Sri S.Madhu.

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex · Jagitial · Telangana

Sri S.Madhu., I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, is posted at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana, India. 1,772 court orders on record since 2014. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, PRC cases.

1,772

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/190/2011

Madhu Anasuya Devi vs Thipparthi Suryanarayana

05 May 2017

1 OS 190 of 2011

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

JAGTIAL

PRESENT: S. MADHU,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

Friday, the 5th day of May, 2017

ORIGIONAL SUIT NO.190 OF 2011

Between:

Madhu Anasuya Devi, D/o Madhu Narahari, W/o Chakunta Ramgopal Rao, age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1384, Krishnanagar, Jagtial. … Plaintiff.

A N D

1.Thipparthi Sathyanarayana, S/o Mallesham, age: 38 years, Occ: Pujari, R/o Near Veera Brahmendra Swamy Temple, Anantharam village of Jagtial,

2.Guggilla Purushotham, S/o Venkataswamy, age: 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o Near Veera Brahmendra Swamy Temple, Anantharam village of Jagtial.

...Defendants

This suit coming on before me on 21.04.2017 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri M.Hanmantha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri A.Ramchandram, Advocate for defendants; and after having been stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 and 2 for relief of perpetual injunction in respect of dry land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas in survey No.401, situated at Anantharam village.

2.The brief facts of the plaint is that the plaintiff purchased dry land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401 from one

Gaddam Sattamma on 07.11.1997 through registered sale deed, 2 OS 190 of 2011 since then, the plaintiff has become exclusive owner and possessor of the land; that out of which she sold some lands to third persons and some lands acquired for Harijan Colony and Ac.003 guntas land gifted in favour of Veera Brahmendra Swamy Temple,

Anantharam village, out of her A.322 guntas in survey No.401, situated at Anantharam village; that the remaining land of plaintiff is Ac.014 guntas, which is hereinafter called plaint schedule land.

To substantiate her claim, she filed certified copy of registered sale deed dated 07.11.1977, ryot passbook issued by Tahsildar, Jagtial in the year 1980 and certified copies of pahani patrikas for the years – 199091, 199192, 199495, 199697 and 201011 are filed; that the plaintiff further submits that the defendants 1 and 2 have no right, title and possession over the plaint schedule land , they tried to occupy the said land illegally with a view to cause loss and harm to the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendants 1 and 2 are filed written statements and its brief averments are as follows:

Most of the allegations made in the plaint are incorrect and they denied the averments of plaint like the name of defendant No.1 and the age of defendant No.2; that the defendants admitted that there is no dispute in respect of schedule land which is purchased by plaintiff in survey No.401 and the plaintiff sold out some extent of land to third parties and the Government acquired for Harijan

Colony and Ac.003 guntas of land gifted in favour of

Veerabrahemdra Swamy Temple at Anantharam village out of Ac.3 3 OS 190 of 2011 22 guntas in survey No.401, but the defendants denied that the plaintiff is remained Ac.014 guntas in same survey No.401 and it is now in vacant and peaceful possession; that they denied that the plaintiff became the exclusive owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land; that the name of defendant is deleted in the pahanis as mentioned thereof, the plaintiff entered her name in pahanies by managing revenue authorities; that the defendants denied that they had no right, title and possession of the plaintiff over plain schedule land, with a mala fide intention to occupy the same illegally. It is further submitted by the defendants that the plaintiff donated Ac.003 guntas of land towards eastern side to the said temple in survey No.401 and Ac.009 guntas of land donated to the temple y Mamidi Raja Prakash Reddy and his brother – Pramod

Reddy jointly in survey No.400 and the said temple is existed in total land of Ac.012 guntas, as such the defendants denied the title of plaintiff and tried to occupy her land does not arise.

4.On the other hand, the defendants submitted the realfacts are that the maternal grandfather of defendants namely Chintal

Ganga Rama Chary was the founder of Veera Barhmendra Swamy

Temple which is of Ac.009 guntas of land in survey No.400 which is donated by Mamidi Raja Prakash Reddy and Prasada Reddy jointly in the year 1983 and the plaintiff also donated Ac.003 guntas in survey No.401 towards eastern side to the land of Ac.0 09 guntas and to substantiate their rights, the defendants filed pahanis for the years 199192, 199293 issued by Mandal Revenue 4 OS 190 of 2011

Officer, Jagtial, tounch map of said survey number and photos of the said temple with CD and also filed sketch map of land of Ac.0 12 guntas of temple with compound basement level filled with gravel in 1988 and after the death of their grandfather, the defendants 1 and 2 are as priest for six months each and for construction of temple they were conducting Brahmostavalu for two times by using the said open place; that the defendants further admitted that the plaintiff was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401 and for legal necessities, the plaintiff sold out the land to the villagers and some land is acquired by the Government for the construction of SC

Colony and some land was covered under roads and the remaining

Ac.003 guntas of land donated to the said temple and thereafter there is no vacant land in the name of plaintiff and they further submitted that due to hiking of land rates, she colluded with the revenue officials and reentered her name in revenue records in pahanies for the year 201112 even she sold out her entire land, by suppressing the above facts, she filed the present suit in order to grab the suit land by creating false documents, suppressing real facts, approached the Honble Court with unclean hands, as such the plaintiff has no prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour. Therefore, the defendants 1 and 2 prayed the Hon’ble

Court to dismiss the suit.

5.Perused the pleadings and the following issues are framed for trial.

5 OS 190 of 2011

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title in respect of the suit schedule land, as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

3. To What relief?

6.Plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 on her behalf and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18. No documents marked on behalf of defendants.

7.Heard both sides and perused the record.

ISSUE NOs.1 & 2:

8.P.W.1 filed her chiefaffidavit stating briefly that she has purchased the land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey

No.401, situated at Anantharam village of Jagtial from one Gaddam

Sattamma on 07.11.1977 through registered sale deed, since then, she is in peaceful possession and the said land.

