Smt. Saritha Matta

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Hanumakonda

Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex · Hanumakonda · Telangana

Smt. Saritha Matta, III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Hanumakonda, is posted at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex, Hanumakonda, Telangana, India. 217 court orders on record since 2022. 10 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, JCC cases.

217

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/2344/2022 Acquitted

masani vijayalaxmi vs Vsveleti swarupa @ masani swarupa

28 Apr 2023

1 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Present: SMT. SARITHA MATTA

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,

C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 (OLD C.C.No.592 OF 2015)

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy Police Station. … Complainant AND

A-1: Veleti Swarupa @ Masani Swarupa, W/o.Kumaraswamy, Age.45 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o.Kothakonda (V), Bheemadevarapally (M), Karimnagar District. A-2: Alli Anusha, W/o.Raju, Age.20 years, Occu:Coolie, R/o.Kothakonda(v) Bheemadevarapally(M), Karimnagar District.

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 24-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant; and of Sri P.Satyanarayana Patel, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Elkathurthy P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.149 of 2015 for the offences punishable under

Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that, on 04-09-2015 at 13-00 hours the complainant Masani Vijayalaxmi (LW1) came to P.S and lodged a complaint, stating that herself and her brother-in-law Masani

Yadagiri are having 01.20 Acre each of agriculture land in Sy.No.693 at the outskirts of Damera Village and her name was entered in the pattadar passbook and pahani. From the last 10 years, the accused No.1 was 2 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 cultivating her agriculture land on lease. From the last year, some disputes took place between the complainant and accused No.1 about the said land. The accused No.1 approached court to solve the issue, which is pending in the court. Keeping this in mind, on 31-08-2015 morning hours accused Nos.1 and 2 were criminally trespassed in to the agriculture land of complainant and damaged the cow peas crop (Bobbera Crop) by ploughing it with a tractor and caused loss to a tune of Rs.18,000/-.

3. Basing on the complaint, Uday Kumar, S.I. of Police (LW8) registered a case in Crime No.149/2015 for the offence under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of

I.P.C., and took up investigation, and during the investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant (LW1), visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence thepanchwitnesses Boda Srinivas(LW6) and Saagoni

Komrelli(LW7) and got photographed the scene with the help of Vallala

Venugopal (LW5). Thereafter, LW8 conducted damaged panchanama over the damaged cow peas crop in the presence of same panchas witnesses, and thereafter examined and recorded the statements of Masani Yadagiri (LW2), Jagiri Mogili (LW3) and Vanaparthy Prabhakar (LW4). Later the S.I of police served notice to accused Nos.1 and 2 and released on producing sureties and after completion of the investigation, filed charge sheet.

4. The case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C., against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code.

3 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022

5. The accused were examined under Sec.251 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C. by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which, they denied the allegation leveled against them and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P4 were marked.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the incriminating material and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C., beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT : The accused in the present crime are charged for the offences under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of I.P.C., for which, the prosecution has to prove the accusation levelled against the accused.

11. The defacto complainant is examined as PW1 and she deposed that she is having agriculture land at the outskirts of Damera Village to an extent of Ac. 1.20 guntas and one Yadagiri (LW2) who is brother-in-law of PW1, is also having Ac.1.20 guntas of land and at about seven years ago, they are 4 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 cultivating peas crop (Bobbera). On one day in the early morning, when they went to their respective fields, noticed that their crops were in damaged condition and as per her knowledge, the accused were criminally trespassed into their land and damaged the peas crop, due to which they sustained loss of Rs.18,000/-, thereafter, she went to the police station and lodged written report under Ex.P1 and police examined and recorded her statement. During the cross examination, she stated that she does not know who damaged the crop particularly and she also stated that the complaint was lodged by M.Yadagiri(LW2) and police never came to her village. She also stated that she does not remember whether she handed over the land documents to the police. She stated that

M.Yadagiri (LW2) lodged a false complaint against her sons prior to lodging of this complaint. She denied the suggestion that the daughter of accused

No.1 filed partition suit against them and that M.Yadagiri (LW2) himself damaged the crop and filed false complaint. On perusal of the Ex.P1 complaint, the complainant stated that the accused illegally trespassed into their land in Sy.No.693 and damaged the peas crop in Ac.1.20 guntas by ploughing with tractor. But whereas in her evidence she directly stated that the accused criminally trespassed into their agriculture land and damaged the crop, but she does not disclose in her chief examination that the accused damaged the crop by ploughing with tractor. However, she clearly stated that she does not know who damaged the crop particularly.

Further, in her chief examination, it discloses that the complaint was lodged by PW1, but in her cross examination, she stated that the complaint was lodged by PW2. It is clear that on perusal of Ex.P1, the

Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by PW1 only. The testimony of PW1 shows that she does not know who lodged the complaint. As such, the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.P1 creates a doubt with regard to mode of 5 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 damage of crop by the accused and who lodged the complaint before the

Police. Further it is also shows through her evidence that she is not eye witness to the incident.

12. The evidence of PW2 also discloses in the same lines of PW1. He stated that he enquired with J.Mogili (LW3) and V.Prabhakar (LW4) who are adjacent land owners, he was informed that accused criminally trespassed into the land and damaged the peas crop and sustained loss of

Rs.18,000/- and police examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination, PW2 stated that on the next date of incident, he lodged complaint. He admitted that it was not mentioned while recording his Sec.161 Cr.P.C that they came to know about the incident through LW3 and LW4. He also stated that police not examined him on the date of incident. From the evidence of PW2, it discloses that he came to know the incident that the accused criminally trespassed into the land and damaged the crop, through others i.e., J.Mogili (LW3) and V.Prabhakar (LW4). The said fact is not disclosed in his 161 Cr.P.C statement. Further,

PW2 also stated that he lodged the complaint. On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, it was lodged by PW1. It is also not elicited from his chief examination that the accused damaged the crop by ploughing with the tractor, but he elicited the said fact in his 161 Cr.P.C statement. The incident was occurred on 31-08-2015 and she stated that she went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. In the evidence of PW2, he stated that on the next date of incident, he lodged the complaint under Ex.P1, but the date of Ex.P1 appears as 04-09-2015 with a delay of (04) days and the same was not explained before this court. On perusal of FIR, the column for delay of reason is reported as “no delay” and the prosecution 6 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 did not choose to mark FIR. From the evidence of PW2, it shows that he is only the hearsay evidence, but not the direct witness.

