Ms. S Shirisha

Junior Civil Judges Court, Choutuppal

Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex · Yadadri Bhuvanagiri · Telangana

Ms. S SHIRISHA, Junior Civil Judges Court, Choutuppal, is posted at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana, India. 478 court orders on record since 2024. 13 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

478

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/643/2019 Convicted

SHO RAMANNAPET vs Pittala Mahesh

28 Apr 2026

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 1 of 24

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS: AT: RAMANNAPET

Tuesday, this the 28th day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt.S.Shirisha, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet.

Calendar Case No. 643 OF 2019

Between:-

State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramannapet P.S.,

...Complainant.

AND

Pittala Mahesh S/o. Latchaiah, Age: 31 years, Occu: Driver, R/o. Kothagudem (V). … Sole accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 24.03.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri.MD.Khaja Nizamuddin, for the Complainant and Sri.Gali Vasudeva Rao, learned Counsel for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramannapet Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.28/2019 for the offences under sections 326, 504 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred as

IPC).

THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:

2.The case of the prosecution, as set out in the charge sheet, is that on 28-03-2019 at 12:00 hours, the complainant/Javvaji Laxmamma came to Ramannapet Police Station and lodged a Telugu written complaint. In the said complaint, she stated that, On 25.03.2019 at 09:00 p.m., when the complainant’s son viz., Javvaji Venkatesham went

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 2 of 24 out from the home for passing urinal. Meantime, one of her villager viz.,

Pittala Mahesh/accused has keeping the old grudges in his mind, invaded on her son, abused him in filthy language and bet him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injuries to his ear and head.

Further stated that the same was witnessed by her daughter-in-law and obstructed the said Mahesh. On that, the said Mahesh has also invaded on her daughter-in-law, hit her head to the wall and then fled away.

Immediately, her son was taken to Vemulakonda(V) for treatment.

Later, on 26.03.2019 as her son suffered from severe headache, she took her son to Nalgonda for better treatment. The medical officer scanned the head of his son and advised them to shift her son to

Hyderabad for better treatment, as a tumor formed in the head of her son. On that, she shifted her son to Medysis hospital, L.B.Nagar and stated that her son is undergoing treatment”. Hence, the complainant requested the police to take legal action against the accused.

3.Basing on the said report LW10/CH.Sailu, SI of Police,

Ramannapet registered a case in Cr.No.28/2019, for the offences under sections 324, 504 of IPC. During the course of investigation the LW10 examined the LW1 and recorded her statement. Later LW10 visited the scene of offence situated at Kothagudem (V), examined LW2 to LW5 and recorded their statements. Further, the LW10 has observed the scene and conducted the scene observation panchanama and seized the offensive weapon i.e., Stick through panchanama duly affixing the sign

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 3 of 24 chits of panch witness, apart from drafted the rough sketch of scene of crime in the presence of LW7 and LW8. Later, the LW10 has also examined LW6 and recorded his statement. The LW7 has treated the injured/LW6, issued MC and opined that, the injuries are grievous in nature. After completion of entire investigation filed charge sheet against the accused.

4.This court has taken cognizance for the offences under sections 326, 504 of IPC against the accused.

5.After receiving of the summons the accused was present before this court and copies furnished as per sec. 207 of Criminal Procedure

Code (herein after referred as Cr.P.C).

6.Later the accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C., for the accusation of the offences under sections 326, 504 of IPC, where he denied the charge sheet allegations, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the charges framed for the offence under sections 326, 504 of IPC read over in the vernacular (Telugu) language of accused.

7.The prosecution in support of the case has examine PW1 to PW10 and got marked exhibit P1 to P6.

8.On conclusion of trial the accused was examined U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C by putting incriminating material available against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied the same and reported no evidence in his behalf.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 4 of 24

9.Heard the arguments of learned APPO for prosecution and the learned Counsel for accused and he filed written arguments.

10. Now the point for determination is:

i.Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 326 and 504 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

ii.To what finding?

POINT:-[i]

11.In order to establish the alleged offence under Section 326 and 504 of IPC against accused the prosecution must establish the ingredients of the section 326 and 504 of IPC.

12.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.6

13.Before going to actual merits of the case, it is appropriate to go through the section with which the accused were charged for better understanding of the case of the prosecution, the prosecution must establish the ingredients as defined under section 326 and 504 of IPC for which one must go through the ingredients of said section, it read as follows:

Section 326 of IPC – Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The punishment for this offence is imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 5 of 24 to fine. This means the penalty can range from life imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years in jail, along with a fine.

14. The ingredients of section 326 of IPC is (1) the accused must have voluntarily caused a hurt, (2) the hurt must be grievous as defined in section 320 of IPC,

and

(3) the grievous hurt must have been caused using dangerous weapons or means

Section 504 of IPC – Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

15.After going through essential ingredients of the charged offences, we have to fall back to the evidence available on record, to see whether the prosecution is able to establish guilt of the accused for the charged offence.

16.PW1, who is the mother of the injured, deposed that about five years prior to her evidence, on a particular day at around 9:00 PM, her son (LW6/PW6) went out of the house to attend to nature’s call. When he did not return even after 15 minutes, she suspected that something

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 6 of 24 was amiss and went out in search of him. At that time, she found her son lying with a severe head injury, with blood oozing from his head, and also noticed a grievous injury on his left ear. She further stated that she witnessed the accused beating her son with a stick.

17.She further deposed that her daughter-in-law (also examined as

PW1) followed her to the spot, noticed the presence of the accused, and attempted to apprehend him by holding his collar. However, the accused allegedly throttled her neck, pushed her against a wall, and fled from the scene of offence. Thereafter, PW1 shifted the injured to

Nalgonda Hospital and lodged a complaint.

18.During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that she could not state the exact date of the incident, though she maintained that it occurred at about 9:00 PM. She further admitted that there was a delay of three days in lodging the complaint with the police. She also stated that the complaint was written by some unknown persons based on her narration. She admitted that at the time of the incident, she was at her residence and only came out after noticing her son’s injuries. She further deposed that initially, the injured was shifted to Vemulakonda

Hospital, thereafter to Nalgonda Hospital, and subsequently to a hospital in Hyderabad, where he received treatment for two days. She also admitted that there existed prior rivalry between her family and that of the accused.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 7 of 24

19.PW2, while corroborating the version of PW1, deposed that on 25.03.2019 at about 9:00 PM, he was present along with the accused, namely P. Mahesh. At that time, the accused allegedly called PW6 (LW6) by a nickname in a teasing manner, which led to a quarrel between them. He stated that both the accused and PW6 engaged in a physical altercation and beat each other, during which PW6 sustained bleeding injuries on his head and ear. He further deposed that he came to know that there were prior disputes between the accused and PW6 even

before the incident. According to him, after the incident, PW6 was

shifted to Vemulakonda Hospital and was subsequently referred to a hospital in Hyderabad for better treatment. He also stated that a complaint was lodged on the next day of the incident.

20.During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that his house and the house of PW6 are situated at a distance of about 200 meters. He further admitted that the injured was initially shifted to Vemulakonda

Government Hospital, thereafter to a private hospital at Nalgonda on the same day, and subsequently to a private hospital in Hyderabad. He also admitted that, as stated in his chief-examination, he was present at the time of the incident.

21.PW3, another alleged eyewitness, deposed in corroboration of PW1 and PW2. He stated that about four years prior to his deposition, between 8:00 PM and 9:00 PM, the accused came near the house of

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 8 of 24

PW1 and urinated there, which led to an altercation. During the course of the incident, the accused allegedly beat PW6 with a stick, causing an injury to his ear. He further deposed that the injured was shifted by his family members to the Primary Health Centre at Vemulakonda, and thereafter to Nalgonda, and subsequently to a hospital in Hyderabad for better treatment. He also stated that he was present at the time of the incident, though he expressed ignorance about the exact nature of the prior disputes between the complainant and the accused.

22.During cross-examination, PW3 categorically admitted that PW1 is his sister, thereby establishing his close relationship with the injured.

He further stated that he was present when PW6 was being shifted to the hospital, but clarified that the incident was not informed to him by anyone.

23.PW4, who was examined as a witness to the incident, deposed that the occurrence took place at Laxmapuram between the accused and PW6. However, he categorically stated that he does not know the exact reason for the quarrel between them and did not witness the accused assaulting PW6. He only stated that he saw the injured being shifted to the hospital.

24.During cross-examination, PW4 clearly admitted that he was not present at the time when the actual incident occurred and that he has

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 9 of 24 no knowledge regarding the quarrel between the accused and PW6. He further admitted that he came to know about the injuries sustained by

PW6 subsequently and that he did not witness the incident at all.

25.PW5, who is the wife of PW6 (the injured), deposed that there existed prior rivalry between her husband and the accused. She stated that on the day of the incident, at about 9:00 PM, her husband went outside to attend to nature’s call. When he did not return even after 15 minutes, she went in search of him and found that the accused was dragging her husband by his leg, due to which he fell on the ground and sustained injuries on his head and ear. When she questioned the accused about his conduct, the accused allegedly caught hold of her throat and then fled from the scene. Thereafter, she shifted her husband to the hospital for treatment.

26.During cross-examination, PW5 stated that immediately after the incident, she first consulted an RMP doctor in their village. She further admitted that she was unable to recollect the name of the hospital at

Nalgonda where her husband was treated. She stated that she accompanied her husband to the hospital and that he was under treatment at a hospital in Hyderabad for about three days. She also admitted that she does not know what her mother-in-law (PW1) stated to the police. However, she reiterated that at the time of the incident,

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 10 of 24 the accused dragged her husband by holding his leg and that the incident occurred at a vacant place.

27.PW6, who is the injured witness, deposed that about four years prior to his testimony, at around 9:30 PM, after having dinner, he went out of his house to attend to nature’s call. While he was returning home, he noticed the accused along with another person engaged in conversation. He stated that the accused, who was allegedly under the influence of alcohol, called him by a nickname and abused him in filthy language (Barasai Lanjagodka) two to three times. When he questioned such behavior, the accused, who was holding a stick, allegedly beat him on his ear, resulting in bleeding. He further deposed that while he was holding his ear in pain, the accused caught hold of his leg, dragged him, and caused him to fall to the ground, due to which he became unconscious. Thereafter, he was shifted to Vemulakonda Hospital, then to Nalgonda, and subsequently to a hospital in Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment for about three days.

28.During cross-examination, PW6 admitted that on the date of the incident, he had attended a political party meeting at bhongir and returned home in the evening. He further admitted that there existed prior enmity between himself and the accused. He also admitted that in the complaint lodged in this case, the specific names of the hospitals at

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 11 of 24

Vemulakonda and Nalgonda were not mentioned. He further stated that he does not know the contents of the complaint given by his mother.

29.PW7, who was examined as a mediator to the scene of offence panchanama, deposed that the police of Ramannapet conducted a scene of offence panchanama (CDF panchanama) at the house of one

Mallam Anand in connection with the quarrel between PW6 and the accused. He stated that the police prepared the panchanama in his presence, obtained his signature, and allegedly recovered one stick from the scene of offence, which was marked as MO1.

30.However, during cross-examination, PW7 made material admissions. He stated that he was unable to recall the date and year in which the panchanama was conducted. He further deposed that the panchanama was conducted at a road point near the house of Mallam

Anand. Crucially, he admitted that the panchanama was not prepared in his presence and that he does not know the contents of the panchanama. He also stated that the police did not draw any rough sketch in his presence and that no material object was seized in his presence.

31.PW8, the doctor, deposed that on 27.03.2019, PW6 approached her hospital (Medisys Hospital, Hyderabad) with an alleged history of assault said to have occurred on 25.03.2019 at about 8:00 PM. She

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 12 of 24 stated that upon examination, she found a blunt injury to the head with intracranial involvement and a blunt abrasive injury to the right ear. She issued the medical certificate, which was marked as Ex.P3.

32.During cross-examination, PW8 made several significant admissions. She stated that she did not receive any requisition from the police and that the injured was not referred to the hospital by the police, nor was any police personnel present with the injured. She further deposed that no CT scan or X-ray reports were available to him at the time of examination. She admitted that she did not perform any suturing on the injured. She also stated that the injured was admitted on 26.03.2019 at about 11:30 PM and was treated as an inpatient for two days with only painkillers. She further admitted that she did not issue any discharge summary and did not receive any police requisition for issuing the medical certificate. Importantly, she contended that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P3 could also be caused by a fall from steps.

33.PW9 who is also mediator to the scene of Offence panchnama turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

34.PW10, the Investigating Officer, deposed with regard to the chronological steps taken during the course of investigation. He stated that he conducted the investigation in accordance with procedure and got marked Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 through his evidence.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 13 of 24

35.During cross-examination, PW10 made crucial admissions affecting the prosecution case. He admitted that he did not collect any medical records or certificates from Vemulakonda Government Hospital or Nalgonda Government Hospital, where the injured was allegedly first treated. He further admitted that he did not collect any X-ray reports or scanning documents from the hospital at Hyderabad. He also conceded that there was a delay of about two days in lodging the complaint. He stated that he initially visited the hospital but did not issue any requisition for medical examination. He further admitted that the injured was not referred to the hospital through him and that no formal police requisition was made in that regard.

36.Upon perusal of entire gamut if evidence, PW6, being the injured witness, has clearly deposed that on the night of the incident at about 9:30 PM, the accused, who was under the influence of alcohol, abused him and assaulted him with a stick, causing bleeding injuries to his ear and head. He further stated that the accused dragged him, due to which he fell unconscious.

37.It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and ordinarily inspires confidence unless there are strong grounds to discard it. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his presence at the scene or the occurrence of injuries. His admission regarding prior

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 14 of 24 enmity, rather than weakening the prosecution case, provides a motive for the offence. Corroborating his version. PW1 (mother of injured) deposed that she found PW6 with bleeding injuries and witnessed the accused assaulting him with a stick. Although she has deposed that the accused beat PW6 with a stick, in her cross examination. She categorically admitted that at the time of incident she was present at her residence. Therefore her evidence is supporting that on the day of incident the PW6 sustained injuries on his ear.

38.Now coming to the evidence of PW5 (wife of injured) stated that she saw the accused dragging PW6 due to which PW6 sustained injury on his ear and head, and also spoke about the accused throttling her when questioned. Here the PW6 who is injured also deposed that the accused dragged him by holding his leg. Though the PW5 was put to cross examination, her evidence is unshaken with regard to dragging of

PW6 by accused.

39.PW2, the eyewitness also deposed that there was a quarrel between accused and PW6 and during that quarrel PW6 sustained injuries. His evidence is supporting that the accused is the person who quarreled with PW6 and PW6 sustained injuries on his head and bleeding. PW3 another witness has clearly stated that the accused beat

PW6 with stick on his right ear and also he again in his chief examination as well as cross examination categorically stated that the

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 15 of 24 he was present at the Scene. PW2 and PW3, though with minor variations, consistently stated that a quarrel took place between the accused and PW6 and that PW6 sustained injuries in the said incident.

PW4 did not witness the actual assault but confirmed that PW6 was injured and shifted to the hospital. His evidence lends support to the prosecution regarding the immediate subsequent act of the incident

40.Coming to the evidence of medical officer, she reported that she found Blunt injury to head with intracranial involvement and Blunt abrasive injury to right ear.

41.The injuries noted are consistent with the manner of assault described by PW6. Though PW8 admitted that such injuries could also be caused by a fall, the medical evidence does not rule out assault and, when read with ocular evidence, supports the prosecution case.

42.It is true that PW7 turned partly hostile regarding the panchanama and seizure of MO1 and PW9 turned hostile and PW10 admitted certain lapses such as non-collection of medical records.

However, Defective investigation cannot be a ground to discard otherwise reliable ocular evidence. The core of the prosecution case rests on the direct testimony of the injured witness, which remains intact.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 16 of 24

43.The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution witnesses are all family members and relatives of PW6 and, therefore, their evidence is not reliable. It is true that PW1 and PW5 are related to PW6, however, it is a settled principle of law that the evidence of related or interested witnesses cannot be discarded solely on that ground. What is required is careful scrutiny of such evidence. In the present case, the presence of PW1 and PW5 at the scene of occurrence is quite natural, and their testimonies are consistent and in material particulars corroborate the version of PW6, particularly with regard to the assault and the injuries sustained by him. No material contradictions or omissions have been elicited in their cross- examination so as to discredit their evidence.

44.The learned counsel for the accused also raised an objection regarding delay in lodging the FIR. It is evident from the record that there is a delay of about 2–3 days in lodging the complaint. However, the explanation offered by the prosecution is that the injured was being shifted between hospitals and was undergoing treatment during that period. Such an explanation appears to be reasonable and probable under the circumstances. In cases involving injuries and medical emergencies, some delay in approaching the police is natural and cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the delay has been satisfactorily explained.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 17 of 24

45.Therefore, neither the relationship of the witnesses nor the delay in lodging the FIR is sufficient to discard the otherwise credible and cogent evidence adduced by the prosecution.

46.The learned counsel for the accused, in his arguments, submitted that there are several contradictions between the statements recorded by the police and the evidence adduced before this Court and inconsistencies exist regarding exact timings of incident and sequence of shifting hospitals in the evidences in prosecution witnesses sech as

Exact time.

47.These are minor discrepancies which are natural and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. On the contrary, they lend credibility as they indicate that witnesses are not tutored. However, though certain contradictions and omissions were elicited, the defence failed to prove material contradictions as required under law. Even if minor omissions, contradictions, and discrepancies exist, the same do not go to the root of the prosecution case, and hence the entire evidence cannot be discarded. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 18 of 24 the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.

The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission.

COMING TO THE RECOVERY OF MATERIAL OBJECT:

48.PW7 during his chief has Categorically stated that the material object was recovered from the sign of offence, however, the counsel for request successfully discarded the evidence of P7 in his cross- examination. It is clear that injury is caused to PW-6 with a stick by accused. Here it is pertinent to mention that M.O-1, which is the weapon used in commission of the offence though recovered from scene of offence and marked as M.O-1, but no corroborating evidence on record to prove that the accused used the same M.O-1 to beat PW6.

Hence, the involvement of stick/MO-1 in the present case is not proved. However it does not rule out the case of prosecution in its entirety and the fact of PW-6 sustaining grievous injury by accused remains undisputed and is proved, making the case to fall within the

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 19 of 24 ambit of Section 325 Indian Penal Code and not Section 326 Indian

Penal Code.

49.The record reveals that this Court framed charge under Section 326 Indian Penal Code but finds the accused guilty for the offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code. Though the charge under Section 325 Indian Penal Code is not framed against the accused, as per

Section 222 (2) Criminal Procedure Code, when the accused is charged with an offence and the facts are proved which reduces it to a minor offence, the accused may be convicted of a minor offence, although he is not charged with it. From the discussion made above, it is clear that the accused is found guilty for the offence under Section 325 Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly, the point is answered.

Section 504 of IPC:-

50.On a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, it is evident that there are certain inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the immediate cause of the quarrel. PW2 stated that the accused provoked PW6 by calling him with a nickname, which led to the altercation. PW3, on the other hand, attributed the incident to the accused urinating at the house of PW1, which is not in consonance with the version of PW2. PW4 expressed ignorance about the exact cause of the quarrel.

51.However, the evidence of PW6, who is the injured witness, assumes greater significance. PW6 categorically deposed that while

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 20 of 24 returning home after attending to nature’s call, the accused, being under the influence of alcohol, called him by a nickname and abused him in filthy language repeatedly, which provoked the incident. The testimony of PW6 finds corroboration from the evidence of PW2 on the aspect of provocation by use of nickname and abusive language.

52.It is a settled principle that the testimony of an injured witness carries greater evidentiary value and ordinarily commands acceptance unless there are strong grounds to reject it. In the present case, nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW6 to discredit his version. Further, the existence of prior enmity between the accused and PW6, as spoken to by the witnesses, lends support to the prosecution case regarding motive.

53.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that the accused intentionally insulted PW6, thereby giving provocation with intent or knowledge that such provocation would cause breach of peace. Hence, the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC are clearly attracted, and the accused is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 of the Indian

Penal Code.

54.On scrutinizing the ocular and documentary evidence available on record, this court came to conclusion that the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused under sec 325 and 504IPC. The accused is liable for punishment. Therefore, this court is of the considered view

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 21 of 24 that the prosecution has successfully established the offence under section 325 and 504 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

POINT No.2 [ii] To what finding?

55.In view of the discussion made under point No.1, the point is answered accordingly.

56.In the result, the accused found guilty for the offence under

Sections 325 and 504 of IPC. The accused is convicted under section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by my Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on thisthe 28 th day of April, 2026)

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

Hearing the accused on the Question of sentence

57.Hearing on the quantum of sentence, the convicted/accused submitted that, he is the sole bread winner of his family and having children to take care of and having old age ailments and the convicted prayed to take a lenient view. The learned A.P.P submitted that the offence which was proved against the convicted is grave in nature any lenient view will give a wrong message to the whole society hence in the interest of justice, a stringent punishment shall be awarded against the convicted.

58.The court has sympathy with the submissions made by the convicted/accused. However, considering the nature of the offence, the

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 22 of 24 mitigating circumstances submitted by the convicted appears to be less weight, considering the legislative intention and also mitigating circumstances submitted by the convicted/accused, I am of the considered opinion that a moderate view cannot be taken in the present case for imposing punishment on the convicted and the court is not inclined to apply the Probation of Offenders Act against the convicted as the offences proved against the convicted/accused is severe in nature and the accused is above 21 years on the date of incident.

59.In the result, this court is passing following sentence against the convicted/accused for the offence under section 325 of IPC, the convicted/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one

Thousand only) and heis convicted for an offence under Sec.504 of

IPC, the convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. A free copy of judgment shall be given to the accused as

per Sec. 363 of Cr.P.C r/w Rule 72 of Criminal Rules of Practice

and Circular Orders, 1990. In default of payment of fine, the convicted shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Both the substantive sentence and default sentence shall run concurrently.

The convicted/accused is never under judicial custody. Hence there is no question of set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The Material object which is marked as M.O.1 shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal period.

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 23 of 24

60.The convicted/accused apprised of his right to prefer an appeal against the final judgment passed by this court. The convicted/accused reported that he is having means to engage counsel for preferring the appeal.

61.The office is direct to furnish true copy of Judgment to the convicted forthwith.

(Typed by my Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on thisthe 28 th day of April, 2026)

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Ramannapet

APPENDIX

1.Date of complaint:28.03.2019

2.Date of FIR28.03.2019

3.Name of the complainantJavvaji Laxmamma

4.Name of the accusedPittala Mahesh

5.Offence U/sec326, 504 of IPC

6.Date of remand-

7.Date of release-

8.Bail was granted on -

9.Examination U/s 239 Cr.P.C27.05.2022

10.Commencement of Trial28.06.2022

11.Defence Evidence -Nil-

12.Examination U/s 313 Cr.P.C05.03.2026

13.Final Arguments24.03.2026

14.Dispositional (Final Judgment)28.04.2026

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

Calendar Case No.643/2019 – Page 24 of 24

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

PROSECUTION

PW1LW1/ComplainantJavvaji Laxmamma

PW2LW2/Eye WitnessBathula Bhaskar

PW3LW3/Eye witnessAmbati Ramulu

PW4LW4/Eye witnessAmbati Durgaiah

PW5LW5/Eye witnessJavvaji Lalitha

PW6LW6/InjuredJavvaji Venkatesham

PW7LW8/Panch for sceneMallam Shekar

PW8LW9/DoctorDr.R. Shivani

PW9LW7/Panch for sceneBaddam Srinivasu

PW10 LW10/Investigation OfficerCh. Sailu

DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1Complaint given by PW1.

Ex.P.2CDF cum seizure panchanama including rough sketch

Ex.P.3Medical certificate of injured/PW6.

Ex.P.4Signature of PW9 on CDF including rough sketch

Ex.P.5First Information Report.

MATERIAL OBJECT:

M.O.1:- Stick (3 ½ feets)

Sd/-

Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ramannapet

Dt.28.04.2026 Prl. JMFC, Ramannapet

OS/112/2021

Moku Swapna W/o. Jagadeeshwar Reddy vs Saireddy Malla Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy

31 Mar 2026

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 1 of 23

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT ::

RAMANNAPET

TUES DAY, THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2026

PRESENT: SMT.S.SHIRISHA,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 112 OF 2021

BETWEEN:-

Moku Swapna W/o. Jagadeeshwar Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Kanchanpally village of Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District. Presently residing at TRT 185, Shivam Road, Vidhyanagar, Hyderabad.

...Plaintiff

1. Saireddy Malla Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: about 55 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Kanchanpally village of Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

2. Saireddy Madhava Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: about 51 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Kanchanpally village of Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

3. Saireddy Sathi Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: about 47 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Kanchanpally village of Valigonda Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

...Defendants No.1 to 3

Claim: - Suit for Perpetual Injunction

This suit is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.KONDAL REDDYAdvocate for plaintiff, and that of Sri.S.SREEKANTH Advocate for defendants No.1 to 3, having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for granting of perpetual injunction against defendants restraining the defendants, their heirs, agents, servants, workmen and henchmen from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over plaint schedule property. i.e,

Sy.No.300 admg Ac.01-00 gts, Sy.No.301/U admg Ac.1-02 gts,

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 2 of 23

Sy.No.300/AA amg to an extent of Ac.0-08 ½ gts total admg to an extent of Ac.2-10 ½ gts situated at Kanchanpally Village of Valigonda Mandal,

Yadadri-Bhongir District and the boundaries of Sy.No.300 are by North:

Land of Gorla Ramulu and others, South: Land of Sai Reddy Malla Reddy and others, East: Land of Marri Andamma and West: Cart Way.

Boundaries of Sy.No.301/U and Sy.No.300/AA and bounded by North:

Land of Gorla Ramulu and others, South: Land of Sai Reddy Malla Reddy and others, East: Land of Cherukuri Maisaiah and West: Land of Marri

Bal Reddy.

THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF

2.The plaintiff had purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey

No.300 admeasuring Ac.1-00 guntas, Dry in nature, situated at

Kanchanpally village, Valigonda mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District from its original owner, pattadar and possessor namely Sri. Marri Bal

Reddy S/o Narsi Reddy, by way of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.600/2021, Dated 23.03.2021, on the file of Tahsildar &

Joint Sub-Registrar, Valigonda. Further, the plaintiff also purchased the agricultural land bearing Survey No.301/u admeasuring Ac.01-02 guntas and Survey No.300/AA admeasuring Ac.0-08½ guntas respectively, total admeasuring Ac.2-10 ½ guntas, Dry in nature, situated at Kanchanpally village, Valigonda mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District from its original owner, pattadar and possessor namely Smt. Marri Andamma W/o Bal

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 3 of 23

Reddy by way of Registered Sale Deed bearing document No.601/2021,

Dated 23.03.2021, on the file of Tahsildar & Joint Sub-Registrar,

Valigonda.

3.The plaintiff herein is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the land bearing Survey No.300 admeasuring Ac.01-00 guntas, Survey

No.301/U admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas and Survey No.300/AA admeasuring Ac.0-08½ guntas respectively total Ac.2-10 ½ guntas, Dry in nature, situated at Kanchanpally village, Valigonda mandal, Yadadri

Bhuvanagiri District and the same is the subject matter of the plaint schedule property hereinafter referred as “Suit land”. After registration, the revenue authorities implemented the above said two registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiff in all the revenue records as pattadar and possessor and issued Digital Pattadar pass book cum Title Deed in favour of the plaintiff under the provisions of Dharani.

4.The defendants are not having any manner of rights are bent upon interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. "On 08.03.2021 when the plaintiff was removing unwanted trees and bushes from the suit land with the help of labourers, the defendant, along with some unsocial elements, came to the suit property, obstructed the work of the plaintiff, and attempted to forcibly dispossess her by issuing threats and intimidation. The plaintiff resisted the said illegal acts with great difficulty.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 4 of 23

5.Having no other effective or alternative remedy, the plaintiff was constrained to approach this Court by filing the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, henchmen, and workmen from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

CASE OF DEFENDANTS

6.The defendants have categorically denied the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is contended that the suit, as framed, is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is therefore liable to be dismissed.

7.The defendants further denied that the plaintiff acquired the suit land by way of registered sale deeds executed by Marri Bal Reddy in respect of Ac.01-00 gts vide Regd. Document No.600/2021 dt.23.03.2021 and Ac.01-10 ½ gts from Marri Andamma through registered sale deed

No.601/2021 Dt. 23.03.2021. The said Marri Andamma when she sold the land in Sy.No.300 admg Ac.08-07 gts by joining with one Velimineti

Ramaiah to Cherukuri Ravinder and Cherukuri Vimalamma through registered sale deed doc.no.1249/1993, dt.17.06.1993 of SRO

Ramannapet mentioned the boundaries as

North: Land of Bandasomram Shivar

South: Land of Sai Reddy Narayan Reddy

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 5 of 23

East: Land of Veeraboina Ramaiah and others

West: Land of Velimineti Ramaiah

8.The said Marri Andamma also sold away land, on southern side of land i.e. the land of Saireddy Narayan Reddy and she has no land in between the land sold by her and also the land of said Saireddy Narayan

Reddy, when the registered sale deed is executed in favour of plaintiff, she again got mentioned the southern boundary as defendant no.1 and others. The said Andamma and the plaintiff colluded with each other and created the said registered sale deed in order to occupy the land of the defendant no.1 and his sons.

9.One of the purchasers of said Marri Andamma by name Cherukuri

Vimalamma sold away her land in Sy.No.30/E admg Ac.04-03 ½ gts to one Cherukuri Nagamani, through registered sale deed no.767/2006, dt.09.07.2006 of SRO-Ramannapet, she clearly got mentioned the boundaries to the said land.

North: Land of Earaboina Ramaiah

South: Land of Sai Reddy Narayan Reddy

East: Land of Earaboina Sathaiah

West: Way from Ghousenagar to Yedumotla Bavi

10. The registered documents executed by Marri Andamma along with

Velimineti Ramaiah and their purchaser Cherukuri Vimalamma which clearly shows that their land is covered on southern side by the land of

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 6 of 23

Saireddy Narayana Reddy, father of the defendant no.1 and the defendants are successors of Saireddy Narayana Reddy and the sons of defendant no.1 by name Nithin Reddy and Hariprasad Reddy have been in possession and enjoyment of his lands in Sy.No.300 admg Ac.04-29 gts, The family of defendant no.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of said land for the last more than 8 deceased. Their land is bounded by

North: Land of Cherukuri Vimalamma (Presently Saireddy Pichi Reddy and Gorla Ramulu and others)

South: Land of Earaboina Kistaiah in Sy.No.301

East: Land of Earaboina Ramaiah (Presently Earaboina Narsimha and others)

West: Land of Saireddy Sathi Reddy and others in Sy.No.297.