9.It is further submitted that she has sold some lands to the third parties, some land is acquired for Harijan Colony and Ac.003 guntas of land gifted in favour of Veera Brahmendra Swamy

Temple, Anantharam village, out of Ac.322 guntas in survey

No.401 and the remaining Ac.014 gntas of land is in her peaceful possession. To substantiate her claim, she filed the documents marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.18 which clearly established that she is the exclusive owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land.

P.W.1 further submitted that defendants 1 and 2 have no right, 6 OS 190 of 2011 title and possession over the plaint schedule land and they are trying to grab the land illegally, as such she is entitled for declaration of title that she is the owner and possessor of the plaint schedule land and she is also entitled for perpetual injunction over the same.

10.The learned counsel for the defendants crossexamined

P.W.1, wherein, she deposed that she does not know whether one

Gangarama Chary is the maternal grandfather of defendants, but she admitted that he constructed Veerabrahmendra Swamy Temple at Anantharam village and she did not know in which years it was constructed and which was donated by one Mamidi Raj Prakash

Reddy and extent of Ac.009 guntas of land in survey No.400 in the year 1983 for the construction of the said temple and which was constructed in the year 1988. P.W.1 admitted that the said temple is bounded by DharmapuriJagtial highway road on the west;

Anantharam village on the south, her land is on the easter and further admitted that she donated Ac.003 guntas of land to the said temple in suit survey number. P.W.1 further deposed that she originally purchased Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401, at the time of her purchase, the said land was bounded by Mamidi Raja

Prakash Reddy, on the west and further admitted that the

Government acquired Ac.115 guntas out of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401 for the purpose of Harijan Colony, she sold another

Ac.020 guntas of land to one Edula Mallaiah and sold Ac.003 guntas to one Gade Buchaiah, Ac.004 guntas to one Jella 7 OS 190 of 2011

Lachavva and donated Ac.003 guntas of land to the temple, likewise, she sold the land to Bathini Kishan, Guggilla Janardhan and Gade Srinivas, the remaining land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas is possessed by her, except that she denied remained.

11.On behalf of P.W.1, P.W.2 also filed chiefaffidavit, wherein, he stated that he used to visit plaint schedule land of Veera

Brahmendra Swamy Temple, situated at Anantharam village and he knew Gangaram who constructed the same temple about 25 years ago, died three years ago, has no sons, but he has two daughters and their sons are defendants 1 and 2 and they performed the pooja at the said temple. It is an admitted fact that

P.W.1 donated Ac.003 guntas of land to the said temple in survey

No.401, which is a vacant land.

12.P.W.2 was crossexamined by the learned counsel for defendants wherein he deposed that the Veerabrahmendra Swamy

Temple was constructed about 15 years ago, one Raj Prakash

Reddy donated Ac.009 guntas of land in survey No.400 for the purpose of said temple, there is a national highway towards eastern side and the plaintiff also donated Ac.003 guntas of land, the total extent of land is Ac.012 guntas. P.W.2 further deposed that originally the plaintiff had Ac.322 guntas of land in survey No.401, out of which, the Government acquired Ac.115 guntas for the purpose of SC Colony, P.W.1 also sold some extent of land to the third parties and presently she is in possession of Ac.014 guntas of land in survey No.401 excluding the donated land to the temple 8 OS 190 of 2011 and there is 30 ft road towards southern side of suit land, which is widened after acquiring land in survey No.401, except that she denied the irrelevant questions put forth by the learned counsel for the defendants.

13.On perusal of Ex.A.1, which clearly shows that P.W.1 purchased the land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey

No.401 from her vendor namely Gaddam Sathamma through deed of sale executed on 07.11.1977 for valid consideration, with metes and bounds and since then, she is in peaceful possession over the said land, it is admitted by the defendants. Ex.A.2 was issued in favour of P.W.1, in which the dry land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas is clearly appeared in tyot passbook, upon which there is no dispute raised by the defendants. Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199091 clearly shows that P.W.1 is the pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey

No.401. Ex.A.4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199192 clearly shows that out of Ac.322 guntas of land in survey No.401,

Ac.115 guntas of Harijan Colony, Ac.020 guntas of land was purchased by Edula Mallaiah and P.W1 is the pattedar of remaining land to an extent of Ac.127 guntas. Ex.A.5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199394 clearly shows that

P.W.1 is the pattedar of land to an extent of Ac.302 guntas after her purchase to one Edula Mallaiah to an extent of Ac.020 guntas out of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401. Ex.A.6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 199495 which clearly shows that P.W.1 is 9 OS 190 of 2011 pattedar of the land to an extent of Ac.302 guntas out of Ac.322 guntas and the remaining land to an extent of Ac.020 was purchased by Edula Mallaiah also shows the same in Ex.A.7.

Ex.A.8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year199809 clearly shows that out of Ac.322 guntas of land of P.W.1 in survey

No.401, in possession column, the land to an extent of Ac.115 guntas for SC Colony, Ac.004 the name of Jella Lachavva, Ac.003 guntas the name of Gade Buchaiah and Ac.017 guntas the name of Edula Mallaiah is shown. Ex.A.9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year199900 clearly shows that out of Ac.322 guntas of land of P.W.1 in survey No.401, in possession column, the land to an extent of Ac.115 guntas for SC Colony, Ac.004 the name of

Jella Lachavva, Ac.003 guntas the name of Gade Buchaiah and

Ac.017 guntas the name of Edula Mallaiah and Ac.003 guntas of land donated to the said temple is shown.Ex.A.10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200001 clearly shows in possession column that the names of Jella Lachavva, Edula Mallaiah, Gade

Buchaiah and the said temple, wherein the name of P.W.1 is shown as pattedar. Ex.A.11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 200102 clearly shows in possession column that the names of

Jella Lachavva, Edula Mallaiah and Harijan Colony and in pattedar column, the name of P.W1 is also appeared. Ex.A.12 is the copy of pahani for the year 201011, out of the land of P.W.1 was the pattedar only Ac.014 guntas of land. Ex.A.13 is the memo dated 7.4.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Jagtial vide No.B/752/2011 which clearly shows the name of P.W.1 is in possession of land to 10 OS 190 of 2011 an extent of Ac.014 guntas in survey No.401, as per it, it is declaring that she is the owner and possessor of plaintiff schedule land. Ex.A.14 is the certified copy of pahani patrika issued by

Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 199192, the name of P.W.1 is in possession column to an extent of Ac.127 guntas out of land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401. Ex.A.15 is the certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 199394, the name of P.W.1 is shown in pattedar column, the land to an extent of Ac.302 guntas out of land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401, after she sold out.