13. Coming to the evidence of PW3 who is adjacent land owner and eye witness to the incident, he deposed that he is having agriculture land to an extent of Ac.2.00 guntas which is adjacent to the land of PW2, and there is a pathway between his field and field of PW2, and at about 7 or 8 years ago, PW2 cultivated Bobbera Crop and on one day, when he went to the agriculture field in morning hours, he found the crop of PW2 was in damaged condition. During the cross examination, he stated that, he does not know who damaged the crop, as he was not an eye witness to the alleged incident and police not examined and recorded his statement. On perusal of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3, it discloses that the crop was damaged by accused No.1 and 2 with tractor, whereas the said fact is not disclosed in his chief examination. Further, he stated that when he went to agriculture field in morning hours, he found the crop of PW2 was damaged, which clearly shows that he is not an eye witness to the incident and he came to know the incident afterwards. He also not discloses that the accused only responsible for the damage of crop of

PW2. In the cross examination, he stated that he does not know who damaged the crop of PW2 and he is not an eye witness to the incident, as such the evidence of PW3 is not useful to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

14. PW4 who is another adjacent land owner and eye witness to the incident, he deposed that he does not know anything about the case facts and police not examined and recorded his statement. PW4 is not supported the version of the prosecution and he turned hostile to the case 7 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 of the prosecution. Since PW4 resiled from his earlier statement under

Sec.161 Cr.P.C., the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross examined PW4, but nothing could be elicited against the accused.

15. The panch witness for Crime Details Form is examined as PW5. He deposed that about 10 years ago, Elkathurthy police came to their village and conducted panchanama and obtained his signature at his residence and he was not present at the time of conducting crime details panchanama. Ex.P2 is his signature on the Crime Details Form. During the cross examination, on the request of police, he signed on the CDF, but he does not know the contents of Crime details form. He also stated that he does not know whether Shika Komuraiah has land as mentioned in CDF.

16. Another panch witness for Crime Details Form is examined as PW6, who deposed that he does not know anything about the case facts. Police obtained his signature on some papers. Ex.P3 is his signature on the

Crime Details Form.

17. From the evidence of panch witnesses PW5 and PW6, it discloses that in their presence CDF was not conducted by the police and they do not know the contents of it. At request of police they signed on the CDF and Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 are the signatures on CDF. The testimony of PW5 and PW6 clearly shows that in their presence, police did not conduct CDF, as such their evidence is not supported to the case of prosecution.

8 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022

18. The photographer is examined as PW7. He deposed that in the year 2015, at the request of police, he photographed the damaged peas crop at outskirts of Damera village and three (03) photographs which was found in the court record were taken by him. During the cross examination, he stated that, he was alone when he took the photographs of the damaged peas crop. He denied the suggestion that he does not took the photographs. However, PW7 has taken the photographs of damaged crop, but the prosecution has not mark the said photographs to consider the same, as such his evidence is not useful to the case of prosecution.

19. The evidence of PW8 who is Investigating Officer has deposed about the conducting of investigation in this case to the extent of registering the crime, examining the witnesses and recording their statements, visiting of scene of offence, securing the presence of PW5 and PW6 and conducing scene observation panchanama under Ex.P4 and photographing the damaged crop through PW7, and after completion of the investigation, filing of charge sheet. Though, this witness was cross examined by the learned counsel for the accused at length, it was elicited regarding the investigation part only. Further, he admitted that PW1 came to police station for lodging complaint; and that he did not file any documentary proof whether PW1 was in possession of land in Sy.No.693 where the alleged offence occurred. He also admitted that they did not conduct any enquiry about the tractor alleged to have been committed the offence and that he did not enquire the particulars of tractor and the owner and driver of the said tractor, and also its number. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the scene of offence and recorded the statements of witnesses and he has not collected any documents and he foisted a false case against the accused. He admitted that he did not file any written 9 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022 lease agreement. He admitted that PW3 and PW4 are the eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 are not supported the evidence of PW8 and he admitted that PW3 and PW4 are eye witness to the incident, whereas PW3 in his cross examination he stated that he is not an eye witness to the incident. PW8 stated that the complaint was lodged by PW1, but PW2 stated that he lodged the complaint before the police. Further, PW8 also did not choose to mark the photographs which were taken by PW7. There are contradictions in the evidence of PW8 as well as other prosecution witnesses. The evidence of PW1 to PW4 who are material witnesses to the incident did not inspire this court to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The evidence of PW5 and PW6 did not support the case of prosecution. Basing on the testimony of PW8 this court cannot convict the accused. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, this

Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt to the accused and consequently, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt.

Accordingly the Point is answered against the prosecution.

20. In the result , theaccused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.447, 427 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of April, 2023.)

MattaDigitally signed by Matta

Saritha

SarithaDate: 2023.04.28 17:30:52

+0530

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

10 OF 10 C.C.No. 2344 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: M. Vijayalaxmi -None- PW2: M.Yadagiri PW3: J.Mogili PW4: V.Prabhakar PW5: B.Srinivas PW6: S.Komrelli PW7: V.Venugopal PW8: V.Uday Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint, dated:04-09-2015 Ex.P2: Signature of PW5 on the Crime Details Form panchanama. Ex.P3: Signature of PW6 on the Crime Details Form panchanama. Ex.P4: Crime Details Form panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL-Matta

Digitally signed by Matta Saritha

Saritha

Date: 2023.04.28

17:30:36 +0530

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

CC/1805/2022 Acquitted

Sardar Satpal singh SI of Kamalapur Ps vs Dukkidi Praveen s/o Satynarayana

26 Apr 2023

1 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2023.

