/- against the defendants jointly and severally together with future interest @ 12.70% per annum.

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are :-

The plaintiff bank is the nationalized bank constituted and functioning under the banking Companies (acquisition and Transfer of undertakings) Act, 1970 having it's Head Office situated at Bangalore,

Karnataka state and a branch Office amongst other places at Kakatiya

Colony, Hanumakonda, Warangal. Late Smt. Paka. Annamma who is the wife of defendant No.1 and mother of defendant No.2 & 3 has applied to the plaintiff bank on 08-03-2018 for loan of Rs. 7,60,000/- (Rupees seven Lakh sixty Thousand only) to meet her personal and domestic needs, while she was working as BSNL Employee, Warangal. The Plaintiff Bank sanctioned the loan and issued sanction Memorandum on 08-03-2018. The sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 7,60,000/- (Rupees seven Lakh sixty Thousand only) was released on 08-03-2018. She has utilized the entire loan amount. The Fourth defendant who is also the BSNL employee stood as the co- obligant for repayment of the loan amount. The Late Smt. Paka. Annamma and the

Fourth defendant have jointly executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff bank on 08-03-2018 promising to repay the loan amount of

Rs. 7,60,000/- (Rupees seven Lakh sixty Thousand only) on demand with interest thereon at the rate of 10.70% P.A. with monthly compounded. They 3O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024 have further agreed to repay the loan amount in 60 equal monthly installments at the rate of Rs.16,600/- per month commencing from April 2018. They have also agreed to pay penal interest at 2% in excess in case of default. They have also agreed to pay interest as charged by the plaintiff bank from time to time as per the guide lines of RBI.

It is further submitted that, Paka. Annamma has paid some installments now and then till October 2018 which was credited to her loan account as per the loan account extract of the defendant which is filed herewith. Thereafter she did not pay the loan installments. Since the defendants failed clear the loan account, the loan account was declared as

NPA as per the guidelines of the RBI. It is learnt Paka. Annamma died on 03- 11-2018 leaving behind her defendants 1 to 3 as her legal heirs. After the death of Paka Annamma all her benefits and the immovable properties stands which was in her name including the jewelry and other furniture was inherited by defendant No.1 to 3. After the death of Paka. Annamma the borrower the officials of plaintiff bank approached the defendants and requested to clear of her dues. Inspited of repeated requests they did not clear the loan account of Late P. Annamma. As the legal heirs of P. Annamma who Inherited her immovable and movable properties are liable to answer the suit claim. The fourth defendant as the co-obligant is also responsible to pay the suit claim. The defendants are due to pay a sum of Rs.8,67,533/- (Rupees eight Lakhs sixty seven Thousand five hundred and thirty three only) as on 24-02-2021 as per the certified copy of the account extract of Late 4O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024

Paka. Annamma maintained in the ledgers of the plaintiff bank in the ordinary and usual course of business vide loan A/C. No.4813626000176. The defendants are not paying the outstanding loan amount inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff bank. Hence the suit.

3.Summons issued to Defendants 1 to 3 by way of paper publication, report of paper publication of defendants filed, none appeared on behalf of defendants hence the defendant was set exparte on 01.07.2024. Suit against Defendant No.4 is abated.

4.During the course of trial, on behalf of plaintiff bank, PW1/CH.

Vasudeva Reddy, Branch Manager was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 got marked.

6.Heard the arguments of learned counsel of plaintiff and perused the entire record.

7. Now the point for consideration is: "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?"

8. POINT:

The case of plaintiff is that, on 08.03.2018, Late Paka. Annamma who is the wife of defendant No.1 and mother of defendant No.2 & 3 has applied to the plaintiff bank for a loan of Rs.7,60,000/- for her personal and domestic needs. The plaintiff bank sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.7,60,000/- was disbursed on 08.03.2018 and executed demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff bank. To prove the case, plaintiff bank, rep., by its Manager was 5O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024 examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A4 got marked i.e., EX.A1: Loan Application,

Dt.08.03.2018, Ex.A2: Sanctioned Memorandum, Dt.08.03.2018, Ex.A3:

Demand Promissory note, Dt.08.03.2018, Ex.A4: Certified copy of account extract, Dt.24.02.2021.

9. The above oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted in as much as, the defendants did not choose to contest the case, despite sufficient opportunities being given to them.

10. Considering the oral documentary evidence, this court holds that plaintiff has proved the suit claim and as such, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount together with interest @ 12.70% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of realization. Hence the Point is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and as against defendant.

11. In the result,In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay an amount of Rs.8,67,533/- (Rupees Eight

Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty Three Only) together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit, to till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% from the date of decree till realization on the

principal amount.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of September, 2024.

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

6O.S.No.310 of 2021, Dt.09.09.2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant:

PW.1: Ch. Vasudevareddy - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

EX.A1: Loan Application, Dt.08.03.2018.

Ex.A2: Sanctioned Memorandum, Dt.08.03.2018.

Ex.A3: Demand Promissory note, Dt.08.03.2018.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of account extract, Dt.24.02.2021.

For Defendant:- -NIL-

Sd/-

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL.