Smt.S.Thangamani

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 1 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRAILBLE ON THE FILE OF

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.1118/2016

1.Offence : 06-09-2016 2.Date of Taken on File : 27-10-2016 3.Apprehension of accused : 41-A Cr.P.C Notice 4.Commencement of Trail : 14-06-2019 5.Close of Trail : 12-07-2022 6.Judgment : 14.07.2022 7.Complainant : The State Rep., by Sub- Inspector of

Police, Nuzvid Town Police station.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Chowtapalli Nageswara Rao @ Nani, S/o Sankara Rao @ Jakraiah, 40 years,

R/o Madiga, R/o. Gollpalli village, Nuzvid mandal.

9.Offence : .326,324,506 IPC 10.Finding : Accused is acquitted

U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,

11) Result:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 326,324,506 IPC. Hence accused is acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

12) Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file on 27.10.2016. After appearance of Accused, copies furnished to him and he was examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. As the trial commenced on 14.06.2019 and examined under

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 2 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard arguments on both sides and the

Judgment was delivered . Hence, the delay.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 3 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present: Smt. S.Thangamani,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID

Thursday, this the 14 th day of July, 2022

C.C.No.1118 OF 20 16

Between:

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police station., ….Complainant

And

Chowtapalli Nageswara Rao @ Nani, S/o Sankara Rao @ Jakraiah, 40 years,

R/o Madiga, R/o. Gollpalli village, Nuzvid mandal.

….Accused.

*****

This Case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and Sri.V.Sudhakar and Sir.B.Rama Krishna

Advocate for the Accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1).The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural

Police station filed a charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable

U/s. 324,326, 506 IPC, Nuzvid Rural Police station.

2). The brief facts of the Prosecution case is that PW.1 is the wife of accused. Out of wedlock, she blessed with one son and one daughter. PW.1 along with accused came to Thukkuluru to work under one lecturer’s mango garden. Later accused developed illegal intimacy with one woman at

Thukkuluru, after that PW.1 came to her parents house. On 06.09.2016 at about 11.00 PM, accused came to the house of PW.2 and asked PW.4 about micset and other articles. PW.4 replied as he has no knowledge. On that accused started beating the PW.4, on that PW.1 came and questioned the accused then

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 4 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

accused beat PW.1 with a stick and caused bleeding injury and he pushed away

PW.3. When the neighbors came to rescue the PW.1 from the hand of accused, he ran away and threatened the Pw.1 with dire consequences. Basing on the statement of PW.1, LW.9 sent the statement to Nuzvid Rural Police station on the point of jurisdiction. PW.6 registered the case in crime no. 174/2016, u/s 324, 506 IPC. After completion of investigation PW.10 filed charge sheet.

5). The Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.326,324,506 IPC.

6). On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., 7). Accused is examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., charges U/326,324,506

IPC are framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trail.

8). During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, the

Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.10 and Ex.P1to Ex.P8 are marked. Accused did not produce any defence evidence on his behalf, but marked Ex.D1 on his behalf.

9). After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10)On perusal the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

Point: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused

for the offence under sections U/s 326,324,506 IPC against the accused

beyond reasonable doubt?

11). PW.1 is the defacto complainant, accused is the husband of PW.1. She deposed that her marriage was performed ten years back since then they lived at

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 5 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

Gollpalli village, Nuzvid mandal. Out of wedlock, PW.1 blessed with two children.

After that they shifted their family to Tukullur village. Accused joined as farm servant under one Sitaram Prasad mango garden. There the accused developed illegal intimacy with a women by name Sridevi. When PW.1 questioned the same, accused beat PW.1. In the year 2016 at 11.00 PM and beat PW.1, PW.2 who is the mother of PW.1 tried to rescue her, accused also beat PW.2. She received head injury. Herself and PW.2 engaged an auto and went Area

Hospital, Nuzvid. Police examined her and recorded her statement i.e., Ex.P1.

12). PW.2 is also injured, she deposed that about five years back accused beat

PW.1. When she tried to rescue PW.1 in the hands of accused. Accused also beat on her face with a stick and on her noise. Somebody shifted her and PW.1 to Area Hospital, Nuzvid.

13). PW.3 is the father of PW.1 and husband of PW.2, he deposed that when he was sleeping in his house, his grandson/PW.4 came and woke up him. He woke up and noticed PW.2 is laying on the floor. Accused dragged PW.1 by holding her neck. Immediately he went to the house of his younger brother and got him woke up. His brother Venu sent PW.7 along with him. On their arrival accused escaped on the motorcycle. He shifted PW.1 and PW.2 along with Pw.4 to the

Government Hospital, Nuzvid. After four days of incident, Police came to his house, but they did not examine him.

14). PW.3 admitted in his cross examination that as per evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2, they themselves engaged in an auto for treatment. As per evidence of

PW.3, he shifted them in an auto. The distance between his brother’s house is twenty minutes for his house. So that he could observe the beating of accused and he cannot say the registration number of motor bike of the accused. At first instance in his chief examination he deposed that PW.4 came to him and woke up him. By the time of he woke up, he noticed PW.1 and PW.2 sustained bleeding injuries. He came to know about the incident through PW.4.