Ex.A.16 is the certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy

Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 201112, P.W.1 is in possession as well as pattedar column the land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas, after she sold out, out of her land. Ex.A.17 is the certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 201213, P.W.1 is in possession as well as pattedar column the land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas, after she sold out, out of her land. Ex.A.18 is the certified copy of pahani patrika issued by

VRO, Anantharam village, the name of P.W.1 is in possession column to an extent of Ac.014 guntas, out of land to an extent of

Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401, after she sold out.

14.Coming to the appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 that originally she purchased the land to an extent of Ac.322 guntas in survey

No.401 from its original owner under Ex.A.1, it is not disputed by the defendants. Ex.P.2 is issued in favor of P.W.1. It is further 11 OS 190 of 2011 established that the Government acquired Ac.115 guntas of land out of Ac.322 guntas in survey No.401 for the purpose of establishment of Harijan Colony, she sold another Ac.020 guntas of land to one Edula Mallaiah is also shown in Ex.A.4 and also sold

Ac.003 guntas to one Gade Buchaiah is shown in Ex.A.5, Ac.004 guntas to one Jella Lachavva is shown in Ex.A.8 and donated

Ac.003 guntas of land to the temple, likewise, she sold the land to

Bathini Kishan, Guggilla Janardhan and Gade Srinivas, the remaining land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas remained in her possession, which is supported by Ex.A.13. It is crystal clear that

P.W.1 is the possessor of land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas in survey No.401. The counsel for the defendants 1 and 2 are neither examined themselves nor filed any documents to reject the claim of

P.W.1 and they remained silent. Therefore, there is no evidence on record on the side of defendants 1 and 2, in view of filing of documents by P.W.1 and on perusal of those documents; it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is an exclusive owner and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.014 guntas in survey No.401, situated at

Anantharam village of Jagtial Mandal. Hence, the suit claim is proved. Accordingly, the issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants 1 and 2.

15.In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs declaring plaintiff is owner and possessor of plaint schedule land bearing survey No.401, to an extent of Ac.014 guntas of dry land, situated at Anantharam village of Jagtial Mandal and District 12 OS 190 of 2011

Karimnagar and the defendants 1 and 2, their agents, etc., are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, by way of perpetual injunction.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of May, 2017.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:FOR THE DEFENDANTS: P.W.1.Madhu Anasuya.None P.W.2.Vemula Shankaraiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.A.1.Registered sale deed doc.No.2717/1977 dated 7.11.1977. Ex.A.2.Rythu passbook issued in my favor. Ex.A.3.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199091. Ex.A.4.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199192. Ex.A.5.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199394. Ex.A.6.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199495. Ex.A.7.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199697. Ex.A.8.Certified copy of pahani for the year 199899. Ex.A.9.Certified copy of pahani for the year 19992000. Ex.A.10.Certified copy of pahani for the year 200001. Ex.A.11.Certified copy of pahani for the year 200102. Ex.A.12.Copy of pahani for the year 201011 issued by VRO, Anantharam. Ex.A.13.Memo dated 07.04.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Jagtial vide No.B/752/2011. Ex.A.14 Certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 199192, Ex.A.15 Certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 199394, Ex.A.16 Certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 201112, Ex.A.17 Certified copy of pahani patrika issued by Deputy Tahsildar, Jagtial for the year 201213, Ex.A.18 Certified copy of pahani patrika issued by VRO, Anantharam village.

13 OS 190 of 2011

FOR THE DEFENDANTS: NIL

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JAGTIAL.

CC/3000249/2016 Acquitted

PS DharmapuriMalliala Satyanarayana vs Pathamali Nagaraju

27 Apr 2017

1 CC No.249 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS/PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Sri S.Madhu, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017

CC No.249 of 2016

(Cr.No.191 of 2011 of P.S., Dharmapuri)

Between:

State represented by the SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri.

.... Complainant.

AND

Pathamali Nagaraju, S/o Ramulu, age: 19 years, R/o 30th ward, Indiranagar, Jatial.

.... Accused.

This case coming before me on 27.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri R.Sri Ramulu and Sri G.Gopal, advocates for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

The SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri has filed charge sheet against the accused the accused in Cr.No.191 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the

IPC”) and Sections 3 r/w 181 of Motor Vehicles Act.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

On 26.11.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., the accused drove auto trolley bearing registration No.A.P.15TB3116 with high speed in negligent manner, turned towards right side without any signal and dashed to the Toyota Innova vehicle bearing registration No.A.P.28DG3208 at the cross roads of

Buggaram stage, resulting the occupants of Innova vehicle – L.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 2 CC No.249 of 2016

L.W.7/Gundam Rajender, Gundam Varalaxmi, Baby Varalaxmi @ Chinnu,

Ananthula Kishan (driver) sustained severe bleeding injuries, while L.Ws. 4 and 6/Babu of Varalaxmi @ Chinnu and Ananthula Ramadevi received minor injuries, they were shifted to Government Area Hospital, Jagtial in 108

Ambulance and from where they were shifted to Spring Private Hospital,

Karimnagar, on the advice of doctor and admitted in Rainbow Private Hospital for better treatment, but the injured L.Ws.4 and 6/Babu of Varalaxmi @

Chinnu and Ananthula Ramadevi did not take treatment, as they received minor injuries. The Medical Officer L.W.12 – Dr.Suresh Kumar, Spring

Hospital, Karimnagar treated injured persons and issued medical certificates stating that L.Ws.3 and 7/Gundam Varalaxmi and Sirikonda Rajkumar received grievous injuries and L.Ws.2, 4 and 5/Gundam Rajneder, Baby of

Varalaxmi @ Chinnu and Ananthula Kishan received simple injuries.