11.The defendants have been raising dry crops in the said land and they raised redgram in the last season and jowar in the present season.

The plaintiff with an intention to occupy the said lands, filed the false suit against the defendants by claiming, she acquired the same from her mother and father. The plaintiff is not in possession of suit land and the suit is barred by limitation.

12.For all the aforesaid reasons, the defendants prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 7 of 23

13.Basing on the above factual matrix the following issues and framed by this court.

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

2. To what relief?

14.Plaintiff got examined as PW1 and exhibit A1 to A14 are marked and one Kandi Yadi Reddy is examined as PW2 on behalf of plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and Exhibits B1 to B9 and A15 marked and one A.Papireddy is examined as DW2 on behalf of defendants.

ARGUMENTS

15.Both counsels filed written arguments. Heard both the counsels.

Answer to issue no.1 basing on the evidence on record.

16.It is settled law that plaintiff coming to court has to prove his case without depending on the demerits in the case of the defendants.

17.The present suit filed by the plaintiff is for perpetual injunction, in a suit for perpetual injunction, the plaintiff need to establish that, she is the lawful possessor of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and her possession was interfered by the defendants unlawfully.

18.The relief of injunction is based on equity principles, such as prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

19.The plaintiff must establish prima facie case and show that, balance of convenience is in her favour and that they would suffer irreparable

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 8 of 23

loss, if the alleged illegal act is not prevented. The plaintiff must stand on her own legs in establishing the above three principles, without depending upon weaknesses of defence, set up by the defendants.

20. Now, let us examine, the material placed by the plaintiff to see how far she is able to establish the equity principles.

21.The principal contention of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule properties. It is her case that she purchased an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas in Survey No.300 from her father, Marri Bal Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing Document

No.600/2021 dated 20.03.2021, marked as Ex.A10.

22.The plaintiff further contended that one Konthem Yadaiah was the original owner and possessor of lands in Survey No.300/A admeasuring

Ac.2-01½ guntas and Survey No.301/A admeasuring Ac.0-24 guntas, among other lands in the same village. The said Yadaiah sold these lands to the plaintiff’s father, Marri Bal Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.886 of 1999 dated 15.06.1999, marked as

Ex.A2.Ex.A3, the extract of amendment register, reflects mutation of the names of the plaintiff’s parents in the revenue records. Exs.A4 and A5, being pahanies for the years 1999–2000 and 2004–2005 respectively, shows Marri Bal Reddy as pattadar of the relevant lands. Ex.A9 is the

Pattadar Passbook issued in his name, and Ex.A13 is the pahani for the year 2019, also reflecting his possession.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 9 of 23

23.During cross-examination, PW1 categorically admitted that her father purchased lands to an extent of Ac.4-12 guntas in Survey

Nos.259/A, 262/A, 263/A, 295/A, 300/A, and 301/A under Ex.A2, and that all these survey numbers formed a single compact block with common boundaries. She also clearly deposed regarding the boundaries of the said land. PW2 supported the plaintiff’s case and denied the suggestions put by the defendants that neither the plaintiff nor her parents were in possession of the suit lands.

24.The defendants have not disputed the relationship between the plaintiff and her vendors, namely her parents. However, they have specifically denied the plaintiff’s ownership and possession over the suit properties. DW1 expressed ignorance regarding the sale transaction between Konthem Yadaiah and the plaintiff’s father. However, DW2, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that Konthem Yadaiah sold land to an extent of Ac.4-00 guntas in the relevant survey numbers to

Marri Bal Reddy and that the revenue records were accordingly mutated in the name of the plaintiff’s parents.

25.Thus, from a cumulative reading of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, it stands established that the plaintiff’s father, Marri Bal Reddy, had validly acquired the suit lands under Ex.A2 and was in possession thereof. Consequently, the subsequent conveyance

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 10 of 23

of the suit properties by him in favour of the plaintiff under Exs.A10 lends support to the plaintiff’s claim of title.

26.It is the further case of the plaintiff that her mother, Smt.

Andamma, sold land bearing Survey No.300/AA admeasuring Ac.0-08½ guntas and land in Survey No.301/UU admeasuring Ac.1-02 guntas to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.601 of 2021 dated 20.03.2021, marked as Ex.A11. Ex.A6, being the pahani for the year 2013–2014, reflects the names of the plaintiff’s parents as pattadars and possessors of the suit lands. Ex.A8 is the Pattadar

Passbook standing in the name of Smt. Andamma, and Ex.A14 is another pahani reflecting her possession. Thus, according to the plaintiff, she derived title through valid registered conveyances executed by her parents, who in turn derived title from the original owner.

27.The plaintiff, in her chief examination, deposed that her maternal grandfather, Velimineti Seetayya, was the original owner and possessor of agricultural lands bearing Survey No.300 admeasuring Ac.04-04 guntas and Survey No.301 admeasuring Ac.2-33 guntas, along with other lands situated at Kanchanapalli village. It is her specific case that the said

Seetayya gifted these lands to his daughter, Smt. Andamma, who is the mother of the plaintiff, through a registered gift deed bearing Document

No.1639 of 1971 dated 03.11.1971, which is marked as Ex.A1 along with its translated copy. On perusal of Ex.A1 reveals that lands in Survey

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 11 of 23

Nos.259, 262, 263, 295, 300, and 301 were covered under the said gift, including the present suit lands. Out of these, the lands in the present suit survey numbers, namely Survey No.300 to an extent of Ac.4-04 guntas and Survey No.301 to an extent of Ac.2-33 guntas, form part of the gifted property.

28.The boundaries of the land in Survey Nos.300 and 301 are described as follows:

East: Land of Yerraboina Bixapathi.

West ;Land of Baddam Malla Reddy

North:Bandakindi Gudem Shivar, Ghouse Nagar Shivar

South: Land of Baddam Malla Reddy

29.On the other hand, the main contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Andamma, along with one Velimineti

Ramaiah, had already alienated part of the land in Survey No.300 to

Cherukuri Ravinder and Cherukuri Vimalamma much prior to the plaintiff’s purchase. In this regard, the defendants relied upon a registered sale deed bearing Document No.1249 of 1993 dated 17.06.1993, marked as Ex.B9, under which an extent of Ac.08-07 guntas was sold in favour of Cherukuri Ravinder and Cherukuri Vimalamma.

30.The boundaries of the property covered under Ex.B9 are described as:

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 12 of 23

North: Land of Banda Somaram Shivar

South: Land of Sai Reddy Narayana Reddy

East: Land of Veeraboina Ramaiah and others

West: Land of Velimineti Ramaiah

31.Based on this transaction, the defendants contends that

Smt.Andamma does not have any right or interest in the said portion of land, and therefore, the subsequent sale in favour of the plaintiff under

Ex.A11 is not valid. It is also their contention that in the said document, the southern boundary is shown as land belonging to Defendant No.1, which, according to them, indicates manipulation and falsity in the plaintiff’s documents.

32.The defendants further contend that one of the purchasers, namely

Vimalamma, subsequently alienated a portion of land admeasuring Ac.0- 04½ guntas in Survey No.300/E21 in favour of Cherukuri Nagamani under a registered sale deed bearing Document No.767 of 2006 dated 09.07.2006. The boundaries of this land are described as:

North: Land of E. Ramaiah

South: Land of Sai Reddy Narayana Reddy

East: Land of E. Sathiah

West: Way from Ghouse Nagar to Yedumotla Bavi

33.Relying on these transactions, the defendants assert that the boundary descriptions consistently show the land of Sai Reddy Narayana

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 13 of 23

Reddy, who is the father of Defendant No.1, thereby establishing their possession and enjoyment over the land in Survey No.300.

34.It is the specific case of the defendants that they, being the successors of said Narayana Reddy, are in possession and enjoyment of land in Survey No.300 admeasuring Ac.4-29 guntas. According to them, their land is bounded by:

North: Lands of Cherukuri Vimalamma and others (presently Sai Reddy Pichi Reddy, Golla Ramulu, etc.)

South: Land of Kishtayya in Survey No.301

East: Land of E. Ramaiah

West: Lands of Sai Reddy, Sathi Reddy and others in Survey No.297

35.Thus, the defendants dispute the title and possession of the plaintiff by contending that prior alienations and boundary recitals demonstrate their independent possession over the suit lands.

36.On a careful and keen consideration of the rival contentions of both parties, it is evident that the core dispute raised by the defendants pertains to the very existence and correctness of the southern boundary of the suit schedule property.

37.In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to examine whether the plaintiff has been able to establish her possession over the suit schedule property with appropriate boundaries.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 14 of 23

38.The plaintiff has relied upon Exs.A1 to A14, which include registered sale documents, that is Ex-A10 and A11 , pattadar passbook which is marked as Ex-A12, and pahanies standing in the names of her father EX-A13 and 14 as well as pattedar passbook of herself that is Ex -A12 . These documents, prima facie, reflect continuity of title and possession.

39.During her oral evidence, PW1 (plaintiff) denied all the suggestions put forth by the defendants. She precisely deposed with regard to the boundaries of the suit schedule lands. Significantly, she admitted that

Defendant No.1 owns the adjoining land on one side of the suit property.

She consistently maintained that she purchased the suit land from her parents, and that her mother derived title from her maternal grandfather through a registered gift deed (Ex.A1).

40.During cross-examination, an attempt was made by the defendants to discredit the plaintiff’s version by pointing out discrepancies in boundary descriptions between Ex.A1 and Exs.A10 and A11. PW1 fairly admitted that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A1 and the subsequent sale deeds are not identical. She clarified that Ex.A1 reflects common boundaries for multiple survey numbers, whereas the later documents specify boundaries for individual sub-divisions such as Survey Nos.300 and 301.PW1 further admitted that her mother had earlier sold an extent of Ac.08-07 guntas under a registered sale deed bearing Document

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 15 of 23

No.1249/1993 dated 17.06.1993 in favour of third parties, namely

Cherukuri Ravinder and Vimalamma. She also acknowledged that in the said document, the southern boundary is shown as the land of the father of Defendant No.1. However, she denied the suggestion that the present boundary descriptions are false or speculative.

41.PW2, though not fully aware of the exact extents and survey details, supported the case of the plaintiff and denied the suggestion that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit lands. No material contradictions could be elicited from his evidence.

42.The principal contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff’s mother, Smt. Andamma, had already alienated the entire land in favour of third parties, namely Cherukuri Ravinder and Vimalamma, and therefore retained no subsisting right to convey the suit property to the plaintiff. In support of this contention, the defendants relied upon Exs.B1 to B9.

