Salma Fathima

1

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

Present: SMT. SALMA FATIMA,

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

FAC – Junior Civil Judge, Dubbak.

Dated this the 30 th day of March, 2022

Original Suit Number 89 of 2014

Between: Bolgani @ Thadkapally Laxmi W/o Maisaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Darmajipet village, R/m Dubbak, Medak District. …Plaintiff A N D

1. Lokani Yadamma W/o Yellaiah, Age: 43 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2. Lokani Narsimlu S/o Yellaiah, Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture,

Both are R/o Darmajipet village, R/m Dubbak, Medak District. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 30-03-2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. B.S. Bapu Rao, learned counsel for the defendants and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivers the following:-

JUDGMENT

1. Brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The plaintiff herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendants by stating that, she is the owner and possessor of land bearing Sy. No. 126/AA to an extent of Ac. 02-12 gts, situated at Dharmajipet village of Dubbak Mandal, Medak

District. The plaintiff further submitted that, the mother in law of the plaintiff name is

Tadkapally Kistamma W/o Rajaram was the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and she got only son namely Maisaiah who is the husband of the plaintiff herein and after the death of Kistamma suit schedule property was mutated in the name of Tadkapally Maisaiah S/o Rajaram and he also died in the year 1998 and as the plaintiff is the wife of Tadkapally Maisaiah, hence suit schedule property was mutated in the name of plaintiff in the revenue records.

2.The plaintiff further submitted that, the revenue officials mutated the name of the plaintiff and issued pattadar passbook and title deed to the plaintiff in respect of

J C J, Dubbak.

2

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

suit schedule property and the husband of plaintiff dug an agricultural well in the suit land, but could not get sufficient water as such subsequently the plaintiff dug a bore well in the suit schedule property, but could not get sufficient water, therefore, the plaintiff used to raise the dry crops in the rainy season. The plaintiff further submitted that, during the life time of Maisaiah he used to cultivate of suit land personally and also constructed a small room for keeping the agriculture proceeds in the suit land and after his death the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit land without any interruption by anyone.

3.The plaintiff further submitted that, the defendant no. 2 is the son of defendant no.1 and they are having the land towards eastern side of the suit land and they are not having right, title or any kind of interest over the suit land and they are interfering the agriculture operations dishonestly and causing inconvenience to the plaintiff and they are intentionally raising the boundary disputes, hence, the plaintiff approached the

Mandal Surveyor and got surveyed land and the Mandal Surveyor fixed the boundaries of the suit land on 29.01.2013. The defendant with the help and support of the unsocial elements obstructing in the agricultural operations of the plaintiff and they developed the covetous eye on the suit schedule property and they intentionally threatened to grab the land of the plaintiff.

4.The plaintiff further submitted that, the defendant along with some other unsocial elements came to the suit land on 10.04.2013 and made an attempt to occupy the suit land, but the plaintiff with great difficulty resisted the defendants and their followers and protected the possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants further threatened the plaintiff and the plaintiff is unable to resist the illegal acts of the defendants each and every time and she does not any other go, except approaching this Hon’ble Court seeking the relief of injunction.

Hence, prays this Court to grant perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.

J C J, Dubbak.

3

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

5.On the other hand the defendants filed the written statement denying the plaint averments by stating that, it is false that the defendants are not having any right, title or any kind of interest over the suit schedule property and further relied that, the Mandal Surveyor fixed the boundaries of suit schedule property on 29.01.2013.

The defendants further submitted that they did not interfere in the possession of the plaintiff.

6.The defendants further submitted that the real facts of the case are such that the 1st defendant is owner and possessor of land bearing Sy. No. 126/A-1 to an extent of

Ac. 00-08 gts, situated at Darmajipet village and he purchased the same through unregistered sale deed from original owner Tadkapally Venkataiah in the year 1995 and the vendor of 1st defendant delivered the possession to the defendant no.1 after the same she got mutated the property in her name. The defendant no.1 got valued the unregistered under ROR Act and obtained 13-B certificate in file no. E/1980/95, dated 08.06.1995 issued by MRO Dubbak and she got mutated her name in the year 1995 and patta no. 637 in the name of defendant no.1.

7.The defendants further submitted that, from the date of purchase the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the land and they raised paddy crop and harvested the same and further submitted that, the defendant no.1 dug a bore well in the suit schedule property and installed submersible pump motor to the bore well and also obtained electricity service vide no. 1181. The defendants further submitted that, defendant no.1’s father Lingampally Ramaiah is having agricultural lands bearing in

Sy. No. 127/ఎ towards eastern side and also having the land in Sy. No. 125/aa towards the northern side of the Sy. No. 126/A-1 and the said land is located in one block and father of defendant no.1 died in the year 2012 leaving behind his wife Lingampally

Ramavva and after the death of Lingampally Ramaiah the mother of defendant no.1 got mutated her name in the revenue records and the revenue authorities issued pattadar and title deed books in favour of the mother of the defendant no.1 and she constructed a small room for keeping the agriculture proceeds in the suit land. The

J C J, Dubbak.

4

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

defendants further submitted that the plaintiffs misrepresenting the facts, therefore, the

Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit with cost.

8.During the course of trial, the plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and exhibit

Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and plaintiff further examined one Mr. Tadkapally Anjaiah S/o

Maisaiah as PW2. Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 i.e. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1997-98, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05, Ex.A6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.A7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09, Ex.A8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10,

Ex.A9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.A10 is the certified copy

Original pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff, Ex.A11 is the certified copy of panchanama, dated 29.01.2013, Ex.A12 is the Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422.

9.On the other hand the defendant no.2 himself examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to

Ex.B20 got marked and defendant further examined one Lokani Chandram S/o Balraj as DW2 and one Mr. Veldhoji Narayana S/o Kistaiah examined as DW3. Ex.B1 to

Ex.B20 i.e. Ex.B1 is the Ex.B1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1993-94,

Ex.B2 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1995-96, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02, Ex.B4 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2004- 05, Ex.B5 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06 in respect of land of

DW1, Ex.B6 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2005-06, Ex.B7 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08, Ex.B8 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09, Ex.B9 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10 in respect of land of DW1, Ex.B10 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2009-10, Ex.B11 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11, Ex.B12 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2010-11 in respect of land of DW1, Ex.B13 is the Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. No. 126/A/1 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts, Ex.B14 is

J C J, Dubbak.

5

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

the Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. No. 126/AA to an extent of

Ac. 01-00 gts, Ex.B15 is the Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy.

No. 127/LUU to an extent of Ac. 00-21 gts, Ex.B16 is the Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. No. 127 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts, Ex.B17 is the original 13-B proceeding vide doc. no. E/1980/1995, dated 08.06.1995, Ex.B18 is the original pattadar passbook bearing no. 637 of defendant no.1, Ex.B19 is the original title deed bearing no. 637 of defendant no.1, Ex.B20 is the Photographs (07) along with a CD.

10.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants.

11.Perused the material placed on record.

12.Basing on the rival contention of both the parties, the following issues were framed for trial by my predecessor.

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff is in the lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

2. Whether the defendants threatened or interfered with the possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property ?

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

4. To what relief ?

Issue No.1 To 3

13.The issues no.1 to 3 formulated by this Court are intertwined as such it would be appropriate to discuss and deal with the issues simultaneously.

14.The contention of the plaintiff is that she is the owner and possessor of land in

Sy. No. 126/AA to an extent of Ac. 02-12 gts situated at Darmajipet village and further contention of the plaintiff is that, defendants tried to interfere into the suit schedule property on 10.04.2013.

15.To support the contention of the plaintiff, plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and further examined PW2 and they reiterated the contents of plaint in their chief examination affidavits and through PW1 Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 got marked.

J C J, Dubbak.

6

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

16.On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that, defendant no.1 is the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy. No. 126/A-1 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts situated at Darmajipet village and she purchased the same through unregistered sale deed from original owner Tadkaplly Venkataiah in the year 1995 and since then she in possession of the property and by misrepresenting the fact the plaintiff filed the present case.

17.To prove the case of the defendants, the defendant no.2 himself examined as

DW1 and reiterated the contents of the written statement in his chief examination affidavit and on behalf of him Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 got marked and further examined

DW2 and DW3 in support of their evidence.

18.The plaintiff has approached this Court for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants, so the burden cost upon the plaintiff to prove that she is the absolute lawful possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of instituting the present suit. Subsequently, the plaintiff has to adduce positive and cogent evidence to prove that, the defendants tried to interfere with such lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

19.It is the specific defense of the defendants that, defendant no.1 purchased the land in Sy. No. 126/A-1 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts, situated at Darmajipet village from one Tadkapally Venkataiah in the year 1995 through unregistered sale deed and they are in possession of the same since, 1995.