On the basis of the complaint, L.W.14 – M.Ashok, SubInspector of

Police, P.S., Dharmapuri registered a case in Cr.No.191/2011 under Section 337 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1 – Malliala Satyanarayana, proceeded to scene of offence and secured presence of L.Ws.10 and 11/Nagunoori Rama Goud and MD.Abdul Rahaman, drew rough sketch, incorporated the details in crime details form, later, he proceeded to Jagtial and Hyderabad hospitals and where he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.2, 3, 5 to 7 and 9/Gundam Rajender, Gundam Varalaxmi, Ananthula

Kishan, Ananthula Ramadevi, Sirikonda Rajkumar and Kunchem Ravi respectively and gave requisitions to the doctor concerned with a request to continue their treatment.

On 20.12.2011 at 11.30 a.m., L.W.8 – Bolli Mannem, owner of crime vehicle, brought the accused to the Police Station and produced before him, on 3 CC No.249 of 2016 interrogation, the accused voluntarily admitted guilty of offence and failed to produce sureties to release on bail, as the offence is bailable one. On verification of documents, the RC of crime vehicle is found valid, but the accused is not having driving license, then, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.8 – Bolli Mannem, later, he affected the arrest of accused, sent him to court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act. This case is transferred to this court and renumbered as

CC No.249 of 2016.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents are furnished to him, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under

Section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 of

IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5. In view of hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the learned A.P.P has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses stating that there is no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined, hence, the evidence of remaining witnesses is closed.

6.Since there is no incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

4 CC No.249 of 2016

7.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 338 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.P.W.1 is the complainant, P.W.2 is the injured person, P.W.3 is injured and driver of Toyota Innova vehicle and P.W.4 is the eyewitness.

10.P.W.1 deposed that L.W.2 – Gundam Rajender made a phone call to him on 26.11.2011 at 9.00 a.m or 10.00 a.m stating that he along with his wife, driver of Toyota Innova vehicle met with an accident at Buggaram stage and asked him to come and then he went to the Police Station, Dharmapuri and he took L.W.2 – Gundam Rajender, L.W.3 – Gundam Varalaxi, L.W.4 – Baby of

Varalaxmi @ Chinnu, P.W.2 and L.W.7 – Sirikonda Rajkumar, took them to

Karimnagar Hospital from there to Rainbow Hospital at Hyderabad for better treatment, they sustained injuries, when the auto trolley turned turtle and admitted them at Hyderabad and he lodged Ex.P.1. P.W.1 specifically deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P.1.

11.P.W.2 is an injured deposed that about 5 or 6 years ago, on one day at 6.00 a.m., they boarded in Innova vehicle to go to Nagasamudram in order to get Aadhaar card and when they reached Buggaram village at about 9.00 a.m., since he sat on the back side of the vehicle, he did not observe how the accident took place, but he received simple injuries all over the body. P.W.2 further deposed that he does not know whether he was examined by the police or not since he became unconscious.

5 CC No.249 of 2016

12.P.W.3 deposed that in the year 2011 on one day he was the driver of

Toyota Innova vehicle bearing No.A.P.1528DG2208 and the injured boarded in the vehicle in order to go to Nagasamudram to take photographs pertaining to Aadhaar card, when he reached along with the vehicle, one cattle came across his vehicle and to negotiate the same, his vehicle hit to a tree and it slipped and fell down on a stone, due to which the inmates of his vehicle received simple injuries. P.W.3 further deposed that the accused is no way concerned with the commission of offence, in order to safe the injuries, he negotiated with cattle.

13.P.W.4 is an eyewitness to the accident deposed that about five or six years ago, on one day at 6.00 a.m., they boarded at Jagtial in Innova vehicle to get Aadhaar card at Nagasamudram and when they reached Buggaram village by 9.00 a.m., since he sat on the back side of the vehicle, he did not observe how the accident took place, but he received simple injuries all over the body and he further deposed that he does not know whether he was examined by the police or not since he became unconscious.

14. P.Ws.1 to 4 were declared as hostile, they were crossexamined, but nothing is elicited in favor of the prosecution. P.W.1 specifically admitted that the matter has been settled out of the court in terms of compromise, at the intervention of elders. In view of the hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the learned A.P.P has given up remaining witnesses stating that no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined. Hence, their evidence is closed.

15.On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it does not indicate that the accused is not responsible for causing injuries in an accident and the prosecution is also failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the accused. In 6 CC No.249 of 2016 view of the above, there is no option except to record the acquittal of the accused. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months according to new amendment to

Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2017.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Malliala Satyanarayana, None P.W.2: Ananthula Kishan, P.W.3: Sirikonda Rajkumar, P.W.4: Ananthula Ramadevi.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 to Police. Nil Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

CC/3000134/2016 Acquitted

Baddi Muthaiah vs A1.Edula Srikanth

28 Apr 2017

1 CC No.134 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS/PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Sri S.Madhu, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

CC No.134 of 2016

(Cr.No.254 of 2013 of P.S., Dharmapuri)

Between:

State represented by the SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri.

.... Complainant.

AND

A.1.Edula Srikanth, S/o Buchaiah, age: 19 years, A.2.Mudimadugu Ganganna, S/o Rajam, age: 50 years, both are R/o Kosunurpalli village.

.... Accused.

This case coming before me on 28.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri A.Narsaiah, advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

The SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.254 of 2013 for the offences punishable under

Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and

Sections 3 r/w 181 and 196 of Motor Vehicles Act.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

The deceased – Baddi Hanmanthu is the son of complainant – Baddi

Muthaiah, whereas, A.1 is the driver and A.2 is the owner of tractor bearing registration No.A.P.15AT9420, deceased use to attend as a coolie, on the tractor. As usual, on 15.12.2013 the deceased went on the tractor of A.2 to 2 CC No.134 of 2016 attend coolie work, but A.1 and A.2 negligently handed over the tractor to drive it even after knowingly that the deceased did not know how to drive it. On the directions of A.1 and A.2, the deceased drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner and turned turtle the tractor into SRSP canal near SC Colony at the outskirts of Kosunurpalli village at 7.30 a.m., due to uncontrolled balance, resulting the deceased died at the spot under the tractor and L.W.4 –

Borlakunta Ganesh received grievous injuries.