43.Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.40/2020. A perusal of the same reveals that the subject matter and extent of land involved therein are entirely different from the suit schedule property in the present case. This fact has also been categorically admitted by DW1, who further deposed that except for the land involved in O.S.

No.40/2020, the defendants have no concern with any other land. This admission significantly weakens the defence set up by the defendants.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 16 of 23

Further, a comparison of Ex.A1 with the subject matter of O.S.

No.40/2020 makes it evident that the lands are distinct and not identical.

The defendants also sought to rely upon Exs.B4 to B8, which are certified copies of charge sheets, to contend that criminal proceedings indicate that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land. However, it is a settled principle of law that findings in criminal proceedings do not operate as res-judicata in civil proceedings, and therefore such documents do not carry determinative value in adjudicating civil rights over immovable property.

44.Another contention raised by the defendants pertains to alleged discrepancies in the boundary descriptions of the suit schedule property.

It is their case that the boundaries mentioned in Exs.A10 and A11 are at variance with those described in Ex.A1. In this regard, the plaintiff, during her cross-examination, has given satisfactory explanation by stating that Ex.A1 contains common boundaries for a larger extent of land comprising multiple survey numbers, whereas Exs.A10 and A11 relate to specific and subdivided portions in Survey Nos.300 and 301 with distinct boundaries. This explanation appears to be reasonable and acceptable, particularly in the context of subsequent alienations and subdivision of the original extent.

45.It is further significant to note that DW1, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that his father’s land is shown as the southern

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 17 of 23

boundary to the suit property and that they are in possession of the said adjoining land. This admission lends support to the plaintiff’s version regarding the identity, location, and boundaries of the suit schedule property. The same fact has also been acknowledged by the plaintiff in her evidence.

46.On the side of the defendants, DW1 has displayed lack of knowledge with regard to the material aspects of the case. He admitted that the plaintiff’s grandfather had gifted lands, including an extent in Survey

No.300, in favour of the plaintiff’s mother under Ex.A1. He, however, expressed ignorance about the subsequent transactions, namely the sale in favour of the plaintiff’s father under Ex.A2 and the later conveyances in favour of the plaintiff under Exs.A10 and A11, as well as the issuance of digital pattadar passbooks in her favour.More importantly, DW1 admitted that except for an extent of Ac.0-00.32 guntas in Survey No.300/2, which is the subject matter of O.S. No.40/2020, the defendants have no concern with the remaining lands in Survey No.300. He further admitted that, as per the boundaries mentioned in the said suit, the land of the plaintiff’s father is shown on the northern side, which indirectly corroborates the plaintiff’s case regarding the location and possession of the suit property.

He also stated that he is not aware of the correctness of the boundaries mentioned in his own written statement.Ex-A15 was marked through

DW1 during his cross examination .he has admitted that his father filed

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 18 of 23

the civil suit against parents of plaintiff vide OS NO 366 of 2021. However he categorically admitted that he has not mentioned about the said suit in his written statement as it is different case from the prsent case .

47.Thus, the admissions of DW1 not only weaken the defence set up by the defendants but also strengthens the case of the plaintiff with regard to the identity and possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff counsel also contended the same in his written arguments.

48.DW2, in his cross-examination, made material admissions which go to the root of the matter. He admitted that the land in Survey No.300 to an extent of Ac.4-29 guntas belongs to the plaintiff. He further admitted that the plaintiff’s grandfather had gifted lands to her mother under

Ex.A1 and that Konthem Yadaiah had sold land to the plaintiff’s father, with consequent mutation of revenue records in their names. He also acknowledged that revenue records, including Dharani passbooks, were issued in favour of the plaintiff.

49.Thus, the evidence on record, particularly the admissions of DW1 and DW2 coupled with the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, clearly establishes the chain of title as well as possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Minor discrepancies in boundary descriptions, especially in cases involving large extents and subsequent sub-divisions, do not supersede the consistent documentary evidence and admissions supporting the plaintiff’s case.

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 19 of 23

50.On a comprehensive appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has succeeded in producing sufficient documentary evidence to establish her title over the suit schedule property. The record clearly discloses that under Ex.A1 (gift deed) and

Ex.A2 (sale deed), the parents of the plaintiff had validly acquired the subject lands. Thereafter, under Exs.A10 and A11, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties from her parents through registered conveyances. These documents form a continuous and credible chain of title in favour of the plaintiff.

51.Though the defendants have disputed the correctness of the boundaries, they have failed to place on record any cogent documentary evidence to establish the precise and correct boundaries of their alleged property. There is a complete absence of reliable material to substantiate their version. Moreover, the categorical admission of DW1 that they are concerned only with a limited extent of land, and not with the entirety of the suit survey numbers, further demonstrates that the defendants have no substantial claim over the suit schedule property.

52.Thus, the evidence on record, when read as a whole, clearly tilts in favour of the plaintiff and establishes her title and possession over the suit land.the oral evidence of PW1 and PW2, when read together with the testimony of DW1 and DW2, and corroborated by the documentary

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 20 of 23

evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A14, collectively establish that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land, and that the defendants hold a separate portion situated to its southern side.

53.Therefore, upon appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the plaintiff successfully established her title and possession over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, it stands proved that the plaintiff were in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit.

54.Further given the findings supra , the pleadings and evidence on record substantiate the factum of the defendants interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land thereby entitling the plaintiff to an injunction , Restraining the defendants from interference, as sought .

55.The legal principles governing the appreciating of the evidence in civil cases, particularly the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities ,which requires evidence to be weighed based on likelihood rather than than certainty ,unlike in criminal cases where standard of proof is beyond Reasonable doubt .further in civil cases the principle that possession follows title applies ,especially in the cases of open lands .

56.The present suit is filed for equitable relief of injunction. When the plaintiffs are able to establish her possession as on date of filing of the

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 21 of 23

suit, definitely, she is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction. in the instant case at hand, the plaintiff established that she is in the possession of the suit land and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff clearly revealed that plaintiff is in actual physical possession over the suit property as shown in the plaint at the time of filing of the suit by cogent evidence.

To what relief ?

57.On perusal and discussion above, the plaintiff proved her lawful right and absolute possession over suit schedule property within the boundaries shown in the plaint as on date of filing of the suit. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to get perpetual injunction in her favour against defendants as prayed for.

58. IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed against

Defendants with costs. The defendants and their men are hereby permanently restrained from interfering into peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit property. All pending I.A.’s stands closed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed by her corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 31 st day of March, 2026).

Sd/-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 22 of 23

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: - FOR DEFENDANT:-

PW1- Moku Swapna DW1- Saireddy Malla Reddy PW2- Kandi Yadi ReddyDW2- Alimineti Papi Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is the original urdu registered gift settlement deed vide document No.1639/1971, along with true translation copy.

Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed document No.886/1999, Dated: 15-06-1999 executed by kontham yadaiah infavour of Marri bal Reddy.

Ex.A3 is the True copy of extract of amendment registered for the year 1988-89 (two pages).

Ex.A4 is the true copy of pahani for the year 1999-2000 issued Dy.Tahsildar, Valigonda.

Ex.A5 is the true copy of pahani for the year 2004-2005 (Two pages) issued Dy.Tahsildar, Valigonda.

Ex.A6 is the true copy of pahani for the year 2013-2014 (two pages) issued Dy.Tahsildar, Valigonda.

Ex.A7 is the True copy of extract of amendment registered for the year 2015-2016 (two pages).

Ex.A8 is the original computerized digital pattadar pass book of marri Andamma.

Ex.A9 is the original computerized digital pattadar pass book of marri Balreddy.

Ex.A10 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.600/2021,

Dated: 20-03-2021 executed by marri bal reddy in favour of PW1.

Ex.A11 is the original registered sale deed vide document No.601/2021,

Dated: 20-03-2021 executed by marri Andamma in favour of PW1.

Ex.A12 is the computerized digital pattadar pass book PW1.

Ex.A13 is the computerized 1-B Namoona obtained to Meeseva petaining to Marri Bal Reddy

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

O.S.No. 112/2021 – Page 23 of 23

Ex.A14 is the computerized 1-B Namoona obtained to Meeseva petaining to Marri Andamma

Ex.A15 is the Fair Copy of Amended Copy of plaint in OS.No.366 of 2021 (By DW1)

FOR DEFENDANT:

Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.40/2020 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the plaint in I.A.No.77/2020 in

O.S.No.40/2020 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet.

Ex.B3 is the certified copy of Ad interim injunction order passed in

I.A.No.77/2020 in O.S.No.40/2020 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Ramannapet.

Ex.B4 is the certified copy of FIR in crime no.279/2021 of PS Valigonda.

Ex.B5 is the certified copy of charge sheet along with part-II statements and other documents in CC No.5/2022 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ramannapet.

Ex.B6 is the certified copy of FIR in Crime no.226/2022 of PS Valigonda.

Ex.B7 is the certified copy of final report filed by PS Valigonda in Crime

No.178/2021 along with part-II Statements.

Ex.B8 is the CC of Final Report filed by PS Valigonda in Crime

No.134/2021.

Ex.B9 is the certified copy of Register Sale Deed bearing document no.1249/1993 dt.17.06.1993 executed by Marri Andamma and Velimineti

Ramaiah in favour of Cherukuri Ravinder and Vimalamma.

Sd/-

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RAMANNAPET

Dt:31.03.2026 Prl. JCJ, Ramannapet

CC/405/2023 Acquitted

SHO Choutuppal vs Karanthothu Bujji

11 Aug 2025

C.C No.405/2023 Page 1 of 7

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

Present:- Smt. T.Mahathi Vaishnavi,

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal.

(Dated on this the 11th day of August, 2025)

C.C No.405 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Ramannapet

… Complainant

A N D

Karanthothu Bujji, W/o.Sakru, Age:46 years R/o.Gangamma thanda(V), Narayanpur(M)… Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assis- tant Public Prosecutor for State and Advocate Sri.T.Paramesh, Advocate on behalf of the Accused upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1The accused stood charged for the offence U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of

T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 in Crime No.03/2023 of Prohibition and

Excise PS, Ramannapet.