20.During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff argued that the total extent in Sy. No. 126 is Ac. 04-24 gts and there are two shares in the survey number and to the extent of Ac. 02-12 gts plaintiff is the owner and possessor and one Tadkapally Venkataiah is the owner in respect of another Ac. 02-12 gts, the plaintiff counsel further argued that, though, the defendants contended in written statement that, defendant no.1 purchased land in Sy. No. 126/A-1, but defendant no. 1 did not enter into witness box and defendant no.2 is examined as DW1 and further argued that, the defendants contradicted from their own written statement

J C J, Dubbak.

7

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

in cross examination of DW1. The plaintiff counsel further argued that, the defendants tried to interfere into the lawful possession of the plaintiff. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendants argued that, the Ex.A11 panchanama is not conducted and further the plaintiff did not examined the surveyor.

21.Perused the plaint, written statement and exhibits under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and

Ex.B1 to Ex.B20 and contentions of the both the learned counsel and after perusal this

Court of the opinion that, the plaintiff herein filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and as per the documents relied by the plaintiff which clearly shows that, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and she got the same from her husband and the exhibit under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 support her contention that, she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, though, in the written statement para no.3 the defendants denied that, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, but DW1 in cross examination admitted that, plaintiff is the owner and possessor in respect of suit schedule property.

22.During the cross examination of DW1, the plaintiff counsel could elicit the following:

“ I cannot say the date on which defendant no.1 purchased Ac. 00-08 gts land in the suit Sy. No. Witness adds his mother purchased the above land from

Thadkapally Venkataiah S/o Narsaiah. The original simple sale deed is submitted in the MRO office for the purpose of obtaining Ex. B17. I have not filed any document

before the Court to show that Ex.B17 has been issued on that basis. The simple sale

deed contains the boundaries of Ac. 00-08 gts land in the suit Sy. no. I do not know who has scribed the above simple sale deed and the witnesses to it. The total extent of suit Sy. No. is Ac. 04-25 gts. It is true that the plaintiff is the owner of Ac. 02-12 gts in the suit Sy. No. It is true that the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property from her husband/Maisaiah and Maisaiah obtained it from his mother. In the remaining Ac. 02- 13 gts in the suit survey number Thadkapally Venkataiah and Thadkapally

Thirupathaiah were the owners before we purchased. The suit schedule property is situated towards western side of Ac. 00-08 gts land in the suit Sy. No. My grand mother was having land towards eastern side of suit schedule property as on the date of our purchase. The Ac. 00-08 gts land in the suit Sy. No. adjacent to the land in Sy.

No. 125 and Sy. No. 127. On 29.01.2013 the Mandal Surveyor fixed the boundaries of

J C J, Dubbak.

8

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

the suit schedule land. Witness adds the survey was conducted in our absence. We have not mentioned in the written statement that the survey was conducted in our absence. I know that the husband of plaintiff died in the year 1998. It is true that after his death the suit schedule property is mutated on to the name of the plaintiff. The husband of the plaintiff dugged an agricultural well to the suit schedule land.

It is true that the tomb of the husband of the plaintiff is constructed in the suit schedule property. It is true that the name of the plaintiff is reflected in the pahanies after the death of her husband. I do not have any objection in respect of the suit schedule property with in the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint.”

23.On careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the defendants under Ex.B1 to

Ex.B20 and admissions of DW1 it is clear that, though, they denied the ownership and possession of PW1 in the written statement, but in the above cross examination the

DW1 admitted that petitioner is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he does not have any objection in respect of the suit schedule property boundaries mentioned in the plaint. In the present case defendant no.1 alleged to purchase the property in Sy. No. 126/A-1 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts, but the reasons best known to the defendant no.1 she failed to appear before the Court and did not expose herself for cross examination. In this regard this Court relied in the decision of Vidhyadhar

Vs. Manik Rao and another wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “ when a party did not enter into the witness box and did not expose himself for cross examination, the court can draw an adverse against such party to the effect that what he pleaded is incorrect”.