On receipt of above complaint, L.W.12 – S.Itchi Reddy, Probationary Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri registered a case in Cr.No.254 of 2013, under Sections 304A and 337 of IPC and Section 180 of M.V Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited scene of offence and secured L.Ws.7 and 8/Borlakunta Pocham, Pasula Buchaiah, mediators, held inquest over the corpse of deceased, drew sketch map and incorporated details in crime details form. During inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 6/Baddi Muthaiah, Baddi Vengavva, Baddi Rajashekar,

Borlakunta Ganesh, Borlakunta Pochanna and Gandam Dharmaiah respectively and got photographed the dead body, after inquest, subjected the dead body to Government Area Hospital, Jagtial for postmortem examination.

L.W.9 – Dr.P.Srujan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital,

Jagtial conducted autopsy over the corpse of deceased and issued postmortem examination report opining that the cause of death of deceased is due to head injury and blunt injury on abdomen, later, he brought the crime vehicle to the

Police Station for the purpose of inspection and sent a letter to the Motor

Vehicle Inspector, Jagtial to inspect the same.

On 21.12.2013 at 10.30 a.m., on reliable information, A.1 and A.2 have been arrested at Kosunurpalli village by L.W.12 – S.Pitchi Reddy, Probationary

SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri and on interrogation, they 3 CC No.134 of 2016 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and failed to produce sureties to release on bail, on verification of documents, RC of vehicle is found valid, but insurance is not valid and the driver of vehicle is not having driving licence. Later, he brought A.1 and A.2 to the Police Station and effected their arrest and sent them to court for judicial remand. Later, L.W.13 – N.Devaiah,

SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri took up investigation, verified the investigation done by his predecessor, found on correct lines and collected

M.V.I report. L.W.11 – T.Kishan Rao, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Jagtial issued accident report opining that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal

Code and Sections 180, 3 r/w 181 and 196 of M.V Act. This case is transferred to this court and renumbered as CC No.134 of 2016.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents are furnished to A.1 and A.2, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 180, 3 r/w 181 and 196 of M.V

Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3.

6.Since there is incriminating evidence found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

4 CC No.134 of 2016

7.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 180, 3 r/w 181 and 196 of M.V Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.P.W.1 is the complainant and father of deceased Baddi Hanmanthu,

P.W.1 is the mother of deceased.

10.P.W.1 deposed that about four years ago, he was present in his house, he came to know that his deceased son – Baddi Hanmanthu died in the road accident involving a tractor, who drove it turned into SRSP canal, the dead body of his son was brought to his house. P.W.1 admitted that he knew A.1 and A.2, being tractor driver and owner, who are responsible for the death of his son, then, he lodged Ex.P.1. P.W.2 deposed in same lines as that of P.W.1.

11.P.Ws.1 and 2 were turned as hostile, they were crossexamined, but nothing is elicited in favor of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 further admitted that the matter has been settled out of the court in terms of compromise, at the intervention of elders. In view of the hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, in view of terms of compromise, the learned A.P.P has given up the remaining witnesses stating that no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined. Hence, their evidence is closed.

12.On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it does not indicate that the accused is not responsible for causing death of deceased – Handi Hanmanthu.

In view of the above, there is no option except to record the acquittal of the accused. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the 5 CC No.134 of 2016 prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304A and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 180, 3 r/w 181 and 196 of M.V Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, as per the new amendment to Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation on computer at the bench, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Baddi Muthaiah, None P.W.2: Baddi Vengavva.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 to Police. Nil Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

CC/3000380/2016 Acquitted

Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana vs A1.M.A.Moiz

28 Apr 2017

1 CC No.380 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS/PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Sri S.Madhu, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

CC No.380 of 2016

(Cr.No.292 of 2012 of P.S., Jagtial Town)

Between:

State represented by the SubInspector of Police, P.S., Jagtial Town.

.... Complainant.

AND

A.1.M.A.Moiz, S/o M.A.Hameed, age: 26 years, A.2.Maqbool Bee, W/o M.A.Hameed, age: 45 years, A.3.M.A.Hameed, S/o Abdul Sathar, age: 48 years, all are R/o Mahaboobpura, Jagtial.

.... Accused.

This case coming before me on 28.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri R.Sriramulu, advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

The SubInspector of Police, P.S., Jagtial Town filed charge sheet against

A.1 to A.3 in Cr.No.292 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act.

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

The marriage of L.W.1 – Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana was solemnized with

A.1 about eleven months ago, at the time of marriage, L.Ws.2 and 3/Zainab and Shamshoddin presented net cash of Rs.1,00,000/, three tola gold ornaments and household articles to A.1 towards dowry, since marriage, A.1 at 2 CC No.380 of 2016 the instigation of A.2 and A.3 started harassing her physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/, due to their unbearable harassment, L.Ws.1 to 3/Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana, Zainab and

Shamshoddin approached L.Ws.5 and 6/Md.Saleem Khan and Md.Mansoor, panchayat elders who requested them to settle the matter in regard to their harassment, elders held panchayat and requested accused not to harass L.W.1 Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana and to live together, A.1 to A.3 promised to look after her well, but they did not change their attitude and continued harassment. As per the version of elders, the complicity is not established against A.4 to 9, as such, their names are deleted from the charge sheet, the presence case proceeded against A.1 to A.3.

On receipt of above complaint, L.W.7 – E.Srinu Naik, SubInspector of

Police, P.S., Jagtial Town registered a case in Cr.No.292/2012 under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.1 to 3/Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana, Zainab and

Shamshoddin, later, he proceeded to Khajipura, Jagtial where he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.5 and 6/Md.Saleem Khan and Md.Mansoor, panchayat elders.