15). PW.4 is the eye witness, who woke up PW.3. He turned hostile, and he could not support the prosecution case.

16). Pw.5 is the witness, he is the brother of PW.1. He deposed that PW.1 and accused resided along with the parents of PW.1 at Thukkuluru village. Accused is native of Gollapalli village. On 06.09.2016 at 11.00 PM, while he was

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 6 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

sleeping in his house, he heard some shouts from the house of PW.2. Then he woke up and went to the house of PW.2. He noticed PW.1 was laying on the ground and the accused was armed with a stick and dragged the PW.1 by beating her with stick. He tried to rescue PW.1, accused pushed away him.

Later he noticed Pw.1 and PW.2 sustained bleeding injuries. Immediately he engaged an auto and shifted them to the Government Hospital.

17). PW.5 admitted in his cross examination that, he did not hand over any material object, which was used by the accused. When he went to the scene of offence, PW.2 fallen on the ground unconsciously. He reached to the scene of offence, where fifty persons were gathered there, but Police did not shown any one of them as witness. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that, he deposing false to support the PW.1, since PW.1 is his younger brother.

18). PW.6 is the Investigation Officer, who registered the case. He deposed that on 07.09.2016 at 08.00 AM, he received the statement of PW.1, basing on that statement he registered the case in crime no. 174/2016, u/s 324,506 IPC i.e,

Ex.P4 and prepared rough sketch i.e.,Ex.P4. He admitted in his cross examination that he did not examine SriDevi, who is alleged that accused had illegal intimacy. P.Venkateswara Rao was residing on the northern side of the scene of offence, Badipati Madhu on eastern side, Pallepamu Bala Swamy on western side and Kodali Pandu on southern side, he did not examine them as per Rough sketch i.e., Ex.P4. He ascertain about the scene of offence, through

PW.5, PW.7 and LW.7/Kodali Naryana Rao. Another case was pending between the same parties and he did not conduct any enquiry in that CC.No.894/2016.

He did not seize any material objects. He did not mention in his Rough sketch i.e, Ex.P4, whether the street lights are there and in working condition.

19). PW.7 is the eye witness, he could not support the prosecution case and he turned hostile. PW.8 is the medical officer, who examined Pw.1 and PW.2. He deposed that on 07.09.2016 at 12.15 AM, he examined PW.1 and Pw.2 and issued wound certificates PW.6 and PW.7. PW.8 admitted in his cross examination, the injury of PW.1, PW.2 are possible if a person fell down by running motor bike on rough surface.

20). PW.9 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Musunuru Police station. He deposed that on 07.09.2016 at 11.00 PM, he received intimation i.,e Ex.P8 from

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 7 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

Government Hospital. He reached to the Hospital and recorded the statement and obtained signature of duty doctor. Basing on the jurisdiction the sent the same to the Nuzvid Rural Police.

21). PW.9 admitted in his cross examination that the distance between Musunuru to Nuzvid Government hospital is about 15 kilometers. Pw.1 was residing at

Thukkulluru village since seven years, after abounding her husband. He did not mention, whether he read over the contents of the report to the PW.1. He did not seize any blood stained clothes of PW.1.

22). PW.10 is the Circle Inspector, who filed charge sheet. He received case diary file from PW.6, served notice to the accused u/s 41-A Cr.P.C and field charge sheet.

23). To prove the sections 326 IPC, the Assistant Professor of Radiology was not examined and did not produce any X-Ray reports to prove the grievous injuries. To prove the section 324 IPC, the eye witness could not support prosecution case and medical evidence is not corroborated the age of the wound and it is not mentioned in the wound certificates.

24). PW.1 admitted in her cross examination, she is the adopted daughter of

PW.2 and PW.3. She did mention the details of Sree Devi. The distance between mango garden and PW.2 house is about one kilometer. When the

Police examined her at the Government Hospital, Nuzvid, she was in conscious and PW.2 was not in conscious. She did not obtain any first aid treatment at her village. Soon after incident she lost her conscious. One month prior to Ex.P1, she was residing at her parents’ house. But as per the evidence of PW.2, who is the mother of PW.1, deposed that since five years prior to this incident Pw.1 and accused is resided with her.

25). PW.2 admitted in her cross examination that she cannot say the names of the persons who shifted her and the PW.1 to Government Hospital. She has no enmity with PW.4, who is the eye witness who turned hostile. She does not know disputes between PW.1 and accused. She did not state before Police, on 06.09.2016 when she was present in her house, then accused came and asked about PW.5 to give his musical instrument and the same was marked as Ex.D1.

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 8 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

At the time of incident PW.4 was present, but he could not support the prosecution case and turned hostile. She underwent treatment for nine days, after ten days she got conscious.

26). There is admitted fact that PW.1 has disputes with her husband and she did not mention the person who has illegal contact with her husband i.e,

Accused. She only disclosed the name i.e., Sree Devi in her chief examination only. As per evidence Investigation Officer, he did not conduct any investigation who is the SreeDevi. It clearly shows that, whether there is illegal intimacy with another women is not proved. PW.4, who is the brother of PW.1, the counsel for the accused put a suggestion that that after PW.1 came to the house of Parents the entire property is under his control. Due to collude with PW.1 to harass the accused, he got filed false cased against the accused. Moreover he admitted that section 498-A IPC case also filed by the PW.1, i.e ended with acquittal.

Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

27).In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 326,324,506 IPC. Hence accused is acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bond of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Junior Assistant (Discharging the duties of Stenographer),

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 14th day of July 2022.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Choutupalli Sunitha

PW-2: P.Mariyamma

PW-3: Pallepamu Prasad

PW-4: C.Subash

PW-5: Pallepamu Ashok

PW-6: Koleti Tirupathi Rao

PW-7: Pallepamu Sarma

PW-8: D.Srikanth

C.C.No.1118 of 2016, Page 9 of 9 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 14­07­2022 Nuzvid.

PW-9: S.Francis

PW-10: Ch.Naga Prasad

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P3: FIR in crime no.174 of 2016

Ex.P4: Rough sketch

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7

Ex.P6: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P7: Wound certificate of PW.2

Ex.P8: Hospital Intimation

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1: The relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

...NIL...

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 1 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRAILBLE ON THE FILE OF

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.660/2017

1.Offence : 27-09-2017 2.Date of Taken on File : 01-12-2017 3.Apprehension of accused : 41-A Cr.P.C Notice 4.Commencement of Trail : 09-08-2019 5.Close of Trail : 14-07-2022 6.Judgment : 15.07.2022 7.Complainant : The State Rep., by Sub- Inspector of

Police, Musunuru Police station.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Palle Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Anjaneyulu, 60 years, Chekkapalli

Harijanawada, Musunuru mandal.

2). Palle Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 30 years, Ramankkapeta village,

Musunuru mandal.

9.Offence : 324 r/w 34 IPC 10.Finding: A1 and A2 are acquitted

U/s 248(1) of Cr.P.C.,

11) Result:In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC. Hence A1 and A2 are acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of A1 and A2, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

12) Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file on 01.12.2017. After appearance of A1 andA2, copies furnished to them and they were examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. As the trial commenced on 09.08.2019 and examined under

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 2 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard arguments on both sides and the

Judgment was delivered . Hence, the delay.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 3 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present: Smt. S. Thangamani,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID

Friday, this the 15 th day of July, 2022

C.C.No.660 OF 20 17

Between:

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Musunuru Police station., ….Complainant

And

1). Palle Venkateswara Rao, S/o late Anjaneyulu, 60 years, Chekkapalli

Harijanawada, Musunuru mandal.

2). Palle Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, 30 years, Ramankkapeta village,

Musunuru mandal.

….A1 and A2.

*****

This Case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and Sri.L.Ch.Venkateswara Rao. Advocates for the A1 and A2 having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1).The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Musunuru Police station filed a charge sheet against A1and A2 for the offence punishable U/s. 324 r/w 34 IPC, Musunuru Police station.

2). The brief facts of the Prosecution case is that A1 is the elder brother of PW.1. Accused came to the house of PW.1 regarding land disputes and beat PW.1 with a stick, causing bleeding injury. When PW.2 came to rescue

PW.1, he was also beaten by the accused with the stick, causing bleeding injures. PW.1 and PW.2 were shifted to Area Hospital, Nuzvid. Basing on the statement of PW.1, PW.7 registered the FIR in crime no.125/2017, u/s 324 IPC.

After completion of investigation, PW.7 filed charge sheet.

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 4 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

3). The Court took cognizance of the case against the A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s.324 r/w 34 IPC.

4). On appearance of the A1 and A2, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., 5). A1 and A2 are examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., charges U/s 324 r/w 34

IPC are framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the A1and A2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trail.

6). During the course of trial, to prove its case against the A1and A2, the Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.7 and Ex.P1to Ex.P7 are marked. A1 and

A2 did not produce any defence evidence on their behalf.

7). After closing the prosecution evidence, A1 and A2 examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them evidence of prosecution witnesses. A1 and A2 denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8)On perusal the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

Point: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1 and A2

for the offence under sections U/s 324 r/w 34 IPC against the A1 and A2

beyond reasonable doubt?

10). PW.1 is the defacto complainant and injured, he deposed that A1 is elder brother, A2 is the son of A1. In the year 2017 at 05.00 P.M, A2 came to his house with a stick and beat on his forehead. He sustained bleeding injuries and fallen on the ground. In the meanwhile, PW.2 came to rescue the PW.1. Then A1 beat

PW.2 with a stick. By that time PW.3 was present and he witnessed the same.

Then the wife of his third brother engaged a auto and shifted him to Area

Hospital, Nuzvid for treatment. There Police examined him and recorded his

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 5 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

statement i.e., Ex.P1. There were land disputes between him and A1. Even prior to the incident, accused beat him.

11). PW.2 deposed that A1 is his senior paternal uncle. In the year 2017 on one day, while he was sleeping in his home. He heard shouts and he woke up and noticed that A2 is scuffling with PW.1. Immediately he separated them.