24.In the present case though the defendants examined DW2 and DW3, but they did not support the case of the defendants, though, the learned counsel for the defendants cross examine PW1 and PW2 at length, but could not elicit anything from their mouth to disprove their contention.

25.It can be gathered from the evidence and pleadings placed on record that the plaintiff claiming her right, title and possession over the suit schedule property through

Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and suit schedule property even agriculture land and the documents to appreciate the possession over the agriculture land would be revenue record and

J C J, Dubbak.

9

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 shows that, the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the documents are sufficient to strengthen the contention of the plaintiff that she is the lawful possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. PW1 and PW2 categorically stated that, the defendants tried to interfere in the suit schedule property and it can be seen from material placed on record that, defendants tried to interfere in the suit schedule property.

26.Moreover, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence to show that, they never interfere in the suit schedule property, therefore, it can be seen that, there is an immense threat of interference by the defendants over the suit schedule property and the same has to be protected by granting prohibitory order.

27.In this regard this Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Vardappa Naidu citation:

“ It is clear that, so far as the Indian law is concerned the person in peaceful possession is entitled to retain his possession and in order to protect such possession he may use reasonable force to keep out a trespasser.

Further, it would be also useful to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in MD. Ashrar Ahmed Shareef Vs. State of AP 1 “ .

28.In view of the above said discussion and applying the legal preposition referred supra to the facts of the case in hand it is clear that PW1 by examining herself and apart from that by producing the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 could able to establish the suit claim and the contentions of the plaintiff is well supported by the documents under Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and the contention of the plaintiff’s appears to be in better footing than the contentions of the defendants and except bald allegations the defendants failed to prove their contention, hence, the issues no.1 to 3 are answered accordingly, in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No. 4

29.In the result, the suit is decreed without cost in favour of the plaintiff by granting perpetual injunction against the defendants, their heirs, agents, servants or 12009 5 ALT 403.

J C J, Dubbak.

10

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

anybody on their behalf restraining them from interfere into the suit schedule property in Sy. No. 126/aa to an extent of Ac. 02-12 gts, situated at Darmajipet village of

Dubbak Mandal, Medak District.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer Grade - III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30 th day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Bolgani @ Tadkapally LaxmiDW1: L. Narsimulu PW2: Thadkapally Anjaiah DW2: Lokani Chandram DW3: Veldhoji Narayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1: CC of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A2: CC of pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.A3: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.A4: CC of pahani for the year 1997-98

Ex.A5: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05

Ex.A6: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A7: CC of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A8: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.A9: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.A10: Original pattadar passbook stands in the name of plaintiff

Ex.A11: CC of panchanama, dated 29.01.2013

Ex.A12: Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422

FOR DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: CC of pahani for the year 1993-94

Ex.B2: CC of pahani for the year 1995-96

Ex.B3: CC of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.B4: CC of pahani for the year 2004-05

J C J, Dubbak.

11

Date: 30.03.2022O.S.No. 89 of 2014

Ex.B5: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06 in respect of land of DW1

Ex.B6: CC of pahani for the year 2005-06

Ex.B7: CC of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.B8: CC of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.B9: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10 in respect of land of DW1

Ex.B10: CC of pahani for the year 2009-10

Ex.B11: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11

Ex.B12: CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 in respect of land of DW1

Ex.B13: Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. NO. 126/A/1 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts Ex.B14: Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. NO. 126/AA to an extent of Ac. 01-00 gts

Ex.B15: Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. NO. 127/LUU to an extent of Ac. 00-21 gts

Ex.B16: Meeseva pahani for the fasli year 1422 in respect of Sy. NO. 127 to an extent of Ac. 00-08 gts

Ex.B17: Original 13-B proceeding vide doc. no. E/1980/1995, dated 08.06.1995.

Ex.B18: Original pattadar passbook bearing no. 637 of defendant no.1

Ex.B19: Original title deed bearing no. 637 of defendant no.1

Ex.B20: Photographs (07) along with a CD.

Sd/-

Junior Civil Judge, Dubbak.

J C J, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

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

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

Present: Smt. SALMA FATIMA Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. FAC – Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Wednesday the 17 th day of November, 2021

Calender Case Number 195 of 2018

Between:

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

AND

1. Chepyala Kanakaiah S/o Narsaiah, Age: 26years, Occ: Tractor Driver, R/o Balwanthapur village of Dubbak Mandal.

2. Gurrapu Ravinder Reddy S/o Narayana Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Dumpalapally village of Dubbak Mandal.