Present: SMT. SARITHA MATTA

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,

C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022 (OLD C.C.No.861 OF 2014)

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur Police Station. … Complainant AND

1. Dukkidi Praveen Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 31 years, Caste: Arey, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

2. Dukkidi Sinde Vijaya, W/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 45 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

3. Dukkidi Satyanarayana, S/o.Kommiraju, Age: 50 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

4. Dukkidi Naveen, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 35 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

5. Dukkidi Vaanee, W/o.Naveen, Age: 30 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

... Accused Nos.1 to 5

This case is coming up before me on 12-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant; and of Sri A. Linga Murthy, Advocate for accused No.1 and of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused Nos.2 to 5 and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur P.S. filed charge sheet in Crime

No.37 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 28-02-2013 at 18- 00 hours, the complainant D.Swapnavathi (LW1) lodged a report before the Kamalapur P.S., stating that on 17-06-2010 her parents performed her marriage with the accused No.1 by selling 4.00 acres of land and gave

Rs.20 lakhs of net cash and 2 tulas of gold and other household articles towards dowry. Subsequently, they lead happy marital life for about one year, and thereafter, though she was pregnant, the accused Nos.1 to 5 harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. In this regard on 20-01-2013 a panchayath was held in the presence of

E.Shankar Rao (LW5), Ch. Rajireddy (LW6), P.Srinivas Rao (LW7); and that thereafter on 16-08-2013 at about 1100 hours, the accused necked out the complainant out of the house and demanded to return along with

additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs.

3. On receipt of the above report, Sardar Satpal Singh (LW8), S.I. of Police,

Kamalapur P.S., registered a case in Crime No.37/2014 for the offence under Sec.498-A I.P.C., and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the said Satpal Singh (LW8) examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to LW7 and thereafter the accused were obtained anticipatory bail; and that after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

4. The case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.498-A of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

5. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

6. The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act against the accused, by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which, they denied the allegation leveled against them, as such, the charges under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and

Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 were marked. Thereafter, the learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of remaining the witnesses.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, the accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

9. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. POINT : The accused in the present crime are charged for the offences under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the accused, for which the prosecution has to prove the accusation levelled against the accused.

4 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

12.The defacto complainant / D.Swapnavathi (LW1) is examined as PW1 and she deposed that on 17-06-2010, her marriage performed with the accused No.1, and at the time of marriage, her parents gave an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- along with two tulas of gold as dowry by selling Acre 4- 00 guntas of land; and that they lived happily for a period of one year, and her parents gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the occasion of Diwali and also her parents gave Rs.50,000/- at the time of her brother’s marriage; and that after one year of marriage, the accused No.1 used to scold her with vulgar language and used to scold her parents for no reason and the accused No.1 used to behave unnaturally; and that she came to know that the accused No.1 had a love affair with one Soujanya who is his sister-in-law and always used to compare her with the said

Soujanya; and that a panchayathwas also held at Hanumakonda before the elders of both parties i.e., Erra Shankar Rao, Katla Srinivas and

Chinnakka Raji Reddy; and that after two years of the marriage, she came to know that the accused No.1 is suffering with nerve problem, due to which, the accused No.1 used to shiver frequently, because of such reason, she did not have happy marital life with the accused No.1 and that since 2012, the accused No.1 along her parents used to harass her stating that if accused No.1 marries his sister-in-law, he would get

Rs.25,00,000/- as dowry, as such, the accused No.1 forced her and harassed her to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-; and after that, she came to her parents house due to the harassment of accused and she lodged a complaint against the accused persons in Kamalapur

Police Station and Ex.P1 is the complaint and Police examined her and recorded her statement.

5 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

13. The evidence of PW2 who is mother of PW1 has deposed that at about 10 years, they performed the marriage of PW1 with the accused No.1 at

Jammikunta function hall and at the time of marriage, they presented

Rs.20,00,000/- cash, 2 tulas of gold along with other household articles as dowry and that they lived happily for a period of six months, after that the accused harassed PW1 for additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- and that later a panchayathwas conducted at Hanamkonda park and all the panchayath elders admonished the accused and stated to take care of PW1, and even then, accused did not change their attitude and again harassed PW1 for

additional dowry, and that at the time of panchayath, the accused No.1

beat PW1, due to which, she fell down on the ground and she got aborted and later PW1 lodged complaint against the accused at Kamalapur P.S., and Police examined her and recorded her statement.

14. The evidence of PW3 who is panchayath elder deposed that on 20-01- 2013 G.Mohan Rao (LW2) who is his villager came to his house and stated that PW1 was harassing by the accused No.1 and in this regard G.Mohan

Rao (LW2) requested him to conduct panchayath on that on 20-01-2013, himself and J.Raji Reddy (LW6) and P.Srinvias Rao (LW7) conducted panchayathbetween PW1 and accused, and admonished the accused and advised to live happy marital life, on the advice of elders, PW1 joined conjugal life with the accused No.1 at her in-laws house and again the accused not changed their attitude and continued harassment and necked out PW1 from their in-laws’s house and Police examined him and recorded his statement.

6 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

15. The evidence of PW4 who is another panchayath elder deposed that about 9 years ago on one day G. Mohan Rao (LW2) came to their house and stated that he performed the marriage of PW1 with the accused No.1 and PW1 joined the conjugal society with accused No.1 and all the accused harassed PW1, as such, G. Mohan Rao (LW2) requested him to act as panchyath elder and on his request, he attended the panchayath which was held in Ekashila Park, Hanumakonda; and that himself and PW3, G.

Rajkumar(LW4), Ch. Raji Reddy (LW6) acted as panchyath elders and they advised accused No.1 and his family members to live amicably and they agreed for the same. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

16. The evidence of PW5, Sardar Satpal Singh, who is investigating officer in this case has deposed that on 28-02-2014 at 6:00 PM, PW1 lodged a written complaint, basing on which, he registered a case in Crime

No.37/2014 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and Sec.