Meanwhile A1 came with a stick and beat on his forehead and right shoulder.

Then Pw.1 received bleeding injuries. PW.3 was present at the time of incident.

He did intervened with the matter, because he is heart patient. After receiving injuries, PW.1 lost his conscious and PW.1 shifted to Area Hospital, Nuzvid.

There are some land disputes between his family, family of accused and family of

PW.1.

12). PW.3 is the eye witness, he deposed that he went to the house of PW.1 to read newspaper at 04.30 P.M. in the year 2017. Then accused came and beat

PW.1 indiscriminately, he received head injury. While accused is beating PW.1,

PW.2 intervened to rescue PW.1, in the said process PW.2 was also beaten by the accused. PW.2 received on his fore head, since he is having severe heart problem, he did not intervened to separate them. Late PW.1 was shifted to

Government Hospital, Nuzvid.

13). PW.4 is the neighbor and eye witness. He deposed that in the year 2017 at about 04.30 Pm to 05.00 PM, when he was present in his shop, he heard shouts from the house of PW.1. He went to the house of PW.1 and noticed A2 is armed with a stick, by the time of his arrival he noticed PW.1 sustained bleeding injuries. PW.2 is also present at the house of PW.1. He enquired PW.3 about the incident, on that PW.3 informed that A1 and A2 beat PW.1 and PW.2. To his knowledge some disputes existing between PW. 1 and accused towards their fields. PW.1and PW.2 was shifted to Area Hospital, Nuzvid for the treatment.

Though he made phone call to 108 Ambulance, but the ambulance did not came.

15). PW.5 is the eye witness. He could not support the prosecution case and he turned hostile. . PW.6 is the medical officer, he deposed that on 27.09.2017 at 07.00 PM, PW.1 and PW.2 came to the hospital and he examined them and issued wound certificates i.e Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. He opined the injuries of PW.1 and PW.2 are simple in nature.

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 6 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

14). PW.6 admitted in his cross examination that he did not mention the age of injury. The injuries of PW.1 and Pw.2 are possible, if a person fell on the ground.

He did not observer any blood stains on their clothes. He issued wound certificate after two months of his examination.

15). PW.7 is the investigation officer, he deposed that on 28.09.2017 at 10.30

AM, he received hospital intimation i.e, Ex.P4 along with the statement. Basing on the statements of PW.1, he registered the FIR in crime no.125/2017, U/s 324

IPC.

16). PW.1admitted in his cross examination there are previous disputes regarding to the properties. A1 is his own brother. A2 is son of A1. Regarding to the rising of lemon garden, the disputes arose and the same was put before the Panchayat and that land is “Chettu patta” land given by the Government.

The distance between his house and house of A1 is about one kilometer. He did not mention about the name of the wife of his third brother, namely Sujatha, as he shifted them to the Area Hospital, Nuzvid. By the time of recording statement, he was in semi concisious. Prior to four or five years filing report, he has disputes with A1. He stated before the Police and before the court, as he sustained injury on his right ear. As per wound certificate of PW.1, I.e., Ex.P4 the

Abrasion of 0.5.CM x05CM over the frontal region. The injuries are simple in nature, but the injured stated he sustained injuries on his right ear. There is no corroboration of injury and wound certificate.

17). PW.2 admitted in his cross examination, PW.1 and A1 are his senior paternal uncle. They have disputes regarding land, since his childhood. He did not state before the Police as he is taking shelter in the house of PW.1, since his child hood. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that during the rainy season, PW.1 and himself fallen on the ground and received injuries.

18). Pw.3 admitted in his cross examination his house and house of PW.1 is about one kilometer. The brothers have properties disputes. He does not know whether, they are cultivating separately. Accused came and beat PW.1 and

PW.2. He does not know about the disputes between PW.1 and accused.

19). PW.4 admitted in his cross examination, there are previous land disputes between the accused and PW.1. He does not know whether they are cultivating

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 7 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

in their respective lands. His house is near buddy shop. In the year 2013, in the month of September at about 05.00 to 06.00 PM. He went to the scene of offence and the scene of offence is a residential locality. He does not know about the cutting of lemon trees by the accused. The distance between his house and house of accused is about one kilometer. He did not witness who beat PW.1, he came to know through PW.2. The eye witness admitted in his cross examination that his house is situated one kilometer from the house of

PW.1, how can he say about the incident and for what purpose he came to the house of PW1, he kept silent. As rough sketch Ex.P6, the neighbor house of scene of offence Palle Sanjeeva Rao, Pingali Ramaia, Domathoti Petru houses are situated. But the Investigation does not shown them as eye witness. It clearly shows that PW.4 is the planted witness.

20). PW.7 is the investigation officer, he admitted in his cross examination, he did not seize any material object at the scene of offence. There is delay in column no.8 i.e., in Ex.P5. But as per report recorded by the Musunuru constable, he mentioned the date 28.09.2017, on the same day, the SHO registered the case, but the Investigating Officer mentioned that there is no delay in coloumn no.8, but in Ex.P1 the doctor mentioned about the conscious and he endorsed his signature as on 27.09.2017. There is delay of one day issuance of FIR, the Investigation Officer did not give reasons for the delay. PW.1 and PW.2 are brothers.