2The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19.01.2023

M.Shobha Rani/LW3, P & EI, DTF, Yadadri-Bhongir district has received information regarding storage of ID liquor in the house of accused at

Gangamma Thanda, Narayanpuram Mandal. Then the L.W.3 along with her subordinate staff proceeded to outskirts of Gangamma Thanda and secured L.Ws 1 and 2 as mediators and explained them the reasons for raid of accused person house. Then they all proceeded to the house of accused and found the accused in the said house. Then L.W.3 served

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 2 of 7 search memo on the accused and all entered into the said house.

During the search of the house, L.W3 found one white colour plastic can in one corner of the house which was containing about (05) liters of ID Liquor. On further enquiry by the L.W3, accused admitted that she purchased ID Liquor from unknown person and is selling to needy customers in the village. Then L.W.3 has drawn 2 samples of ID Liquor each about 180 ml to send to Chemical examiner, Warangal for analysis and arrested accused person under cover of Panchanama.

3.On the basis of case papers, the L.W.3 has registered this case in

COR.No:03/2023, Dated:19.01.2023, U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995. Then a notice U/s.41 (A) of Cr.P.C. was served on the said accused by L.W.3 and informed to her to appear before this Court after receipt of summons and original case papers submitted before this

Court and taken up investigation.

4.During the course of investigation, L.W.3 sent each one sample to Chemical examiner, Warangal for analysis. The Govt Chemical examiner after analyzing the sample has opined that ID Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. The remaining seized property was deposited before Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition &

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation. After completion of investigation,

L.W.3 has filed charge-sheet before this Court.

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 3 of 7

5.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of

T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 against the accused. This Court has furnished the copies of documents U/s.207 Cr.P.C. to the accused and she was examined under Sec.251 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the substance of accusation against her in Telugu, for which she denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Prosecution has examined PW1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P4, M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against her in

Telugu, for which she denied and reported no defense evidence.

7.Now, the points that arise for determination are :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

(ii)“If so, the punishment accused is liable for,

U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995?”

Point (i):

8. PW2 is the Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, of P.S.,

Excise Ramannapet who conducted raid and seized the property. She deposed about her having conducted raid in the outskirts of

Gangamma Thanda and seized ID liquor bottles from the house of the accused at Gangamma Thanda on 19.01.2023. According to her, the accused purchased ID liquor from unknown person and was selling it to needy customers in the village. PW2 further deposed about her having seized (05) liters of ID Liquor and drawn samples of 180 ml in

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 4 of 7 two bottles each under cover of panchanama in presence of the mediators i.e., PW1 and LW1. She prepared confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained the signatures of the mediators. She exhibited confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P2. According to her, she registered a case in COR. No.03 of 2023 for the punishable offence under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued COR under Ex.P3 and issued Sec 41-A Crpc notice to the accused. She also sent MO-1 to Excise laboratory Warangal for analysis report. She collected the chemical analysis report under Ex.P4 which discloses that the material in seized sample is Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

9.The plea of the accused is that she is innocent and that a false case was registered against her for the purpose of statistics. She further pleaded that she never confessed and that nothing was seized from him and that she has no connection with the alleged seized property. Finally she prayed to acquit the accused.

10.Before going to discuss the reliability of the testimony of PW2, it is relevant here to refer to Ex.P4 laboratory analysis report exhibited by PW2. On perusal of the same, it appears that the analyst has analyzed the samples and opined that it contains the Illicitly Distilled

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 5 of 7

Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. But the plea of the accused is that she is no way concerned with the alleged liquor and the sample said to have been sent to chemical analyst.

11. Though PW2 deposed that she conducted raid and seized the liquor in presence of LW1 and PW1 the mediator, PW1 did not support the version of the PW2, LW1 was not examined by the prosecution. The version of the PW1 is that police obtained his signatures on blank papers even without disclosing the reason for obtaining his signatures.

He simply identified his signatures appearing on the scene of offence cum recovery panchanama. The mediator thus turned hostile to the prosecution.

12. It is evident from the evidence of PW2 that she has not only conducted raid and effected seizure, but she herself registered the case, issued Crime Occurrence report, conducted investigation by sending the samples for analyst report and she was the officer who issued Sec 41-A Crpc notice to the accused. Thus the PW2 being the complainant should not have proceeded with investigation. The PW2 is not only the complainant in the case but she carried on with investigation. The underlying principle, in insisting that a person who registers a case should not investigate the matter, is that if a person who registered the case was empowered to investigate the case naturally he would try to create records and there may not be a fair and impartial investigation. Only to avoid that, a consistent view has

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 6 of 7 been taken that a person who had registered the case should not normally investigate the case and it should be investigated by some other officer for a fair and impartial investigation. This is observed by

Hon'ble Supreme court time and again in decision between

“S.Chandran Vs. State” (reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 407(Mad).

Therefore though the testimony of PW2 appears to be unimpeached, in absence of corroboration of independent mediators, it is not safe to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the PW2, who is complainant as well as investigating officer, to decide the guilt of the accused for the charged offence.

13.Besides, as could be seen from the evidence ,there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged seized liquor. Thus in the above facts and circumstances and in absence of corroboration of independent witnesses, it is not safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW2 who is the complainant as well the investigating officer. This court thus is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to decide the guilt of the accused for the charged offence. The Prosecution, therefore failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused therefore is entitled for benefit of doubt.

. 14 Point (ii):

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly,

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.405/2023 Page 7 of 7 she is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is the one sealed one sample bottle of ID liquor of 180 ml shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to personal Assistant, typed and transcribed by her and corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 11 th day of August, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Choutuppal.

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION

For Prosecution: PW-1: K.Bala PW-2: M.Shobha Rani

For Defence ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Confession sum seizure panchanama Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Laboratory Analysis Report

For Defence

---NIL---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: One sealed one sample bottle of ID liquor of 180 ml

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Choutuppal.

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

CC/414/2023 Acquitted

SHO Choutuppal vs Karanthothu Bujji

11 Aug 2025

C.C No.414/2023 Page 1 of 7

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

FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :: AT CHOUTUPPAL.

Present:- Smt. T.Mahathi Vaishnavi,

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial First Class Magistrate, Choutuppal.

(Dated, on this the 11th August, 2025)

C.C No.414 of 2023

Between: The State of Telangana, through, Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Ramannapet … Complainant

A N D

Karanthothu Bujji, W/o.Bojiya, Age:48 years R/o.Dhaku thanda(V), Narayanpur(M)… Accused

This case is coming for hearing before me in the presence of learned Assis- tant Public Prosecutor for State and Advocate Sri.G.Ravinder, Advocate on behalf of the Accused upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1The accused stood charged for the offence U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of

T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 in Crime No.14/2023 of Prohibition and

Excise PS, Ramannapet.

2The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.04.2023

M.Shobha Rani/LW1, P & EI, DTF, Yadadri-Bhongir district has received information regarding storage of ID liquor in the house of accused at

Dhaku Thanda, Narayanpuram Mandal. Then the L.W.3 along with her subordinate staff proceeded to outskirts of Dhaku Thanda and secured

L.Ws 1 and 2 as mediators and explained them the reasons for raid of accused person house. Then they all proceeded to the house of accused and found the accused in the said house. Then L.W.3 served

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 2 of 7 search memo on the accused and all entered into the said house.

3.On the basis of case papers, the L.W.3 has registered this case in

COR.No:14/2023, Dated:08.04.2023, U/s.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition

Act, 1995. Then a notice U/s.41 (A) of Cr.P.C. was served on the said accused by L.W.3 and informed her to appear before this Court after receipt of summons and original case papers submitted before this

Court and taken up investigation.

Excise, Nalgonda for confiscation. After completion of investigation,

L.W.3 has filed charge-sheet before this Court.

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 3 of 7

5.The Court took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of

6.Prosecution has examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4,

M.O.1. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against her in Telugu, for which she denied and reported no defense evidence.

7.Now, the points that arise for determination are :-

(i) “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

(ii)“If so, the punishment accused is liable for,

U/Sec.7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995?”

Point (i):

8. PW3 is the Prohibition and Excise Inspector of Police, of P.S.,

Excise Ramannapet who conducted raid and seized the property. She deposed about her having conducted raid in the outskirts of Dhaku

Thanda and seized ID liquor bottles from the house of the accused at

Dhaku Thanda on 08.04.2023. According to her, the accused purchased ID liquor from unknown person and was selling it to needy customers in the village. PW3 further deposed about her having seized (05) liters of ID Liquor and drawn samples of 180 ml in two bottles

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 4 of 7 each under cover of panchanama in presence of the mediators i.e.,

PW1 and PW2. She prepared confession cum seizure panchanama and obtained the signatures of the mediators. She exhibited confession cum seizure panchanama under Ex.P3. According to her, she registered a case in COR. No.14 of 2023 for the punishable offence under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995 and issued COR under Ex.P3 and issued Sec 41-A Crpc notice to the accused. She also sent MO-1 to Excise laboratory Warangal for analysis report. He collected the chemical analysis report under Ex.P4 which discloses that the material in seized sample is Illicitly Distilled Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. After completion of investigation she filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S. Prohibition Act, 1995.

10.Before going to discuss the reliability of the testimony of PW3, it is relevant here to refer to Ex.P4 laboratory analysis report exhibited by PW3. On perusal of the same, it appears that the analyst has analyzed the samples and opined that it contains the Illicitly Distilled

Liquor unfit for human consumption and injurious to health. But the

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 5 of 7 plea of the accused is that she is no way concerned with the alleged liquor and the sample said to have been sent to chemical analyst.

11. Though PW3 deposed that she conducted raid and seized the liquor in presence of PW1 and PW2 the mediators, they did not support the version of the PW3. The version of the mediators is that police obtained their signatures on blank papers even without disclosing the reason for obtaining their signatures. They simply identified their signatures appearing on the scene of offence cum recovery panchanama. The mediators thus turned hostile to the prosecution.

12. It is evident from the evidence of PW3 that she has not only conducted raid and effected seizure, but she herself registered the case, issued Crime Occurrence report, conducted investigation by sending the samples for analyst report and she was the officer who issued Sec 41-A Crpc notice to the accused. Thus the PW3 being the complainant should not have proceeded with investigation. The PW3 is not only the complainant in the case but she carried on with investigation. The underlying principle, in insisting that a person who registers a case should not investigate the matter, is that if a person who registered the case was empowered to investigate the case naturally he would try to create records and there may not be a fair and impartial investigation. Only to avoid that, a consistent view has been taken that a person who had registered the case should not normally investigate the case and it should be investigated by some

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 6 of 7 other officer for a fair and impartial investigation. This is observed by

Hon'ble Supreme court time and again in decision between

“S.Chandran Vs. State” (reported in 2001(1) ALT (Crl.) 407(Mad).