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued FIRs to all the concerned under

Ex.P2, and that he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4,

G.Mohan Rao (LW2), G.Raj Kumar (LW4), Ch.Raji Reddy (LW6). PW5 further deposed that on 09-04-2014 the accused surrendered before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad and got anticipatory bail, and during

the course of investigation, it reveals that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

17.During the cross examination, PW1 stated that she came to know that accused No.1 is adopted to other parents and the said fact is came to know by her after her marriage. Prior to her marriage, she does not know 7 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022 that the accused No.1 is suffering with nerves problem. The surname of the accused Nos.2 to 5 is Sinde, but in the charge sheet it was mentioned as Dukkidi. The surname of adoptive parents of accused No.1 is Dukkidi, but her marriage was performed by accused Nos.2 and 3 herein. She stated that she does not know about the health condition of accused

No.1, they used to have frequent misunderstandings between them. After the marriage for one or two months accused No.1’s physical condition was good, and that till 2013 they lived together and due to the harassment, she left her in-laws house and came to her parents house, and that in the year 2013 she received divorce notice from the accused

No.1.

18. During the cross examination of PW2 by counsel for accused No.1, she admitted that the accused No.1 is not in a position to move as he is suffering with disorder and he is unfit to perform marital obligations.

During the cross examination of PW2 by counsel for accused Nos.2 to 5, she stated that at the time of marriage, when they questioned about the surname of accused No.1, the original parents of accused No.1 i.e., accused Nos.2 and 3 stated to them that even though the surname is

Dukkidi, they are responsible persons for the marriage and they also stated that both adopted parents and original parents will give share in the property. She also stated by PW1 that the accused No.1 beat her on her stomach and got severe injury, for which PW1 went for abortion. The evidence of PW2 disclosed that PW1 was harassed by the accused, but she did not explain in which way the harassment was made by accused.

PW2 evidence is not supported with the evidence of PW1 with regard to the harassment.

8 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

19.During the cross examination, PW3stated that he does not know whether accused No.1 was adopted by one Anjali and Konabai or not.

During the cross examination of PW4, he stated that prior to the panchayath, he does not know the dispute between PW1 and accused, so also he does not know in the year 1999 one Dukkidi Anjali and Konbai were adopted the accused No.1 or not. In the evidence of PW3 and PW4, it is clear that they were conducted panchayath between PW1 and accused No.1, as accused are harassed PW1, but it is clearly elicited from the evidence of PW3 and PW4 that at what point of issue they conducted panchayath. It is also not elicited by PW3 and PW4 that whether there is any resolution passed in the said panchayath or not.

20.During the cross examination of PW5, he admitted that he did not conduct investigation about the adoption of accused No.1 by Anjali and

Konabai. He also stated that the record reflect the surname of accused

No.1 is Dukkidi and the surname of accused Nos.2 to 5 reflects as Sinde.

He further admitted that in the charge sheet, it is not reflecting the role of accused Nos.2 to 5 in the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that accused Nos.1 to 5 never involved in the alleged offences.

21. From the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that accused No.1 is adopted son of Anjali and Konabai and the accused No.2 and 3 are his biological parents. It is elicited from the cross examination of PW1 that she obtained divorce from the accused No.1 in the year 2013.

Except the evidence of PW1 there is no other witness stated that the accused harassed PW1 mentally and physically for additional dowry, and further there is no prima facie found against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the alleged offences, and there are no specific allegations against the 9 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022 accused No.2 to 5. The panchayath elders also i.e., PW3 and PW4 also not stated anything against the accused with regard to the harassment made to the PW1. The evidence of PW5 who is investigating officer did not disclose the harassment made by accused towards PW1. Viewing from any angle there is no incriminating material found against the accused with regard to the physical and mental harassment made by accused to PW1 for additional dowry.

22. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, this Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt to the accused and consequently, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly the Point is answered against the prosecution.

23. In the result , theaccused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act against, and accordingly they are acquitted for the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.)

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Dukkidi Swapnavathi -None- PW2: Gudekari Vemala Bai PW3: Edde Shankar Rao PW4: Pakide Srinivas Rao PW5: Sardar Satpal Singh.

10 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint dated 28-02-2014. Ex.P2: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

CC/1805/2022 Acquitted

Sardar Satpal singh SI of Kamalapur Ps vs Dukkidi Praveen s/o Satynarayana

26 Apr 2023

1 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2023.

Present: SMT. SARITHA MATTA

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,

C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022 (OLD C.C.No.861 OF 2014)

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur Police Station. … Complainant AND

1. Dukkidi Praveen Kumar, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 31 years, Caste: Arey, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

2. Dukkidi Sinde Vijaya, W/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 45 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

3. Dukkidi Satyanarayana, S/o.Kommiraju, Age: 50 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

4. Dukkidi Naveen, S/o.Satyanarayana, Age: 35 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

5. Dukkidi Vaanee, W/o.Naveen, Age: 30 years, R/o.Appidipally village, Devaruppal mandal, Warangal district.

... Accused Nos.1 to 5

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur P.S. filed charge sheet in Crime

No.37 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian

Penal Code, and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

2 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs.

3. On receipt of the above report, Sardar Satpal Singh (LW8), S.I. of Police,

4. The case was taken cognizance for the offences under Sec.498-A of Indian

Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, against the accused Nos.1 to 5.

5. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

3 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

6. The accused were examined under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry

Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 were examined and Ex.P1 and

Ex.P2 were marked. Thereafter, the learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of remaining the witnesses.

8.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under

9. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the record.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec.498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

Soujanya; and that a panchayathwas also held at Hanumakonda before the elders of both parties i.e., Erra Shankar Rao, Katla Srinivas and

Police Station and Ex.P1 is the complaint and Police examined her and recorded her statement.