21). Accused and PW.1 are own brothers. All the witness admitted that there are previous disputes between accused family and PW.1’s family regarding to the land of “Chettu Patta”.

22). The PW.3 is the eye witness turned hostile, he could not support prosecution case. Moreover PW.1and PW.2 admitted that there is no disputes with PW.1. PW4 is the eye witness who noticed that A2 holding the stick and

PW.1 sustained injury. He did not observer beating of A2 to the Pw.1, so no eye witness stated that the accused beat the PW.1 and PW.2. The reason for the injury, due to the beating of the accused there is a silence how the PW.1 and

PW.2 sustained injuries. PW.4 did not observer who beat the PW.1and PW.2.

Here the eye witness turned hostile i.e,. PW.3 and PW.4, he could not say who beat the PW.1 and PW.2. There is no corroboration of evidence and wound certificate and due to previous grudges regarding Civil Disputes. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

C.C.No.660 of 2017, Page 8 of 8 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

23). In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC. Hence A1 and A2 are acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of A1 and A2, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Junior Assistant (Discharging the duties of

Stenographer), transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of July 2022.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Palle Sanjeev Rao

PW-2: Palle Srinivasa Rao

PW-3: Pidugu Venkata Ratnam

PW-4: Dasari Murali

PW-5: Augasteen

PW-6: P.Ravi Kumar

PW-7: K.Sivanarayana

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Statement of PW.1

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P4 Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P5: Hospital Intimation

Ex.P6: FIR in crime no. 125 of 2017

Ex.P7: Rough sketch

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

...NIL...

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 1 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRAILBLE ON THE FILE OF

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.563/2017

1.Offence : 05-10-2017 2.Date of Taken on File : 27-10-2017 3.Apprehension of accused : 41-A Cr.P.C Notice 4.Commencement of Trail :30-01-2020 5.Close of Trail : 11-07-2022 6.Judgment : 13.07.2022 7.Complainant : The State Rep., by Sub- Inspector of

Police, Nuzvid Rural Police station.

8.Name of the accused :

Elike Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sobhanam, 55 years, Mukkollupadu village,

Nuzvid mandal.

9.Offence : 509,506 IPC 10.Finding : Accused is acquitted

U/s 255(1) of Cr.P.C.,

11) Result:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 509,506 IPC against accused.

Hence accused is acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

12) Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file on 27.10.2017. After appearance of Accused, copies furnished to him and he was examined

U/sec.251 Cr.P.C. As the trial commenced on 30.01.2020 and examined under

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 2 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard arguments on both sides and the

Judgment was delivered . Hence, the delay.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

//True Copy//

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 3 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present: Smt. S. Thangamani,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID

Wednesday, this the 13 th day of July, 2022

C.C.No. 563 OF 20 17

Between:

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural Police station., ….Complainant

And

Elike Venkateswara Rao, S/o Sobhanam, 55 years, Mukkollupadu village,

Nuzvid mandal.

….Accused.

*****

This Case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and Sri.R.Satyanarayan and Sri. R.Ram

Mohana Rao Advocates for the Accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1).The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Rural

Police station filed a charge sheet against accused for the offence punishable

U/s. 509,506 IPC, Nuzvid Rural Police station.

2). The brief facts of the Prosecution case is that in the year 2013 accused asked them to arrange finance for his agricultural needs, as he is the resident of same village and owned agricultural land. PW.1 gave an amount of

Rs.01,60,000/- and he agreed to repay the amount together with interest at

Rs. 2/-. But the accused did not pay and postponed, claiming a that he sustained loss of crop. Thereby PW.1 and PW.2 placed the matter before the elders, on that accused assured that he will pay Rs.50,000/- within one week, but he did not pay the amount. On 05.10.2017, when PW.1 and her husband i.e.,

PW.2, visited the house of accused and asked for amount, on that accused

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 4 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

abused PW.1 in obscene language and threatened to see their end, if they once again come and ask for amount. When PW.1 and PW.2 complained to the elders, they called for which accused replied deliberately threatening to go and do anything. Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.5 registered the case in crime no.203/2017. After completion of investigation LW.8/ G.Chiranjeevi/SI filed charge sheet.

3). The Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.509,506 IPC.

4). On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to him as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., 5). The Accused examined U/s 251 of Cr.P.C., the accusation leveled against him read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the Accused is pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trail.

6). During the course of trial, to prove its case against the accused, the

Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.5 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 are marked. Accused did not produce any defence evidence on his behalf, but Ex.D1 is marked.

7). After closing the prosecution evidence, Accused examined under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8)On perusal the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

Point: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused

for the offence under sections U/s 509,506 IPC against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

9). PW.1 is the defacto complainant, she deposed that, in the year 2012 she gave an amount of Rs.01,60,000/- to the accused and again she gave

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 5 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

Rs.50,000/- given to the accused for agricultural purpose. He executed promissory notes. After that accused avoided payment. Later the matter was placed before the elders and a Panchayat was held in the year 2017. PW.3 and

PW.4 called accused and requested him to pay the amount. Accused abused in vulgar language. Later on the advice of elders, she gave report before the Nuzvid

Rural Police station. Ex.P1 is her report.