…Accused A1 & A2

This case is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri. Devunoori Ravinder, Advocate for the accused A1 & A2 and after having perused the evidence on record and the matter being stood over for consideration to this date, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Dubbak filed charge sheet in Crime

No. 24/2014 against the accused A1 & A2 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and section 181, 196, 180 of

MV Act on the following allegations:

2.On 07.02.2014, at about 13:40 hours the complainant/Talari @ Bitla Renuka stated that, her husband/Ashok/deceased worked as a tractor driver since 08 years at her village by name Ganne Bhoom Reddy. Yesterday at night hours her/LW1’s husband/deceased proceeded to Akaram village on his tractor bearing no. AP 36 U 1722, suddenly his tractor went to beside the road and dashed to a tree and jammed in the tree, on that day at 08:30 hours her husband along his villager/accused A2 were proceeded to Ramakkapet village in another tractor for rescue of the above said tractor which was jammed in the tree, while

Page 1 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

removing the first tractor with the help of another tractor, in the meantime the tractor driver/accused A2 drove it in a rash and negligence and moving tractor front side and also lost his control over the tractor, turn tumbled the tractor engine on the ground, due to which the tractor engine tumbled over the head of her/LW1 husband/deceased who was present on the driving seat on the first tractor engine and died on the spot. Hence, she/complainant filed a complaint before SHO, P.S. Dubbak for taking necessary action against the accusedA1 & A2.

3.The police have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the accused/A1 & A2 and this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code against accused/A1 and section 180, 196 of MV Act against the accused/A2. On receipt of the summons from this Court, the accused/A1 & A2 appeared before this Court. The copy of the charge sheet along with the documents were furnished to the accused, as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4.The accused/A1 & A2 were examined under section 251 Code of Criminal

Procedure and upon hearing, the substance of accusation against the accused/A1 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and section 180, 196 of MV

Act against the accused/A2 were read over and explained to them in their vernacular language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of prosecution PW1 to PW8 were examined,

The Assistant Public Prosecutor was constrained to give up the evidence of LW9/K.

Rajesh/Civil Assistant Surgeon, LW10/S. Ashok Kumar/Motor Vehicle Inspector,

LW11/B. Hariprasad/SIP/Investigating officer, as such this Court was constrained to close their evidence.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8. PW2, PW3, PW5,

PW6, PW7 and PW8 in their chief examination resiled from their earlier statements made to the police and they turned hostile.

Page 2 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

7.PW1 deposed that, about 03 years back her husband/deceased left from home in the morning time to attend agriculture works. At about 10:00 a.m. she received information about the incident took place and her husband/deceased was shifted to

Government hospital. After receiving information she went to Government hospital and observed dead body of her husband/deceased. She came to know that her husband/deceased died with an accident with a tractor at the outskirts of Akaram village, such she filed complaint against the accused/A1 & A2 before the SHO of PS Dubbak.

8.PW4 deposed that, about 03 years back he was informed his villager that, his brother/deceased died in a tractor accident, after receiving the information he rushed to

Government hospital, Dubbak where he found the dead body of his brother/deceased.

9.The prosecution sought permission and cross examined PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6,

PW7 and PW8, but failed to elicit anything incriminating against the accusedA1 & A2. In view of hostile evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8, the prosecution has given up the evidence of the remaining witnesses cited in the charge sheet.

10.The evidence of prosecution in order to prove its case, examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and on the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 &

A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining them the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which they reported no defence. Hence, neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked on behalf of the accused/A1 & A2.

11.Heard. APPO on behalf of the prosecution.

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for offence under

section 304 A Indian Penal Code and section 180, 196 of MV Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

12.POINT: In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to the effect that, the death of the deceased/Ashok was caused due to turtned turtle act not

Page 3 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

amounting to culpable homicide by the accused/A1 & A2, at the alleged relevant date and time. PW1 who happens to be the defacto complainant, basing on the report presented by

PW1, the prosecution was launched, PW1 deposed that, she received information that, her husband deceased/Ashok has met with an accident, she immediately rushed to the accident spot and later came to know, that the deceased/Ashok was succumbed to injuries at Government hospital, Dubbak and the police obtained her signature on some white papers. Ex.P1 is the signature of the witness on report dated 07.02.2014.