5 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

13. The evidence of PW2 who is mother of PW1 has deposed that at about 10 years, they performed the marriage of PW1 with the accused No.1 at

Jammikunta function hall and at the time of marriage, they presented

additional dowry, and that at the time of panchayath, the accused No.1

beat PW1, due to which, she fell down on the ground and she got aborted and later PW1 lodged complaint against the accused at Kamalapur P.S., and Police examined her and recorded her statement.

6 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

No.37/2014 for the offences punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C., and Sec.

4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and issued FIRs to all the concerned under

Ex.P2, and that he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW4,

G.Mohan Rao (LW2), G.Raj Kumar (LW4), Ch.Raji Reddy (LW6). PW5 further deposed that on 09-04-2014 the accused surrendered before the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad and got anticipatory bail, and during

the course of investigation, it reveals that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sec.498-A of I.P.C. and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act and after completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

No.1.

PW2 evidence is not supported with the evidence of PW1 with regard to the harassment.

8 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

19.During the cross examination, PW3stated that he does not know whether accused No.1 was adopted by one Anjali and Konabai or not.

20.During the cross examination of PW5, he admitted that he did not conduct investigation about the adoption of accused No.1 by Anjali and

Konabai. He also stated that the record reflect the surname of accused

No.1 is Dukkidi and the surname of accused Nos.2 to 5 reflects as Sinde.

23. In the result , theaccused Nos.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec. 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Sec.4 of

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.)

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Dukkidi Swapnavathi -None- PW2: Gudekari Vemala Bai PW3: Edde Shankar Rao PW4: Pakide Srinivas Rao PW5: Sardar Satpal Singh.

10 OF 10 C.C.No. 1805 OF 2022

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint dated 28-02-2014. Ex.P2: First Information Report.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

CC/1888/2022 Acquitted

Thota Umadevi vs Dongala Komuraiah

26 Apr 2023

1 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

IV ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2023.

Present: SMT. SARITHA MATTA

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

C.C.No.1888 OF 2022 (OLD C.C.No.977 OF 2015)

BETWEEN

The State represented through The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur Police Station. … Complainant AND

Dongala Komuraiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:50 years, R/o.Nerella(v)

... Accused

This case is coming before me on 12-04-2023 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the Complainant; and of Sri P.Sadanandam, Advocate for the accused and after perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapur P.S. filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.28 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The brief averments of the prosecution case is that on 13-02-2014, at about 1400 hours, the complainant / Thota Umadevi lodged a written report stating that she is studying MSC 1st year in Vaagdevi College,

Hanamkonda and on 11-02-2014 at 2030 hours, her father (LW2) Thota

Shankaraiah was going for irrigating his paddy field with water, at that time, the accused came on bicycle and dashed to complainant’s father upon which her father fell down and questioned the accused about his acts, then the accused abused him in filthy language, fisted with hands and beat him with stick on his head, resulting her father sustained injury on mouth and head, alleging that why he questioned.

2 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022

3. On the basis of said complaint, Sardar Satpal Singh, SI of police,

Kamalapur P.S (LW11) registered a case in Cr.No.28/2014 for the offence under Sec.326 of I.P.C. and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of the complainant (LW1) and issued requisition to duty doctor, Government Civil

Hospital, Huzurabad to issue Medical Certificate and later he proceeded to scene of offence, secured the presence of Salla Ravinder (LW8) and

Dongala Suman (LW9) as panch witnesses, visited scene of offence prepared Crime Details Form and seized two teeth; and that examined and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On 19.03.2014, the said

LW11 apprehended the accused and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and produced the accused before the Hon’ble court for judicial remand. The Medical officer (LW10) who treated the injured issued medical certificate. After completion of investigation, LW11 filed charge sheet.

4. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to him under Sec.207 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

5. The accused was examined under Sec.239 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offence under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code, by explaining the substance of accusation in Telugu, for which, he denied the allegation leveled against him, as such, the charge under Sec.326 of Indian Penal

Code was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P5 were marked. Thereafter, the learned A.P.P. has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

8. Heard the learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the Accused. Perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT : The accused in the present crime is charged for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, for which the prosecution has to prove the accusation levelled against the accused.

11. The daughter of LW2 / P.Shankaraiah by name T.Umadevi was examined as PW1 and she deposed that on 11-02-2014 at 8-30 p.m, her father/LW2

P.Shankaraiah went to his agricultural fields situated at Nerella village near to their house for irrigating water to paddy fields, meanwhile the accused came on bicycle and dashed his father, due to which, he fell on the ground and questioned about the acts of accused, then the accused abused his father/LW2 in filthy language and beat LW2 with stick on his head, mouth, cheeks, due to which, LW2 lost his teeth, on hearing hues and cries of LW2, she along with one Veeralaxmi (LW4), S.Sambaraju (LW5), Raghulu (LW6) and S.Raju (LW7) went to the spot and rescued LW2 from the clutches of accused, and then the accused fled away from that 4 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022 place. She further deposed that some one made call to 108 ambulance and they shifted LW2 to MGM hospital, Warangal. On 13-02-2014 she lodged complaint under Ex.P1 before Kamalapur police station and LW2 underwent surgery to his mouth, face and he lost his teeths.

12. PW2/T.Padma, who is the eye witness to the incident deposed that at about 9 years back on one day at 8-30 PM, LW2/T.Shankaraiah went to irrigate water for his paddy fields, meanwhile on the way accused obstructed LW2 and beat with stick on his head and face due to which,

LW2 received bleeding injuries. At that time LW4/T.Veeralaxmi witnessed the incident and made hues to rescue LW2. On hearing the hues of LW4, herself, PW1 went to the scene offence and found LW2/Shankaraiah was fell down on the ground with injuries, on seeing them, the accused fled away. Police examined and recorded his statement.

13. PW3/T.Varalaxmi, who is eye witness to the incident deposed that about 9 years back in night hours while she was having her dinner, she heard noise from distance and came out and saw LW2/Shankaraiah and accused made galata, as such she raised her huge voice, on hearing her voice,

PW1 and PW2 came there and shifted LW2 to hospital in ambulance.