On 15.11.2012 at 10.30 a.m., A.1 to A.3 came to Police Station, Jagtial

Town and surrendered before L.W.7 E.Srinu Naik, SubInspector of Police,

P.S., Jagtial Town and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence, he affected their arrest and sent them to court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against

A.1 to A.3 for the offenses punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.

3 CC No.380 of 2016

3.I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

D.P Act. This case is transferred to this court and renumbered as CC No.380 of 2016.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents are furnished to A.1 to A.3, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act have been read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The learned A.P.P has given up remaining witnesses stating that since they did not support the prosecution case, there will be no improvement even if the remaining witnesses are examined. Hence, their evidence is closed.

6.Since there is incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A IPC of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, beyond reasonable doubt?

4 CC No.380 of 2016

POINT:

9.P.W.1 is the defacto complainant and victim and P.W.2 is sister of P.W.1

10.P.W.1 deposed that her marriage took place about 11 months ago, at the time of her marriage, her parents gave Rs.1,00,000/, three tola gold and other household articles. P.W.1 further deposed that due to some petty disputes, she lodged Ex.P.1 against A.1 to A.3 and other deleted accused persons.

11.P.W.1 was crossexamined by the learned counsel for the accused, wherein she deposed in her chiefexamination as briefed by the police, A.1 to

A.3 and other deleted accused never harassed her and due to pressure made by her parents and elders, she lodged complaint against A.1 to A.3 and other deleted accused. P.W.1 further admitted that the matter has been settled out of the court in terms of compromise, at the intervention of elders and she has no grievance against A.1 to A.3 and other deleted accused. P.W.2 also deposed either in chiefexamination or in crossexamination in similar lines of P.W.1.

12.P.Ws.1 and 2 were declared as hostile, they were crossexamined, but nothing is elicited in favor of the prosecution. In view of hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and in view of terms of compromise, the learned A.P.P has given up the remaining witnesses stating that no useful purpose would be served even if they are examined. Hence, their evidence is closed.

13.On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it does not indicate that the accused are not responsible for harassing P.W.1 for want of additional dowry.

In view of the above, there is no option except to record the acquittal of the accused. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

5 CC No.380 of 2016

14.In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, as per the new amendment to

Section 437A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Shorthand writer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Fathima @ Athiya Sulthana, None P.W.2: Mohd.Sameena.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 to Police. Nil Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

CC/3000079/2016 Acquitted

Sunku LaxmiPs Dharmapuri vs Korutla Manikanta @ Manikumar

28 Apr 2017

1 CC No.79 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS/PRINCIPAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL

PRESENT: Sri S.Madhu, Judl.Magistrate of F.C., Jagtial.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2017

CC No.79 of 2016

(Cr.No.98 of 2014 of P.S., Dharmapuri)

Between:

State represented by the SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri.

.... Complainant.

AND

Korutla Manikanta @ Manikumar, S/o Shankaraiah, age: 20 years, R/o Jaina village.

.... Accused.

This case coming before me on 28.04.2017 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and of Sri Bethepu Laxman, advocate for the accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

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

The SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.98 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “the IPC”).

2.The prosecution case in nutshell is as follows:

On 19.05.2014 at morning hours, the mother of accused went to Beedi

Company to hand over beedies, but L.W.2 – Sunku Bhoomaiah refused to take by saying she did not make beedies property, out of the grudge kept in mind, the accused went to L.W.2 Sunku Bhoomaiah, abused him in filthy language and beat him with hands, kicked with shoes leg and pushed to wall, resulting he received injuries, which was witnessed by L.W.3 – Alle Satyanarayana, the 2 CC No.79 of 2016 injured was shifted to hospital.

On receipt of complaint lodged by the complainant, L.W.9 – N.devaiah,

SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri registered a case in Cr.No.98/2014 under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of IPC and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.1 –

Sunku Laxmi, rushed to Government Area Hospital, where he examined and recorded the statement of L.W.2 – Sunku Bhoomaiah, visited scene of offence, where he examined and recorded the statements of L.Ws.3 to 5/Alle

Satyanarayana, Vemula Bhaskar and Uppula Ganganna, secured presence of

L.Ws.6 and 7/Kalakota Ganesh and Gudla Satyanarayana, drew rough sketch map and incorporated details in crime details form.

On 05.06.2014 at 11.30 a.m., on reliable information, L.W.9 N.devaiah,

SubInspector of Police, P.S., Dharmapuri arrested the accused and on interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and later he was brought to the Police Station, Dharmapuri, effected his arrest and sent him to court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he field charge sheet.

3.I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of IPC. This case is transferred to this court and renumbered as CC No.79 of 2016.

4.On appearance of accused, the copies of documents are furnished to him, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined under

Section 239 Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of IPC have been read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 CC No.79 of 2016

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. In view of hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P has given up remaining witnesses stating that since they did not support the prosecution case, there will be no improvement even if the remaining witnesses are examined. Hence, the evidence is closed.

6.Since there is incriminating evidence found in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard the learned APP for the State and the learned defence counsel for the accused.

8.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

9.P.W.1 is the complainant and wife of injured, P.W.2 is the injured and husband of P.W.1.

10.P.W.1 deposed that on 19.05.2014 at 10.00 a.m., keeping in view of old grudges in mind, A.1 came to her house and beat her husband by abusing him in filthy language, beat him resulting he received injuries, then, she lodged

Ex.P.1. P.W.2 deposed in same lines as that of P.W.1.

11.P.Ws.1 and 2 were turned as hostile, they were crossexamined, but nothing is elicited in favor of the prosecution. In view of the hostile nature of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned A.P.P has given up the remaining witnesses stating that no useful purpose would be served even if they are 4 CC No.79 of 2016 examined. Hence, their evidence is closed.

12.On perusal of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it does not indicate that the accused is not responsible for causing injury to P.W.2, he is not abusing him filthy language and not beating him with hands, at any point of time. In view of the above, there is no option except to record the acquittal of the accused.