13.PW4 is the younger brother of the deceased and he deposed that, on 07.02.2014 in the morning hours, he received information that, the deceased/Ashok met with an accident and he succumbed to injuries at Government hospital, Dubbak. He is also not an eye witness to the accident and he came to know about the death of his brother through others, the deposition of PW4 is nothing but hearsay evidence. PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7 &

PW8 did not speak anything regarding the rash and negligent driving of the accused/A1 &

A2, so also he did not speak anything regarding the presence of the accused/A1 & A2 near the accident spot.

14.PW1 in his deposition contradicted his entire version, as stated in Ex.P1, she didn't speak anything regarding the accused/A1 or their alleged rash or negligent driving. The evidence of PW1 to PW8 is completely hearsay and it doesn't speak anything about the involvement of the accused in the death of deceased/Ashok. To the dismay of the prosecution, PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6, PW7 & PW8 had resiled from their earlier statements to the police and they have been declared as hostile. The learned APPO in cross examination under the provision of section 154 of Indian Evidence Act read with section 162 Cr.P.C provision, could not elicit anything incriminating against the accused/A1 & A2 from the mouth of PW1 to PW8 in favour of the prosecution. PW1 to

PW8 were projected as material witnesses, but they did not support the case of the prosecution, thus, utilizing his wisdom, the learned APPO was constrained to give up the evidence of the rest of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has succeeded in

Page 4 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

exhibiting 07 document under exhibit Ex.P1 to Ex.P7, the said documents were not disputed by the accused/A1 & A2.

15.From the evidence on record, at the most, the prosecution is able to establish that, deceased/Ashok has met with an accident on 07.02.2014 in the morning hours at the outskirts of Akaram village and he succumbed to injuries, but there is absolutely nothing incriminating against the accused in proving the ingredients of section 304 A Indian Penal

Code. Thus, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt, as such, this point is answered against the prosecution. Therefore, the accused/A1 & A2 are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused/A1 is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-

A Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. and the accused/A2 is found not guilty for the offence under section 180, 196 of MV Act and he is acquitted under section 252 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after the expiry of six months from the date of this judgment as contemplated under section 437 (A) Code of Criminal Procedure Since no property is seized by the police, no order as to its disposal.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

open Court on this the 17 th day of November, 2021.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED:

PW1 T @ B. Renuka/Complainant/wife of deceased -NIL- PW2 T @ B. Srinivas/Brother of deceased. PW3 T @ B. Chandram/Brother of deceased PW4 T @ B. Ellam/Younger brother of deceased PW5 P. Prabhakar/eye witness PW6 D. Narsimulu/eye witness PW7 P. Padmaiah/Scene of offence and inquest panchanama PW8 G. Kumar/Scene of offence and inquest panchanama

Page 5 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Dt: 17.11.2021 C.C. No. 195 of 2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION FOR ACCUSED:

Ex.P1: PW1 signature on complainant, dated 07.02.2014 -NIL- Ex.P2: PW5 signature on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: PW5 signature on rough sketch Ex.P4: PW5 signature on inquest panchanama Ex.P5: PW6 signature on scene of offence panchanam Ex.P6: PW6 signature on rough sketch Ex.P7: PW6 signature on inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Page 6 of 6 JMFC, Dubbak.

Date: 31.03.2022C.C. No. 276 of 2014

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

FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

Present: Smt. SALMA FATIMA Prl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Siddipet. FAC – Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

This the 31 st day of March, 2022

C.C.No. 276 of 2014

Between:

The State of Telangana, through Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Mirdoddi.

...Complainant

AND

Yellagari Ravi S/o Balaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Alwal village of Mirdoddi Mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of the learned APP for the State and Sri. M. Sanjeeva Reddy, learned counsel for the accused and upon hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record and the same is having stood over for consideration to this date, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused was arraigned before this Court for the offence punishable under section 457 & 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’), in

Cr.No. 62/2011 of Police Station, Mirdoddi.

2.This case is originally registered as C.C. No. 571 of 2011 and it has been transferred to this Court on 06.06.2014 in view of its establishment and on the point of jurisdiction as per the orders of the Hon’ble Principal District Court, Medak at

Sangareddy vide Proc.No. 1852/2014 dated 23.04.2014. Thereafter, it has been renumbered to C.C. No. 276 of 2014.