Police examined and recorded her statement.

14. PW4/S.Sambaraju, who is eye witness to the incident deposed that on 11-02-2013 between 8-00 to 8-30 p.m., he heard noise in front of his house and on hearing noise from some distance, he went out and saw the accused beating LW2 on his head, due to which LW2 fell on the ground and sustained bleeding injuries, the neighbouring people gathered and 5 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022 shifted LW2 to hospital in ambulance. Police examined and recorded his statement.

15. PW5/S.Raju deposed that about 8 years back on one day at about 8-00 p.m when he returned he found a mob of persons gathered in front of house of LW2/T.Shankaiarah and he found LW2 received injuries on his mouth and lost his teeth. The learned counsel for the accused reported no cross examination, as such, the same is treated as nil.

16. PW6/S.Ravinder who is panch witness to the scene of offence deposed that about 8 years back on one day at afternoon hours, the police

Kamalapur conducted scene observation panchanama near Hanuman

Temple, Nerella Village in front of house of Iylaiah where police conducted scene observation panchanama. Ex.P2 is scene observation panchanama.

17. PW7 / D.Suman, has deposed that about 9 years ago, on one day, in the afternoon hours, when he was returning to his agricultural fields, meanwhile, Police Kamalapur stopped him on the road which was proceeding to Nerella village and obtained his signatures on some written papers and Ex.P3 is signature of PW7 on the Crime Details Form.

18. PW8/Sub Inspector of Police deposed that on 13-02-2014 he received written report from PW1, basing on which he registered a case in

Cr.No.28/2014 for the offence punishable under Sec.326 IPC and issued

FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P4 is F.I.R. Later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and sent requisition to Government Duty Doctor

Civil Hospital, Huzurabad to examine the injured and issued medical certificate. Later he proceeded to place of offence and conducted scene 6 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022 observation panchanama under Ex.P2 in the presence of PW6 and PW7.

He further deposed that he examined and recorded the statement of PW2 to 5, LW6/B.Ragulu and issued 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to accused. During the course of investigation, he collected medical certificate of injured from

LW10/Dr. Suboth Kumar. Ex.P5 is medical certificate of injured. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

19. On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence and material on record, it shows that during the cross examination, PW1 stated that she along with her brother Nagaraju and her maternal uncle Karunakar are went to Police

Station on 13-02-2014 at 11:00 AM and Ex.P1 was scribed by the writer in the Police Station. The said facts shows that the incident occurred on 11-02-2014 and the complainant lodged complaint before Police Station on 13-02-2014 with a delay of two days and the said delay was explained in Ex.P4, First Information Report that delay was due to as she took the injured to hospital. But the explanation of delay was not disclosed in her evidence as well as in Ex.P1. In the cross examination, PW1 admitted that she did not state before the Police while recording her Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Statement that on hearing the hues and cries of LW2, LW6(Raghulu) and

S.Raju (LW7) rushed to the spot and rescued the injured (LW2) from the clutches of the accused, then the accused fled away from the scene of offence. On perusal of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. the said fact is not disclosed by PW1 while recording her statement. During the cross examination of PW2, she stated that she could not able to see the accused when they reached to the scene of offence. Though, it is clear that PW2 is not identified and seen the accused at the scene of offence on the date of alleged incident.

She denied the suggestion that PW1 was not with her at the time of incident at Hanumakonda. Whereas in her chief examination, she stated 7 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022 that on hearing the hues of LW4, herself and PW1 went to the scene of offence and found the injured was laid down on the ground with injuries.

There is discrepancy with regard to rushing of PW1 along with PW2 at the time of alleged incident after hearing the hues and cries of the injured.

During the cross examination of PW3, she admitted that Police examined her one month after the date of incident and she further stated that she does not know how the injured received injuries and also stated that she could not be able to find out who were present at the time of incident as the time was 8:00 PM. The evidence of PW3 did not disclose that the accused beat the injured so also in her cross examination, she stated how injured was received injuries. It is clear that she is not an eye witness to the incident and after knowing the incident, she visited the scene of offence, as such the evidence of PW3 is treated as hearsay evidence.

Hence, the evidence of PW3 is not useful to prove the case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW4 discloses that he saw while the accused beating the injured. The evidence of PW5 clearly shows that he is not the eye witness to the incident as he found the mop of persons gathered infront of the house of LW2 and receiving of injuries by the injured (LW2).

His evidence does not disclose that the accused beat the injured with stick. During the cross examination, PW6 deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P2 and PW7 who is another panch witness for the CDF is not supported the case of the prosecution, as such he is turned hostile.

The evidence of PW6 and PW7 who are panch witnesses to the scene of offence are evidencing in different versions. The evidence of PW8 shows that he proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene observation panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW7. Whereas, the evidence of PW7 did not support the version of PW8.

8 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022

20. Further, during the pendency of the case, the prosecution has filed death certificate of injured which shows that the injured was died on 02-12-2020. The allegation against the accused is that he beat the injured with stick, but the prosecution did not produce any stick before this Court so as to mark the same. On perusal of Ex.P5, Medical Certificate, which was issued by Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad and the same was received by the Investigating Officer / PW8. The Ex.P5, Medical Certificates discloses that the injuries sustained by the injured are grievous in nature, but nowhere it is mentioned in Ex.P5 that injured lost his teeth, as stated by

PW1 and PW5. Further on perusal of charge sheet also the prosecution has also shown that the injured lost his two upper teeth. Nowhere in the evidence of prosecution witnesses deposed that the injured was treated at

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad or at Huzurabad hospital. Further, the

Investigation Officer has filed the requisition before the Huzurabad

Hospital only. But the evidence of prosecution witness deposed that the injured shifted to M.G.M.Hospital and treated there only, especially the evidence of PW1 and PW3 shows that the injured was shifted to M.G.M.