10). Pw.2 is the husband of PW.1. Pw.2 also corroborated the evidence of

PW.1.

11). Pw.1 admitted in her cross examination, she could not produce the promissory notes, to prove the accused indebted to her. Accused borrowed in the year 2016. She did not issue any legal notice to the accused and she did not file any civil suit on recover of money. She further admitted that the Ex.D1, i.e., she has given Rs.01,10,000/- on 10.09.2013 as hand loan in her 161 Cr.P.C

Statement. It clearly shows that, she did not obtaine any promissory notes from the accused. Moreover in her report i.e., Ex.P1, she did not mention about the promissory note. Accused executed promissory note is not proved. At the time of abusing by the accused, there was gathering of people, but nobody examined by the Police and nobody cited in the memo of evidence. The counsel for the accused put a suggestion that due to previous grudges, she filed this false case, accused never borrowed any amount from Pw.1.

12). Pw.2 who is husband of PW.1. He also admitted that, he cannot say the date, month and year, of the Pw.1 lend the amount to the accused. He does not know what has happened in that Panchayat. It clearly shows that, he was not attended the Panchayat.

13). PW.3 and PW.4, who acted elders in the Panchayat. PW.3 deposed that

PW.1 informed about the borrowing of money by the accused. He admitted in his cross examination that he cannot say how much amount accused indebted to the

PW.1. He does not what has happened between PW.1 and accused. He cannot say on which date accused promised to give an amount of Rs.50,000/- after one week.

14). PW.4 is also one of the Panchayat elders, he cannot say when the amount was given by PW.1 to the accused. He does not know what has happened

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 6 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

between PW.1 and accused. He cannot say when the accused promised to return the money. It clearly shows that only basing on the evidence of PW.1 the

Panchayat was held, without knowing the details, only on hearing of Pw.1,the elders advised PW.1to give the police report.

15). PW.5 is the investigation officer, he deposed that on 07.10.2017at 05.00

P.M, PW.1 given written report i.e., Ex.P1, basing on the report of PW.1 he registered the case in crime no.203 of 2017, u/s 506,509 IPC. He reached to the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch i.e, Ex.P3. On 09.10.2017, he served notice to the accused u/s 41-A Cr.P.C and handed over the CD file to

LW.8/G.Chiranjeevi/SI. PW.5 admitted in his cross examination that he did not seize any promissory note from the PW.1.

16). The defacto complaint is not proved the indebt and abusing by the accused is also not proved. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

17).In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 509,506 IPC against accused. Hence accused is acquitted under section 255(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Junior Assistant (Discharging the duties of Stenographer),

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of July 2022.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Thota Sudha Rani PW-2: Thota Ramesh PW-3: K.Saibaba PW-4: Kancharla Krishna PW-5: S.Radha Krishna Reddy

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P2: FIR in crime no.203 of 2017 Ex.P3: Rough Sketch

C.C.No. 563 of 2017, Page 7 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 13­07­2022 Nuzvid.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

Ex.D1: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

...NIL...

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid //True Copy//

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 1 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

CALENDAR CASE TRAILBLE ON THE FILE OF

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NUZVID

C.C.No.77/2018

1.Offence : 21-06-2016 2.Date of Taken on File : 28-02-2018 3.Apprehension of accused : Judicial Custody from 12.02.2018 to 16.02.2018 4.Commencement of Trail : 02-03-2022 5.Close of Trail : 14-07-2022 6.Judgment : 15.07.2022 7.Complainant : The State Rep., by Sub- Inspector of

Police, Nuzvid Town Police station.

8.Name of the accused :

1. Rayavarapu Satyanarayana, @ chanti, S/o. Seetharamaiah, 45 years,

D.No.04-234/1, near Myalvarapu Apparao shed, Kothapet, Nuzvid Town.

9.Offence : 324 r/w 34 IPC 10.Finding: Accused is acquitted U/s 248(1) of

Cr.P.C.,

11) Result:In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. Hence accused is acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

12) Explanation for Delay: This case was taken on file on 28.02.2018. After appearance of Accused, copies furnished to him and he was examined

U/sec.239 Cr.P.C. As the trial commenced on 02.03.2022 and examined under

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 2 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

section 313 Criminal Procedure Code. Heard arguments on both sides and the

Judgment was delivered . Hence, the delay.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

Copy submitted to:

The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 3 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

IN THE COURT OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, NUZVID.

Present: Smt. S. Thangamani,

FIRST ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

NUZVID

Friday, this the 15 th day of July, 2022

C.C.No.77 OF 20 18

Between:

The State Represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Nuzvid Town station.

….Complainant

And

1). Rayavarapu Satyanarayana, @ chanti, S/o. Seetharamaiah, 45 years,

D.No.04-234/1, near Myalvarapu Apparao shed, Kothapet, Nuzvid Town.

….Accused.

*****

This Case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the complainant and Sri.P.V.Raghavulu Advocate for the

Accused having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following.