3.The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:- On 15.09.2011 at 13:00 hours, LW1/complainant lodged a report stating that, on 14.09.2011 at 10:00 p.m. he along with his wife after having dinner they slept in his bed room. At midnight 01:30 hours he heard the sound of iron sheets then he woke up and he found his villager/accused entered into from his top the house immediately, caught hold him and alterted his brother and his sister in law. They asked him about his coming, but he did not

Page 1 of 5 JMFC, Dubbak.

Date: 31.03.2022C.C. No. 276 of 2014

tell anything at that time, he is in drunken condition. The accused came for theft in his home. After they brought him and handed over to police station. Hence, the complaint.

4.The police has filed chargesheet for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC against A1 to A3 and the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC against the accused. The copies of the documents were furnished to the accused on his appearance as contemplated under section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

5.The accused is examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and upon hearing, charge as per section 240 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused for the offence under section 457, 380 r/w 511 of IPC and the contents of the same were read over and explained to him in his vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution examined witnesses PW1 to PW6, exhibited documents Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6 in evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW8/R. Niranjan SIP, PS Mirdoddi. The Court has closed the evidence of

LW8.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses to which he denied and reported no defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is: -

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under section 457, 380

r/w 511 of IPC, beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to that effect, accused was trying to commit theft. To prove the prosecution case, PW1 to PW6 were examined and the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are marked.

Page 2 of 5 JMFC, Dubbak.

Date: 31.03.2022C.C. No. 276 of 2014

11.The prosecution got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. Ex.P1 is the complaint of PW1, Ex.P2 is the signature of PW5 on panchanama, Ex.P3 is the signature of PW5 on rough sketch, Ex.P4 is the First Information Report, Ex.P5 is scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P6 is the rough sketch.

12.Sri. Md. Ajumiya/complainant is examined as PW1 and deposed that, on 14.09.2011 at 01:30 a.m. he heard a sound of asbestos sheet and he woke up from his sleep. He observed the accused in the house and on seeing him the accused tried to escape, but he caught the accused and tied to a tree and informed the incident to the elders and on the next day he lodged Ex.P1 before the police, P.S. Mirdoddi. But in cross he stated that, he did not remember whether police examined him and recorded his statement.

13.Smt. Anisha Begum/witness is examined as PW2 and deposed that, on 14.09.2011 at 10:00 p.m. she and her husband went to sleep after having dinner and in the midnigh at 01:30 p.m., she woke up on listening the sound of asbestos sheet and she did not find

PW1 beside her. She went out of the house and saw PW1 and the accused fighting with each other on a wall. Immediately, she woke up LW3 & LW4 and informed them the situation, thereafter, the accused was tied to with a rope. But in cross examination she stated that, the police did not examine her or recorded her statement.

14.Sri. Md. Jahangir/witness is examined as PW3 and deposed that, PW2 is his sister in law. LW4 is his wife. on 14.09.2011 at 01:30 a.m. PW1 screamed that some unknown persons trespassed into the house for committing theft, immediately, he woke up and went to the wall where PW1 and accused were fighting. PW1 held on to the accused and he along with PW1 restrained the accused by tying him with ropes, thereafter, they informed the police regarding the incident at around 09:00 a.m. and the police reached the place around 10:30 a.m. Ex.P1 scribed by the police on his instructions.

15.Smt. Md. Safiya/witness is examined as PW4 and deposed that, PW1 is her brother in law, PW2 is her sister, PW3 is her husband. On 15.09.2011 around 01:30 PW1 screamed that some unknown persons trespassed into the house for committing theft.

Immediately, he and PW3 woke up and went to the wall where PW1 and accused were

Page 3 of 5 JMFC, Dubbak.

Date: 31.03.2022C.C. No. 276 of 2014

fighting. PW1 held on to the accused and with help of PW3 the accused was restrained by tying him with ropes. Thereafter, they informed the police regarding the incident in between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on 15.09.2011. But in cross examination she stated that, police did not examine her or recorded her statement.

16.Sri. Md. Naseeruddin/panch for scene of offence panchanama is examined as PW5 and deposed that, on 15.09.2011 police called upon him to the house of PW1. Police informed him that a theft has taken place in the house of PW1, he observed that the asbestos sheet was pulled up and saw dirt on the ground of the house of PW1. He can say the boundaries of the house of PW1. After conducting the panchanama police read over the contents of the panchanama and obtained his signature on panchanama and rough sketch which are marked as Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.