Hospital. It creates a doubt that in which hospital the injured was treated.

As per the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they are not the eye witnesses to the incident. Further, the prosecution did not choose to examine the doctor who treated the injured and who issued Ex.P5-Medical certificate for the reasons known to them.

21. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, this Court is inclined to extend benefit of doubt to the accused and consequently, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly the Point is answered against the prosecution.

9 OF 9 C.C.No. 1888 OF 2022

22. In the result , theaccused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of Indian Penal Code, and accordingly he is acquitted for the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of April, 2023.) Digitally signed by Matta Saritha

Matta Saritha

Date: 2023.04.26 18:17:54

+0530

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Thota Umadevi -None- PW2: Thota Padma PW3: Thota Varalaxmi PW4: Sidamu Samba Raju PW5: Salpala Raju PW6: Salla Ravinder PW7: Dongala Suman PW8: Sardar Sathpal Singh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint, dated:13-02-2014 Ex.P2: Scene Observation panchanama Ex.P3: Signature of PW7 on the CDF / Scene Observation panchanama Ex.P4: First Information Report Ex.P5: Medical Certificate of Injured / T.Shankaraiah (LW2)

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

Matta

Digitally signed by Matta Saritha

Saritha

Date: 2023.04.26

18:18:04 +0530

IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

OS/4541/2022

Thogaru Vijaya vs Dharavath Ravi

23 Feb 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-III-ADDL.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT HANUMAKONDA.

Thursday, this the 23rd day of February, 2023

PRESENT:- Smt. Saritha Matta, IV-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC. III-Alddl. Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 4541 OF 2022

in O.S.No. 151 of 2022

BETWEEN:-

Thogaru Vijaya, W/o. Late Govardhan Reddy, Aged: 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 1-7-1309, Advocates Colony, Hanumakonda, Hanumakonda District, N/o. JhallyVillage, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warangal District.

...Plaintiff

And

Dharavath Ravi, S/o. Sakru, Aged: 38 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o. Suryapeta Thanda, H/o. Khadarpeta Village, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warangal District.

...Defendant

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 15-02-2023 in the presence of Sri Nallala Ram Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant having remained set exparte, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the Plaintiff and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivers the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money of Rs. 7,39,120/- together with interest at 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.7,39,120/- from the date of the suit till the date of realization and to award costs of the suit. 1 of 7

2.The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff and the defendant are having good acquaintance with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant has approached the plaintiff at her residence on 22.03.2018 and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,30,000/- for his family and personal requirements, by executing a demand promissory note in her favour in the presence of witnesses M. Shankar, J. Ravi and the same was scribed by Badavath Vijender, agreeing to repay the same within a short span of time as and when demanded by the plaintiff or to her order along with its accrued interest @2% per month.

It is further alleged that on 25.07.2018 again the defendant approached her at her residence and obtained a loan of Rs.1,85,000/- for his personal and family requirements, by executing a Rs.50/- Non Judicial Stamp Paper in her favour in the presence of witnesses J.Kattaiah, K. Erraiah and Daravath Ganesh and the same was scribed by T. Yakub Reddy, agreeing to repay the same on 15.04.2019 along with its accrued interest @ 2% per month, failing which Ac.1.00 gts., of land in front of Durgamma gudi vide Sy.No.200/ /1 of the defendant will mutate in the name of the plaintiff.

It is submitted that the defendant did not keep up his promise and failed to pay a single pie to the plaintiff either towards the interest or principal amount in 2 of 7 spite of her several demands and requests. On several occasions the plaintiff has approached the defendant and requested him for want of repayment of her amounts covered under promissory note, dated:22.03.2018 as well as Rs.50/- non judicial stamp paper, dated:25.07.2018, but all her efforts for recovering her amounts from the defendant are turned futile. Therefore, having vexed with the attitude of the defendant, she got issued legal notice, dated: 23.11.2019 through her counsel and the same was served on the defendant on 04.12.2019. That after receiving the said legal notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff on 10.12.2019 at her residence and paid part payment of Rs.25,000/- pertaining to promissory note and paid Rs.20,000/- as part payment pertaining to Rs.50/- Non judicial stamp paper, in the presence of witnesses M. Shankar and J. Ravi and the same were scribed by Badavath Vijender and requested the plaintiff that the remaining amount will be paid within six months.

Thereafter the defendant did not keep up his promise and failed to repay a single pie to the plaintiff in spite of her several demands and requests. On several occasions the plaintiff has approached the defendant and requested him for want of repayment of her amounts, but all her efforts for recovering her amounts from the defendant are turned futile. Therefore, having vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff has again got issued a legal notice, dated: 13.11.2021 through her counsel and the same was served on the defendant on 23.11.2021.

3 of 7

Even after receipt of the said legal notice from the plaintiff, the defendant did not come forward either to repay the amounts covered under the promissory note and

Rs.50/- non judicial stamp paper or to reply to the legal notice issued by the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

3.After service of summons, the defendant called absent on 26.04.2022 and he was set exparte.

4.Now the point for determination is :

“Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of money based on

suit promissory note and Rs.50/- Non judicial stamp as prayed for” ?

It is the brief case of the plaintiff that the defendant has borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- on 22.03.2018 to meet his family requirements and on receiving the same the defendant executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the same day, promising to repay the same within short period as and when demanded by the plaintiff and further agreed to pay the interest @ 2% per month. Again on 25.07.2018 the defendant again borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,85,000/- by executing a Rs.50/- Non Judicial Stamp Paper in the presence of witnesses J. Kattaiah, K. Erraiah and Daravath Ganesh and the same was scribed by T. Yakub Reddy, agreeing to repay the same on 15.04.2019 along with its accrued interest @ 2% per month, failing which Ac.1.00 gts., land in front of

Durgamma gudi vide Sy.No. 200/ /1 of the defendant will mutate in the name 4 of 7 of plaintiff. Having vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice, having received the same on 10.12.2019 the defendant approached the plaintiff and paid part payment of Rs.25,000/- pertaining to promissory note and paid Rs.20,000/- as part payment pertaining to Rs.50/- Non

Judicial Stamp paper, dated:25.07.2018.