Therefore though the testimony of PW3 appears to be unimpeached, in absence of corroboration of independent mediators, it is not safe to act upon the uncorroborated testimony of the PW3, who is complainant as well as investigating officer, to decide the guilt of the accused for the charged offence.

13.Besides, as could be seen from the evidence ,there is no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged seized liquor. Thus in the above facts and circumstances and in absence of corroboration of independent witnesses, it is not safe to place reliance on the sole testimony of PW3 who is the complainant as well the investigating officer. This court thus is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to decide the guilt of the accused for the charged offence. The Prosecution, therefore failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused therefore is entitled for benefit of doubt.

. 14 Point (ii):

IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for offences punishable 7-A r/w 8(e) of T.S.Prohibition Act, 1995. Accordingly, she is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

C.C No.414/2023 Page 7 of 7

Accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 is the one sealed one sample bottle of ID liquor of 180 ml shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to personal Assistant, typed and transcribed by her and corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 11 th day of August, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Choutuppal.

APPENDIX OF WITNESS OF EXAMINATION

For Prosecution: PW-1: K.Lalu PW-2: K.Srinivas PW-3: M.Shobha Rani

For Defence ---NIL---

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Confession sum seizure panchanama Ex.P2: Confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3: COR Ex.P4: Laboratory Analysis Report

For Defence

---NIL---

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: One sealed one sample bottle of ID liquor of 180 ml

Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Choutuppal.

Dt: 11.08.2025 JFCM, Choutuppal.

OS/155/2025

Banda Ranga Reddy vs The Tahsildar and Joint Sub Registrar

17 Apr 2026

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT RAMANNAPET

Friday, this the 17th day of April, 2026

Present:- Smt.S. Shirisha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet

Original Suit No. 155 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. Banda Ranga Reddy S/o. Late Banda Narsi Reddy, Age: about 58 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

2. Banda Janardhan Reddy S/o. Late Banda Narsi Reddy, Age: about 53 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

3. Banda Sathi Reddy S/o. Late Banda Venkat Ram Reddy, Age: about 75 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

4. Banda Madhava Reddy S/o. Late Banda Venkat Ram Reddy, Age: about 73 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

5. Banda Keshava Reddy S/o. Late Banda Venkat Ram Reddy, Age: about 70 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. …Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Mothkur village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

2. The Tahsildar and Joint Sub-Registrar, Addagudur village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District.

3. To whom so ever it may concern. …Defendants No.1 to 3. This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Venkat Reddy, the learned counsel for the plaintiff no.1 to 3 and the Defendant No.1 to 3 are remained set exparte and the matter having been stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This Suit is filed to declare the plaintiff no.1 to 5 as the Class-II

Legal heirs of deceased Banda Rama Swamy Reddy to succeed his estate i.e., Plaint ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ schedule properties.

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 2 of 7

THE BRIEF AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT ARE AS FOLLOWS:-

2.That the deceased/Banda Ramaswamy Reddy died intestate without issues on 14.09.2010. His wife namely Banda Mallamma also died. They did not bless with any children. Leaving behind Banda Narsi Reddy i.e.

Father of plaintiff no.1 and 2, Banda Sathi Reddy (Plaintiff no.3), Banda

Madhava Reddy (Plaintiff No.4) and Banda Keshava Reddy (Plaintiff No.5) as class-II Legal heirs to succeed his interest and properties left by the deceased. Subsequently, Banda Narsi Reddy also died on 21.10.2014 and his wife namely Somakka died on 30.05.2025. Leaving behind the plaintiff no.1 and plaintiff no.2 as his legal heirs.

3.It is further contended that during the life time of said Banda Rama

Swamy Reddy, he was the pattedar and possessor of the land bearing

Sy.No.28 admg to an extent of Ac.0-23 gts in respect of the suit A schedule property is situated at Patimatla village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-

Bhuvanagiri District. Subsequently the deceased/Banda Ramaswamy

Reddy was also the pattedar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.182 admg to an extent of Ac. 2-03 gts, Sy.No.185 admg to an extent of Ac.1-28 gts and Sy.No.189 admg Ac.0-09 gts respectively total admg to an extent of

Ac.4-00 gts i.e. B Schedule property is situated at Sadarshapuram village of Mothkur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. The said Banda

Ramaswamy Reddy is also the pattadar and possessor of the land bearing

Sy.No.483 admg Ac.0-19 gts, Sy.No.484 admg Ac.0-22 gts, Sy.No.485 admg Ac.0-22 gts and Sy.No.486 admg Ac.0-12 gts respectively. Total

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 3 of 7 admg to an extent of Ac.1-35 gts i.e. C Schedule property is situated at

Kanchanapally village of Addagudur Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.

4. After the demise of deceased/Banda Ramaswamy Reddy the plaintiff

No.1 to 5 have became the joint owners and possessors of the plaint A, B and C schedule properties and raising crops in it every agricultural season without any interruption as they were the class-II legal heirs of deceased/Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy. Thus the plaintiff no.1 to 5 are entitled 1/5th share in the plaint A, B and C schedule properties.

5.It is further contended by the plaintiff is that some mis- understandings arose between them and due to which the plaintiffs are unable to enjoy the suit A, B and C schedule properties. On 22.04.2025 the plaintiffs no.1 to 5 jointly made an application before the Defendant no.1 for issuance of Legal Heir Certificate of deceased/Late Banda

Ramaswamy Reddy for the purpose of mutation of the plaint A,B and C

Schedule properties in their favour under Fouthi Virasath, where he advised the plaintiff to obtain legal heir certificate as there is no other alternative remedy, the plaintiffs herein approached this Court and filed the present suit. Hence, the suit.

6.The defendant No.3 was set exparte on 22.01.2026, despite of sufficient service of summons and despite of paper publication and defendant No.1 and 2 were set exparte on 10.02.2026, as they failed to appear before the court on the date of hearing, and posted the matter for

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 4 of 7 exparte evidence, wherein the plaintiff no.1 got examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A19 documents.

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

8. Now the point for determination is: -

1. “Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of declaring them as legal heir of deceased Late Banda Rama Swamy Reddy”?

2. To what relief?

POINT No.1:

9.In the present case on hand in order to establish the death of Banda

Ramaswamy, the plaintiff no.1 examined himself and marked Ex.A.1 is

Original death certificate of Banda Ramaswamy.

10.In order to establish that the plaint schedule property is the property of Banda Ramaswamy, the plaintiff marked Ex.A.2 which shows that, the deceased Banda Ramaswamy left behind property. Ex.A3 to A13 are the pahanies of Suit A schedule property pertaining for the year 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2012-13 are in the names of Late Banda Rama

Swamy Reddy. Ex.A14 is the Pattedar passbook of B schedule property vide no.548833, which shows that the deceased/Late Banda Ramaswamy

Reddy is the pattedar and possessor of the B Schedule property. Ex.A15 is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.1. Ex.A16 is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.2. Ex.A17 is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.3. Ex.A18 is the

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 5 of 7

Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.4 and Ex.A19 is the Aadhaar card of the plaintiff no.5.

11. The defendants No.1 to 3 were set exparte as they failed to appear

before the Court even though sufficient services of summons were made.

The plaintiff is the legal heir of Late Banda Ramswamy Reddy and the

Ex.A.2 to 14 establishes the death of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy who had plaint A, B and C schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff no.1 to 5 proved that, they are the legal heirs of Late Banda Ramswamy Reddy and no rebuttal evidence adduced by defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of claim. Thus, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

POINT No.2: To what relief?

12.In view of the discussion made under point No.1, the point No.2 is partly answered in favour of the plaintiff.

13. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff no.1 to 5 by declaring the plaintiff no.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased/ Late

Banda Ramaswamy Reddy. All pending I.A’s shall stands closed. It is made clear that in this judgment and decree only the legal status of the plaintiff no.1 to 5 has been declared.

(Typed by my Stenographer on my dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2026).

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 6 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

PW-1: Banda Ranga Reddy – Nil –

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Original death certificate of Banda Ramaswamy

Ex.A2Title Deed of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy

Ex.A3is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 1996-97

Ex.A4is the true copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year1997-98 Ex.A5is the true copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 1998-99 Ex.A6A6 is the true copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 1999-2000 Ex.A7is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2002-03 Ex.A8is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2003-04 Ex.A9is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2004-05 Ex.A10is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2008-09 Ex.A11is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2009-10 Ex.A12is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2011-12 Ex.A13is the True copy of pahani for the A Schedule property of Late Banda Ramaswamy Reddy for the year 2012-13 Ex.A14Pattedar Passbook of B Schedule property vide No.548833

Ex.A15is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.1

Ex.A16is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.2

Ex.A17is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.3

Ex.A18is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.4

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Original Suit No.155/2025 – Page 7 of 7