17.Sri. M. Rajendra Prasad/the investigating officer is examined as PW6 and deposed that, on 15.09.2011, PW1 lodged Ex.P1 stating that, on 14.09.2011 around 01:30 a.m he heard the sound of asbestos and found the accused entering into the house from ceiling and caught hold of him, immediately, on the basis of Ex.P1 he registered a case in

Cr.No. 62/2011. Thereafter, he recorded the satement of LW1 and visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch in the presence of PW5 and LW6. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW2 to

PW4 and thereafter, handed over the case diary to LW8 for further investigation. There is delay of around 11:00 hours in lodging Ex.P1 and the delay has not been mentioned in

Ex.P4, he did not click pictures of the scene of offence showing the condition of asbestos sheet. He did not examine any independent witnesses.

18.The evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 to PW6 indoubtly establishes that someone tried to commit theft in the house of PW1 on 14.09.2011 at 10:00 p.m., but there is absolutely no evidence on record which shows that whether it has been committed during the night hours. PW1 to PW5 did not supported the case of the prosecution. The only incriminating material available in the entire testimony of

Page 4 of 5 JMFC, Dubbak.

Date: 31.03.2022C.C. No. 276 of 2014

prosecution witnesses is of the evidence of PW6 who is the investigating officer. PW6 alleged to have no property recovered on the scene.

19.There is absolutely no scintilla of evidence which connects the accused to the commission of trying to theft and gain entered into the house of PW1. As the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, hence the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and he is acquitted under section 248(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand discharged after the expiry of appeal period from the date of this judgment.

Dictated to stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me

in the open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE

PW1 Md. Ajumiya -Nil- PW2 Anisha Begum PW3 Md. Jahangir PW4 Md. Safiya PW5 Md. Naseeruddin PW6 M. Rajendra Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Ex.P1The complaint of PW1 -Nil- Ex.P2Signature of PW5 on panchanama Ex.P3Signature of PW5 on rough sketch Ex.P4FIR Ex.P5Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P6Rough sketch

Material Objects Marked - Nil -

Sd/-

Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dubbak.

Page 5 of 5 JMFC, Dubbak.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

CC. No. 602/2022

etween:- B The State of Telangana, through

SHO, P.S. Dubbak ...Complainant

AND Jukanti Prakash Reddy S/o. Venkatreddy, Age: 24 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Lachapet village of Machareddy mandal, Kamareddy District.

... Accused

ADMISSION

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court of the opinion that, this is fit case to take lenient view while awarding sentence to the accused to meet the ends of Justice.

The accused is convicted U/s. 248(2) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under section 454,380 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of (175) days for the offence punishable under section 454,380, of IPC.

The accused is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hunred ) undergo simple imprisonment for three (10) months for each offence. The accused is give the benefit of remand set-off from 18-10-2022 to till date. 11-04-2023 .

The accused is also informed about his right of appeal, as per the directions of

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, as held in the Judgment titled as Shaik Baba Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh(2002(1) ALD (Crl.) 335 AP. and the accused is also informed that, if he has no means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal, he is at liberty to approach

District legal service Authority, Medak at Sangareddy for free legal aid.

There is no case property as such there is no order for case property

Junior Civil Judge,

Dubbak.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT DUBBAK

C.C. No. 121 /20 18

Between:

The State of Telangana, through

SHO, P.S. Dubbak ...Complainant

AND

A1: Somarapu Muthaiah S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 58 years, Occ: Coolie, Dubbak village A2: Somarapu Yellavva S/o. Muthaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Cooli, Dubbak village.

... Accused No. A1 to A2

COMPROMISED

This case is referred to Lok-Adalath by regular Court. Both parties are present. On enquiry, both parties stated that they have compromised the matter. Perused the record.

The accused are alleged of the offence under section498(A), 323,509 r/w 34 of IPC. The offence is compoundable in nature. Terms of compromise are read over and explained to the parties and they admitted the terms to be true and correct. Terms of compromise recorded. In views of compromise of the matter before the Lok-Adalath, accused are acquitted under section 320 (8) Cr.P.C. for the offence under section 498(A), 323,509 r/w 34 of IPC There is no case property.

Junior Civil Judge,

Dubbak.