JUDGMENT

1).The State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Town Police station filed a charge sheet against Accused for the offence punishable U/s.420

IPC, Nuzvid Police station.

2). The brief facts of the Prosecution case is that PW.1 and others turned up to PS and preferred a report stating they are doing coolie works for their livelihood and one Rayavarapu Satyanarayana @ Chanti residing at

Potireddipalle and practicing as RMP doctor at R.R. Pet, Nuzvid conducted chits on the name of Chinnu Chits since five years and when asked them to join as members and offered to receive more dividend and assured for prompt payment they joined as members in the chit of Rs.1,50,000/- to pay Rs.10,000/- per month

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 4 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

for 15 months and he was found absconding since July, 2016 . Basing on the repot of PW.1, PW.9, registered the case in crime no. 51/2018, u/s 420 IPC. On 12.02.2018, PW.10 arrested the accused and sent for Judicial custody, after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3). The Court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.420 IPC.

4). On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution furnished to them as contemplated U/s 207 of Cr.P.C., 5). Accused is examined U/s 239 of Cr.P.C., charges U/s 420 IPC is framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the

Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be trail.

6). During the course of trial, to prove its case against the Accused, the

Prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.10, Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. Accused did not produce any defence evidence on his behalf.

7). After closing the prosecution evidence, accused examined under section 313

Criminal Procedure Code, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied those circumstance as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8)On perusal the charge sheet, documents and evidence produced and on hearing the counsels of both sides the following points arise for determination by this Court:

Point: Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused

for the offence under sections U/s 420 IPC against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?

10). PW.1 is the one of the chit member the chits was conducted by the accused. She deposed that accused is a RMP doctor, on his words PW.1

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 5 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

joined in his chits of Rupees Ten thousand per month. The chits amount of

Rs.01,50,000/- of 15 months duration. In the third week of the July, accused absconded and he traced out in the year 2018.

11). PW.2 is the another chit member. He deposed that, he paid chits for 13 months for each month of Rs.50,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs.01,50,000/- did not paid by the accused. Accused and his wife absconded from his village.

12). PW.3 is the another chit member, she paid Rs.05,000/- per month. She paid upto 14 months and her chit was completed in the year 2017. After that accused absconded without giving any amount.

13). PW.4 is the another chit member, she joined in the chits of Rs.01,05,000/-.

She paid upto Rs.85,000/-, In the year 2016, accused absconded with giving his payment.

14). PW.5 is another chit member. He also paid 13 chits. He also participated in the chits and he is the highest bidder in the auction. After that accused absconded.

15). PW.6 is one of the chit member. He paid upto nearly 17 chits of

Rs.01,30,000/-. Till now accused did not paid any amount. PW.7 is the another chit member. He joined in the chits of the accused for five years i.e., an amount of Rs.01,00,000/-. He paid up to 11 months.

16). PW.8 is another chit member. He paid up to Rs.10,000/- per month. He paid up to nine months. After that accused closed his shop and absconded.

17). PW.9 is the Investigating officer, he deposed that on 09.02.2018 at 18.30 hrs, nearly 12 members came to the Police station and given complaint against accused. PW.1 submitted a report along with signatures of 12 members. Basing on the report of PW.1, he registered the case in crime no.51/2018 and examined the witness. On 12.02.2018, arrested the accused and sent for judicial custody.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18). PW.1 to PW.8 admitted in their cross examination that they did not obtained any promissory notes for security purpose of chit amounts and there is

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 6 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

not documentary proof as they paid chit amount to the accused and they did not issue any legal notice to the accused as to prove the accused cheated the

PW.1 to Pw.8 by way of collecting the chits and he did not pay chits amount.

19). Pw.10 is the Investigating officer admitted in his cross examination that the scene of offence is in D.No.4-234/1, Mylavarapu Apparao shed, Kothapet. All the witness were examined by him, all of them belongs to Pothureddipalli village.

He did not went to Pothureddipalli village. He did not examine any local witness.

The Investigating officer failed to collect proofs, how the accused cheated all the chit members. He did not seize any form of documents from the chit members and the accused. Hence prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20). In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 420

IPC. Hence accused is acquitted for the same u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond of accused, if any shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Junior Assistant (Discharging the duties of Stenographer),

transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 15th day of July 2022.

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

PW-1: Thagaram Bayamma

PW-2: Jujjavarapu Samson

PW-3: Potturi Satynarayana

PW-4: J.Venkata Ramana

PW-5: P.Rani

PW-6: Jamalapurapu Chittibabu

PW-7: J.Mariyamma

PW-8: J.Srinivasa Rao

PW-9: Ch.Ranjith Kumar

PW-10: M.Ram Kumar

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

C.C.No.77 of 2018, Page 7 of 7 I A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Dt: 15­07­2022 Nuzvid.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report of PW.1

Ex.P2: FIR in crime no. 51/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

…NIL…

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

...NIL...

Sd/-S.Thangamani

I Addl., Judl., Magistrate of I Class, Nuzvid

O.S.835/2020 1 Dt.13.07.2022

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: NUZVID

Present: Smt. S. THANGAMANI,

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Nuzvid. WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 2022.