In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

13.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 323 and 324 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months, as per the new amendment to Section 437A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation on compute at the bench, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of April, 2017.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Sunku Laxmi, None P.W.2: Sunku Bhoomaiah.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 to Police, Nil Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2,

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGEcum

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

JAGTIAL.

Order Record 1,738 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/652/2014	SHO PS DHARMAPURI vs MD. JAMEER	02 Apr 2018	Order	—
CC/69/2011	Kotagiri ShankaraiahPS Jagtia rural vs A1 Bethi Llinga Reddy	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/81/2011	Manne Bhasker vs A1- Beera Vijay	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	Acquittal
CC/122/2011	Bollipalli Krishna vs Balmoori Srinivas Rao	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/216/2011	Bochukur gangadhar vs Ganta Kamalakar Rao	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/243/2011	Velma Satyanarayana Reddy vs Kasthuri Mahesh	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	Acquitted
CC/561/2014	Kurma Malla ReddyPs Jagtial Rural. vs A5 Bethi Bhumaiah @ Bhuma Reddy	31 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/102131/2008	State of Andhra Pradesh,Food Inspector,Karimnagar. vs Chanda Prakash	31 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/700/2012	Boga Mallesham vs Mulkala Mallaiah	29 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/12/2009	Sri Sai Raja Rajeshwari Spinning mills vs Ms skill air controls, textiles humidificaton sys	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/43/2008	SHO PS DHARMAPURI vs PANJALA VENKATANARAYANA	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/385/2015	Neelam Bhumaiah vs Kavadi Krishna	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/503/2017	Kurmachalam Anasuya vs Kale Saraiah	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/532/2008	Drug inspector, Jagtial vs A1. G.Rajani kumar reddy	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100918/2008	The Drugs Inspector,Jagtial. vs A1.Boga Sridhar	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
DVC/16/2017	IMRAANA KOUSER vs R1.MD. RAZIUDDIN AND FIVE OTHERS	28 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/58/2008	SHO PS Dharmapuri vs Satla Naraiah	27 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/82/2012	FRO RANGE JAGTIALD.Kanakaih vs Avutha Sampath	27 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/215/2011	Bochukur gangadhar vs Ellaboina Shankaraiah	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/270/2011	B.Bhadraiah vs Loudvya chakriya	27 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/402/2011	Bochukur gangadhar vs Padakanti Sridhar	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/413/2010	SHO PS JDAGTIAL RURAL. vs MEKALA MALLESIAH AND THREE OTHERS.	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100123/2011	Bollipalli Krishna vs Balmoori Srinivas Rao	27 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/103/2008	Proh. and Excise Inspector jagtial vs Vsbale Rajanarsu	24 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/240/2011	Food inspector,Karimnagar vs Mudavath chandiya	24 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/443/2008	Boddu narsaiah vs Shaik Kaja	24 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/207/2008	SHO PS DHARMAPURI vs CHAKALI RAJAM	23 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/860/2008	Md.AfzaloddinPs Jagtial Town vs Mohd.Waheedoddin	23 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100034/2015	Pudari BhagyaPs Dharmapuri vs A1.Pudari Rajanna @ Rajaiah	23 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100291/2011	B.bhadraiah, Dy.Range Officer,Kodimial. vs A1.Komire Narsaiah	23 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/37/2010	koyadi Ravi Kumar vs Katkam Gangadhar	22 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/181/2008	N.JALAPATHI RAO vs VOJJELA GOPALAKRISHNA	22 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/271/2011	B.Bhadraiah, Dy.Range Officer,Kodimial. vs A1.Tenugonda Srinivas	22 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/285/2011	Kota RajithaPs Dharmapuri vs A1.Kota Laxman	22 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/290/2011	B.bhadraiah vs A1 Komire Pedda Ramulu	22 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/537/2012	Bharathapu JalaPs Jagtial Rural vs Anagandula Shankaraiah	22 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/613/2014	Pothu KrishnaPs Jagtial Rural vs A1.Siliveri Sunil	22 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
PRC/37/2016	Dooda Shankaravva vs Bolle Raju	22 Mar 2018	Decree	—
CC/22/2018	THIRUKKOVELURI VENU GOPAL vs RAMPALLI ALIAS RAPARTHI MAHENDER ALIEAS CHANTI	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/59/2011	Food inspector,Karimnagar vs A1 Sanku Srinivas	21 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/259/2017	MARRI SHANKAR vs AKULA RANJITH KUMAR	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/289/2011	Md.Khader mohiuddin vs A1 Ajmeera Ravi	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/296/2016	THE STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR JAGTIAL. vs A3. BOGA MANOHER	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/530/2008	Drug Inspector of jagtial vs G. Rajani Kumar Reddy and 2 others	21 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/577/2010	Food Inspector, Jagtial. vs Surabhi Krishna	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/581/2017	ANANTHULA MALLESHWARI vs ANANTHULA RAJU	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/583/2014	Gayathri medical agencies rep by its managing part vs GRAF laboratatories private limited	21 Mar 2018	judgment	—
CC/679/2017	ARIF ALI KHAN SI OF POLICE PS JAGTIAL TOWN vs A10, SGTED AVYDK JAKEEN	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/680/2017	S.SHIVA KRISHNA SI OF POLICE JAGTIAL vs A5.SYED. ABUDL KALEEM	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1208/2008	Drug inspector, Jagtial vs Pawan Kumar Nathany	21 Mar 2018	judgment	—
CC/1250/2008	Yadala Ranga Rao vs Smt Usha Gande	21 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100039/2015	Myadaram VinodaPs Jagtial Traffic vs Chigiri Chandrashekar	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100175/2015	Jilla Pochamallu vs A1.Bonthala Karunakar	21 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1000293/2013	BALE NARSAIAH vs A1.MENENI RAVINDER RAO	21 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/136/2008	Jagtial rural PS vs A5-Banda Rajesham	20 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/415/2016	PULLE LASMAIAH vs THOKALA DHARMAIAH	20 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/619/2014	Sambeta MallaiahPs Dharmapuri vs Mallampelli Chandraiah	20 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/638/2011	Chippa RameshPs Jagtial Town vs A1.Kashetti Mahesh	20 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1230/2008	Food Inspector Jagtial vs Palakurthi Ramesh and 2 others	20 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/2534/2008	Bandari NarsaiahPs Dharmapuri vs Palakurthi Nithin @ Nagendrudu	20 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100341/2010	State Represented by Food Inspector, vs A1.Chowdarapu Gangadhar	20 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/443/2011	Chirutha VenkateshPs Dharmapuri. vs Pamulaparthi Thirupathi	19 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/506/2016	Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Dharmapuri vs Bosu Ravi	19 Mar 2018	Order	—
PRC/43/2017	GAJENGI BHEEMAIAH vs GAJENGI SATYAN ALIAS SATHAIAH	19 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/58/2011	Food inspector,Karimnagar vs A1.Kappala Srikanth	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/81/2011	Manne Bhasker vs A1- Beera Vijay	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/118/2015	Dandla KanakarajuPS Dharmapuri vs A1 Sampangi Rajaiah	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/173/2010	ps Jagtial ruralKothapalli praveen kumar vs A1 Syed Gulam Imran Ahmed	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/244/2008	Komati Reedy Komuraiah vs B. Sathaiah	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/414/2017	SHO PS DHARMAPURI vs A1. SUDALA THIRUPATHI AND ANOTHER	16 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/444/2012	Avunuri MallaiahPs Dharmapuri vs Kalamadugu Lingaiah	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/470/2008	Thatipally Sreehari vs Shaik Raheem	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/1875/2008	SHO PS DHARMAPURI vs BANDI SATYANARAYANA	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/101662/2008	The Food Inspector,Karimnagar. vs Badasu Gangadhar	16 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/28/2008	Chitla Rajmanohar reddy vs Alakunta Nagaiah	15 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/30/2008	kalapurapu gouraiahPS jagtial town vs A1 Kothuri chokka Rajam	15 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/138/2010	State police, through N.Koti Reddy, Prob.Dy.SP.SHO vs A1.Mohd. Hanji Vasthad	15 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/220/2010	S. SrinivasPs Jagtial Town vs A1.Chanda Pochaiah	15 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/638/2017	PUTTA NAGARANI vs A1. PUTTA PREMKAR AND SEVEN OTHERS.	15 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1715/2008	Food Inspector Jagtial vs Moturi Venkata Ramana	15 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/347/2015	Bale Bhulaxmi vs Chada Rana Prathap	14 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1629/2008	Thoparapu Narsamm vs Banothu Bansi	14 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100503/2016	The state through,prohibition and Excise Inspector, Dharmapuri vs Vs	14 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/1000194/2016	M Thiruapthi vs Syed Mujeed Ali	14 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/10/2008	Gaddam Sattamma vs S. GanguBhai	13 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/19/2008	Nimishaka Narayana vs Mhd Sameem	13 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/71/2018	GANGADHARA SWAMI vs BANDARI VAMSHI	13 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100261/2008	Bhoga PadmavathiPs Jagtial Town vs Chaparapu Balaraju	13 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
DVC/20/2017	Putta Nagarani vs R1-Putta Premkar and three others	13 Mar 2018	Order	—
PRC/12/2008	SHo PS Jagtial town vs A3-Kanthiri Balamani	13 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/710/2008	Food Inspector of jagtial vs Myakala Anandam and 3 others	12 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100170/2008	Nerella Prathap ReddyPs Jagtial Town vs A1. Syed Nazar Abbas @ Babu Bai	12 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/1000329/2017	Kurikyala Indira vs A1-Bairi Rupa and another	10 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/23/2008	SHO PS JAGTIAL RURAL. vs CHINTHALA RAUPLA	09 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/26/2008	Govindarapu Rajagopal vs A3 Dandugula Poshanna	09 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/683/2017	Gajangi Susmitha vs Kalyanapu Suman	09 Mar 2018	Order	—
CC/100169/2012	State police through, vs A1.Paidipalli Kamalakar	09 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/100315/2012	Adla Shivarajam vs A1.Paidipalli Kamalakar	09 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/211/2009	Akkanapalli Ramesh vs A1 palepu Shanker	08 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—
CC/224/2008	Kotagiri Shravan kumarPs Jagtial Town vs Godem Rajanna	08 Mar 2018	copy of judgment	—