Ex.A19is the Aadhar card of the plaintiff no.5

For Defendants: Nil

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet

Dt.17.04.2026 Prl.JCJ, Ramannapet

Order Record 425 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/643/2019	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Pittala Mahesh	28 Apr 2026	Convicted	Convicted
OS/2/2026	Sudagani Anjaneyulu vs Gangadevi Narsaiah	21 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/155/2025	Banda Ranga Reddy vs The Tahsildar and Joint Sub Registrar	17 Apr 2026	Decreed	—
OS/112/2021	Moku Swapna W/o. Jagadeeshwar Reddy vs Saireddy Malla Reddy S/o. Narayana Reddy	31 Mar 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/1180/2021	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Gudise Sai @ Sai kumar and 4 others	31 Mar 2026	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/545/2024	State of Telangana SHO MOTHKUR vs Veera Peddulu Kurella	25 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/649/2019	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Danda Venkatreddy @ Venkateshwarlu and 2 others	25 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/739/2025	State of Telangana vs Khaleel Mohd	25 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/1178/2020	State of Telangana vs Koneti Raju	25 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/173/2021	Gummala Laxma Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy vs Kaya Lingaiah S/o. Venkaiah	24 Mar 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/42/2026	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Naveen Ganneboina	24 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/633/2021	SHO MOTHKUR vs Domala Krishna	24 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/766/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Narasimha Bandela	24 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/768/2025	State of Telangana vs Venkateshwarlu Dachepally	24 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/10/2026	SHO MOTHKUR vs Mahender Gumidelli	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/31/2026	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Naresh Pala	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/33/2026	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Nagaraju Dandiga	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/625/2025	State of Telangana vs Naresh Nallabothu	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/716/2025	State of Telangana vs Satyanarayana Reddy Guduru	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/717/2025	State of Telangana vs Naresh Gunda	18 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/29/2020	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Punreddy Venkat Reddy	13 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/378/2022	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Nagulancha Shekaraiah	13 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/30/2026	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Bixapathi Ogge	12 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/65/2026	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Mallesh Palamakula	12 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/737/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Ravi Kiran Chirumamilla	12 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/745/2022	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Kalamma Vanarashi	12 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/209/2025	SHO Mothkur vs Shankar Gugulothu	11 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/590/2024	State of Telangana SHO MOTHKUR vs Kumar Gugulothu	11 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
CC/236/2024	SHO VALIGONDA vs Purshotham reddy Pailla	11 Mar 2026	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/690/2025	State of Telangana vs Durga Prashanth Siripati	10 Mar 2026	Convicted	—
OS/28/2021	Etteboina Manojkumar S/o. Mallesh vs Etteboiona Bondhaiah S/o. Late Yellaiah	06 Mar 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/722/2024	State of Telangana vs Mumtaz Mohinuddin Syed	06 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/126/2025	Sangi Roja vs The Tahsildar Bhongir	05 Mar 2026	Decreed	—
OS/223/2021	Varikuppala Babu @ Babu Rao S/o. Bixapathi vs Shivaratri Narsimha S/o. Yellaiah	05 Mar 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/261/2021	Madani Gopal S/o. Ramaswamy vs Anarashi Poshaiah S/o. Late. Pentaiah	03 Mar 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/106/2024	Talla Shalini vs Bandharapu Jagan Goud	26 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/135/2023	Shriram Finanace Limited, N. Srinivas S/o Somaiah, rep. its GPA holder vs Rapolu Mahesh @ Mahesh kumar S/o mallaiah	26 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/166/2022	Banda Janardhan Reddy S/o Banda Setha Reddy vs K. Padma Reddy S/o. Pratap Reddy	26 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/182/2022	Siliveru Laxmamma vs Bethala Parvathamma and others	26 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/77/2022	Pocahm Swathi wife of Upender vs Pocham Soma Laxmi w/o Late Krishna Swamy	20 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/517/2019	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Thummala Indra Reddy	20 Feb 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/614/2019	SHO MOTHKUR vs Bontha Venkataiah and 2 others	20 Feb 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/923/2021	State of Telangana vs Manne Buchi Ramulu	20 Feb 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/179/2016	Keesarla sathi reddy and 1 other vs Yasa Bhagavantha Reddy and others	19 Feb 2026	Dismissed with costs	—
CC/680/2022	SHO MOTHKUR vs Satheesh Ladangi	19 Feb 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/184/2016	Chappidi Rajaeshakar Reddy vs Bandaru Mallaiah and 1 other	12 Feb 2026	Dismissed. No costs.	—
CC/744/2024	SHO MOTHKUR vs T Ramachary	12 Feb 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/293/2021	Meesala Swamy S/o. Pullaiah vs Meesala Poshaiah S/o. Butchaiah	09 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/127/2022	Gade Muthamma W/o. Mallaiah vs Gattu Mallesh S/o. Ramaiah	05 Feb 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/225/2022	Shaik Zaheer S/o SK. Niyamath vs Mizra Nazeer Baig S/o Nyamathulla Baig,	05 Feb 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/192/2021	Neeal Mallesham S/o. Swamy vs Neela Swamy S/o. Somayya	29 Jan 2026	Decreed	—
CC/1098/2020	Kandukuri Bheeshma Chary vs Kadari Sathaiah	29 Jan 2026	Convicted	—
OS/92/2019	Chelloju @ Sallaoju Yadagiri vs Challoju Narsimha Chary and 2 others	27 Jan 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/176/2018	Jitta Sathaiah vs Bunga Shekar	27 Jan 2026	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/236/2020	Smt. Peddigari Jyothi W/o. Shankar vs Mothkuru Mohan Chary	23 Jan 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/388/2021	Bandaru Bhadramma W/o. Late Yadaiah vs Bellamkonda Somakka	23 Jan 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/544/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA REPRESENTED BY SHO MOTHKUR vs Mahesh Varre	23 Jan 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/113/2025	Koka Bixam vs Vanguri Lingaiah	22 Jan 2026	Decreed	—
OS/124/2019	Belly Nagaiah vs Hanmakonda Ananda Chary and 1 another	20 Jan 2026	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/118/2021	Potharaju Narsaiah @ Narsimha S/o. Late Pullaiah vs Potharaju Shankaraiah S/o. Late pullaiah	19 Jan 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/132/2023	Avanaganti Marayya S/o late Narsayya vs Jitta Ramaiah S/o Eedayya	09 Jan 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/138/2025	Gangapuram Manjula vs Vorsu Purushotham	09 Jan 2026	Decreed as prayed for	—
STC.NI/10/2021	Edulakanti Nagaraju S/o. Somaiah vs Sri. Kandikanti Kishore Kumar S/o. Ganga Rao	08 Jan 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/205/2018	Avusali (Kathroju) Venkatesham vs Avusali Omakar	23 Dec 2025	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/185/2016	nakkala Yohan Reddy and 1 other vs Nakkala bal reddy a	19 Dec 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/106/2015	Thummala Surender Reddy vs Thummala Ram Reddy	18 Dec 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/242/2018	Yala Deena Rani vs Gaddam Shankaraiah	14 Nov 2025	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/167/2018	Chirraboina Krishna vs Ch. Pedulu	13 Nov 2025	Decreed	—
OS/170/2024	Nannuri Indira vs Mirala Krishna	10 Nov 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/235/2018	Baddam Renuka vs KOmirelly Lalitha	27 Oct 2025	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/194/2024	Repaka Rambabu vs Bandigari Venkatesham	23 Oct 2025	Decreed	—
OS/167/2023	vuppala Sravan kumar Fertilizers , Pesticides, seeds and general merchants vs Tharala srisailam s/o mallaiah	22 Oct 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/168/2023	Vuppala sravan kumar fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and general merchants, vs Chigulla Bhadraiah, S/o Veera Chandru	22 Oct 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/169/2023	Vuppala sravan kumar fertilizers, pesticides, seeds and general merchants, vs Cheemala yadagiri s/o Bixam	22 Oct 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/170/2023	Thudhimidhi village of shaligouraram mandal, nalgonda district. vs Martha Lingamallu s/o Bakkaiah	22 Oct 2025	decreed with costs	—
CC/522/2020	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Vuyyala Sai baba	22 Oct 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/697/2020	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Jogula Sathaiah	22 Oct 2025	Acquitted	—
OS/185/2018	Puppila Venkanna vs Pulipalpula Somaiah	17 Oct 2025	Dismissed with costs	—
OS/216/2020	Kandukuri Nagaraju S/o. somaiah vs Kandukuri Venkataiah S/o. Pinchaiah	06 Oct 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/141/2022	Pakeeru @ Fakkir Padma W/o. Anantha Reddy vs Pasham Vittal S/o. Narsaiah	26 Sep 2025	decreed with costs	—
OS/18/2021	Bungapatla Yakaiah S/o. Sathyanarayana vs Bungapatla Sudershan S/o. Srihari	23 Sep 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/66/2019	Annenboina Mamatha vs Pulsani Sathish @ Sathi Reddy	23 Sep 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/95/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Chandra prakash	23 Sep 2025	Convicted	—
OS/184/2006	G.Lalithamma vs Veeramalla Andalu	22 Sep 2025	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/250/2018	Yasa Sricharithara Reddy vs Yasa padma Reddy	19 Sep 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/472/2022	SHO MOTHKUR vs Andem pichireddy s/o venkat reddy	19 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
OS/232/2016	Theegala Surakanti Saraswathi vs Surakanti Padmamma and Others	18 Sep 2025	Decreed	—
CC/547/2023	SHO MOTHKUR vs Naresh Alakuntla	18 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/606/2023	SHO MOTHKUR vs Srishailam Alakuntla	18 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/739/2015	SHO MOTHKUR vs J.BHAGYA AND OTHERS	18 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
OS/108/2021	Meesala Chinna Narsimha S/o. Laxmaiah vs Bangaru Bixapathi S/o. Narsimha	16 Sep 2025	Dismissed for Default	—
CC/248/2025	State of Telangana vs Yelandar Bushipaka	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/249/2025	State of Telangana vs Rambabu Bushipaka	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/339/2025	State of Telangana vs Venkatesham Pocham	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/34/2023	SHO ADDAGUDUR vs Dappu Yadagiri	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/174/2020	SHO VALIGONDA vs Boda Laxmamma	13 Sep 2025	Convicted	—
CC/299/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Ravi Lodangi	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/304/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Sai Gogu	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/314/2022	SHO ADDAGUDUR vs Kalletlapalli Ravi	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—
CC/317/2025	SHO RAMANNAPET vs Sathaiah Kadari	13 Sep 2025	Acquitted	—

Showing 100 of 425 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2026		3
Mar 2026		45
Feb 2026		20
Jan 2026		21
Dec 2025		9
Nov 2025		16
Oct 2025		14
Sep 2025		103
Aug 2025		37
Jul 2025		25
Jun 2025		45
May 2025		7

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms. S SHIRISHA handled?

Ms. S SHIRISHA has handled 478 court orders since 2024 at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 50 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms. S SHIRISHA hear?

Based on available records, Ms. S SHIRISHA primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms. S SHIRISHA currently posted?

Ms. S SHIRISHA is posted as Junior Civil Judges Court, Choutuppal at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms. S SHIRISHA available online?

Yes. 13 judgments by Ms. S SHIRISHA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms. S SHIRISHA dispose cases?

Ms. S SHIRISHA disposes approximately 50 cases per month, based on 478 orders handled over their tenure at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms. S SHIRISHA serving?

Ms. S SHIRISHA has been serving at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex since 2024.

Case Types

CC 59%

OS 39%

EP 1%

MC 0%

DVC 0%

STC 0%

Posting History

Jul 2025 — Aug 2025

Junior Civil Judges Court, Choutuppal · 3 orders
Oct 2024 — Present

Junior Civil Judge · 395 orders
Oct 2024 — Present

Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 80 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Convicted 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. T. Mahathi Vaishnavi

Junior Civil Judges Court, Choutuppal

82 orders

← View all judges at Choutuppal, JCJ Court Complex