O.S.No.835/2020

Between: Dhilli Gopi, S/o Sivaiah, Hindu, 48 years, Agirculture, R/o Gollagudem village, Agiripalli mandal, Krishna District. … Plaintiff

A N D

1). Dhilli Subbulu, W/o Kasulu, Hindu, 50 years, R/o Gollagudem village, Agiripalli mandal, Krishna District.

2). Dhilli Guravaiah, S/o Veeraswamy, Hindu, 50 years, Agriculture, R/o Gollagudem village, Agiripalli mandal, Krishna District.

3). Dhilli Dharamaih, S/o Veeraswamy, Hindu, 48 years, Agriculture, R/o Gollagudem village, Agiripalli mandal, Krishna District.

... Defendants

J U D G M E N T

This suit is coming on 28.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. S.V.Samasiva Rao, Sri. Ch.Arjun Rao and Sri. B.Pavan Kumar, Advocates for Plaintiff, and the defendants called absent set him exparte and that this court delivered the following:

1). This suit is filed by plaintiff under Section 26, Order VII and Rule 1 of the Code of Civil

Procedure for grant of Permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents,

GPA holders and henchmen and supporters etc., from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule Property by following due process of law and for costs of the suit.

2). The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:- Plaintiff having landed property in an extent of five cents in R.S.No.136/5 of Nekkalam Gollagudem Village which was acquired by the Plaintiff through a gift deed which was executed by his paternal grandfather Dhilli

Gopalah. On 19.01.2017 under a registered gift deed No.246/2017 which was registered on the file of SRO, Gannavaram. The Plaint Schedule property was acquired by the Donar in the partition among his brother Maha Lakshmudu and Dhilli Gopalah in an extent of 30 cents. In

O.S.835/2020 2 Dt.13.07.2022

the said 30 cents in an extent of 25 cents was sold by the Dhilli Gopalah to the Defendants under a registered sale deed No.3197/1998 and the same is registered on 19.09.1998 on the file of SRO, Gannavaram. The remaining five cents was vacant site in an extent of 242 sq, yards which was gifted by the said Gopaiah to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the eldest son's son out of love and affection. The Plaint schedule property was gifted by the Donar in favour of the Plaintiff. The said gift was accepted by the Plaintiff and since 19.01.2017 the Plaintiff had been put in to possession of the Plaint schedule property. The Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner and the Plaintiff is enjoying the same by way of hayrick in the Plaint Schedule property for some time and laid dunghill in the

Plaint schedule property. The Defendants 1 to 3 are partitioned their property and on the east of their respective shares they formed a temporary stone fencing in between the Plaintiff and

Defendants land. The Defendants 1 to 3 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property and causing loss in the Plaintiff. On 24.12.2020 the Defendants are trying to laying to sand and stones in the Plaint schedule property and interfering with the Plaint schedule property. The Defendants 1 to 3 on 24.12.2020 got fell down a palmara tree which is grown in the Plaint schedule property in the absence of the

Plaintiff in the village. After came to know about the interference about the fell down of palmara tree the Plaintiff placed the matter before the elders and the elders called them and questioned about the felling of palmara tree. The Defendants declaring before the elders and

Plaintiffs that they will continue their illegal acts and at any cost we will interfere with the property of the Plaintiff described in the plant schedule. The Plaintiff as a law abiding citizen and with the advise of elders in the locality choosers to file the suit for justice and for granting of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Plaint schedule property.

4). Per contra, the defendant called absent and remained expartee.

5). Later, to establish his case the plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the same facts as stated in plaint and got exhibited Ex.A1.

The description of exhibits are as follows-

Ex.A1: Original Gift deed dated.19.01.2017, executed by Dilli Gopaiah in the favor of

Plaintiff.

O.S.835/2020 3 Dt.13.07.2022

Heard arguments on behalf of Plaintiff.

6). Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction against the Defendant as prayed for?

7). To substantiate his case the Plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the same facts as stated in Plaint. To support his contention he also exhibited Ex.A1 8). On perusal of the chief affidavit of PW.1 he deposed reiterating the averments averred in the Plaint on oath about the execution of Ex.A1 by Defendants in his favour after receipt of consideration. The evidence of PW.1 along with Ex.A1 establishes the version of

Plaintiff.

9). Now the burden shifts on to the Defendants to disprove the contention of the Plaintiff.

But the Defendants did not appear before this court to contradict the version of the Plaintiff even though summons were served on him. So, the failure on the part of Defendant to contradict the version of Plaintiff establishes that the claim of the Plaintiff is true.

10). In the result, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of Plaintiff against Defendants by granting Permanent Injunction restraining Defendants and his men and GPA Holders from ever interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of Plaintiff over the Plaint

Schedule Property.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Assistant (Discharging the duties of Stenographer), corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 13th day of July, 2022.

I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NUZVID

O.S.835/2020 4 Dt.13.07.2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW.1: Dilli Gopi -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: Original Gift deed dated.19.01.2017, executed by Dilli Gopaiah in the favor of

Plaintiff.

DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:

--Nill--

I ADDL . JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NUZVID