Showing 100 of 1,738 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2018		1
Mar 2018		125
Feb 2018		57
Jan 2018		41
Dec 2017		197
Nov 2017		68
Oct 2017		64
Sep 2017		64
Aug 2017		30
Jul 2017		76
Jun 2017		182
May 2017		40

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Sri S.Madhu. handled?

Sri S.Madhu. has handled 1772 court orders since 2014 at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 37 orders per month.

What types of cases does Sri S.Madhu. hear?

Based on available records, Sri S.Madhu. primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Sri S.Madhu. currently posted?

Sri S.Madhu. is posted as I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex, Jagitial, Telangana.

Are judgments by Sri S.Madhu. available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Sri S.Madhu. are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Sri S.Madhu. dispose cases?

Sri S.Madhu. disposes approximately 37 cases per month, based on 1772 orders handled over their tenure at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Sri S.Madhu. serving?

Sri S.Madhu. has been serving at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex since 2014.

Case Types

CC 68%

OS 24%

PRC 3%

EP 2%

MC 1%

DVC 1%

ELECOP 0%

CRL 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Apr 2018

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class · 802 orders
May 2017 — Jul 2017

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class. · 140 orders
Apr 2014 — May 2017

Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 830 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 8

Acquittal 1

Other Judges at this Court

Sri D.Nageswara Rao

Senior Civil Judge

1 orders

R.Lavanya

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

822 orders

Smt. K.Nickysha

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class

10 orders

Smt. C. Ratna Padmavathi

Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial

238 orders

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy

I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial

5 orders

← View all judges at Jagitial, PDJ Court Complex