5.In order to prove the suit claim, the plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and reiterated almost all the plaint averments in her affidavit in lieu of chief examination. She specifically deposed about the execution of suit promissory note and execution of Rs.50/- Non judicial stamp paper. The evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged. Ex.A.1 is the Original Promissory Note, dated : 22-03- 2018, Ex.A2 is Rs.50/- Non Judicial Stamp paper, dated: 25.07.2018, Ex. A.3 is the Office copy of Legal Notice, dt: 23-11-2019, Ex.A4 is the postal receipt No.

RN 114417681 IN, dt: 23.11.2019 issued by the Head Post Office,

Hanumakonda, Ex.A5 is the postal track consignment issued by Superintendent of Post Office, Hanumakonda Division, dated:04.12.2019, Ex.A6 is the office copy of legal notice, dated: 13.11.2021, Ex.A7 is the postal receipt No. RN 114417505IN, dated:13.11.2021 issued by Head Post Office, Hanumakonda and

Ex.A8 is the postal track consignment issued by Deputy Post Master,

Hanumakonda, H.O., dated: 23.11.2021.

5 of 7

9.Thus, in view of oral evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 to Ex. A.8 the plaintiff has proved the execution of suit promissory note and Rs.50/- Non judicial stamp. Hence, this court holds that Exs.A.1 and A2 are true, valid and binding on the defendant. In order to rebut the contention of the plaintiff, the defendant did not choose to file written statement and failed to cross-examine the witness. Hence, the evidence of PW1 remained un-challenged. Therefore, the point in question is answered in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendant.

10.IN THE RESULT, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 7,39,120/- (Rupees Seven lakhs Thirty Nine thousand and One hundred and Twenty only) together with interest at 12% per annum on principal sum of Rs. 7,39,120/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6 % per annum from the date of decree till full realization.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2023).

Sd/-

FAC. III – ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HANUMAKONDA.

6 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

FOR PLAINTIFF:- FOR DEFENDANT:-

PW.1: Thogaru Vijaya -NIL- EXHIBITS MARKED:-

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A.1: is the Original Pronote, dated : 22-03-2018 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex. A.2: is Rs.50/- Non Judicial Stamp Paper, Dt:25.07.2018 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff

Ex.A3: is the Office copy of Legal notice, dated : 23-11-2019

Ex.A.4: is the Postal receipt No. RN 114417681 IN, dated: 23.11.2019 issued by the Head Post Office, Hanumakonda

Ex.A.5: is the Postal track consignment issued by Superintendent of Post Offices, Hanumakonda Division, dt:04.12.2019

Ex.A6: is the Office copy of legal notice, dated: 13.11.2021

Ex.A.7: is the Postal receipt No. RN 114417505IN, dated:13.11.2021 issued by Head Post Office, Hanumaonda

Ex.A8: is the Postal track consignment issued by Deputy Post Master, Hanumakonda, H.O., dated: 23.11.2021.

FOR DEFENDANT:- -NIL-

Sd/-

FAC. III – ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HANUMAKONDA.

7 of 7

Order Record 213 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/2344/2022	masani vijayalaxmi vs Vsveleti swarupa @ masani swarupa	28 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/4947/2022	M. Komuramma vs Chirra Venkanna	26 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1805/2022	Sardar Satpal singh SI of Kamalapur Ps vs Dukkidi Praveen s/o Satynarayana	26 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
CC/1888/2022	Thota Umadevi vs Dongala Komuraiah	26 Apr 2023	Judgement	Acquitted
OS/765/2022	Canara Bank Kazipet Branch vs Mudusu Laxmi Narayana	25 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1841/2022	Kanchanakuntla Sudhakar Reddy s/o Raghava Reddy vs Cherala Narayana Swamy s/o Mogili	25 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2068/2022	Eruvala Rajitha vs Jakkey Anvesh	25 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/847/2019	BONAGANI RAJITHA vs GOPARAJU LINGAIAH	24 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1153/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S VELAIR vs Kavati Raju	24 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1890/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S VELAIR vs Cheruku Ramesh	24 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/189/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs PARIKIPANDLA SAI KRISHNA	21 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/400077/2014	Nunavath Sarojana vs A1. Nunavath Saraiah	21 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/79/2018	SHO PS REGONDA vs LYAGALA VENKATESH	20 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/104/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs ADEPU HEMANTH	20 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1879/2022	Samala swarupa Rani, W/o. Satyanarayana vs Samala Satyanarayana, S/o. Sri Shilam	19 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1948/2022	T Ganesh Of SI of Police, Kamalapur PS vs Kandi Ramesh s/o Yellaiah	19 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2279/2022	ERROLLA NIRMALA vs ERROLLA SRIKANTH	19 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/394/2022	Dulam Kalavathi vs The District Collector Hanamkonda District	17 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/400121/2016	SHO Kothaguda vs Banoth Anusha	13 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2475/2022	GANABOINA RAJAIAH vs GANABOINA THIRUPATHI	12 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3553/2022	PS ELKATHURTHY vs Vsdiddigam srinivas	12 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/47/2023	Mohammad Khaja Hussain vs Mohammad Fasi Ahmed	03 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4953/2022	Neelakantam Srinivasa Raju vs Thota Sunil	03 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2600/2022	MADAM ODELU @ OMPRAKASH vs ELABOINA RAMESH	03 Apr 2023	Judgement	—
EP/146/2022	Kalpakam Chit Funds Pvt Ltd vs Paidakula Srinivas Rao	29 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/947/2019	CHIRRA VENKATA SWAMY vs GADDAM BABU	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1717/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Gollena Swamy	29 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1894/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Kurapati Bhoomaiah	27 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/6535/2022	KONKATI MAMATHA vs BANOTHU VERANDER	23 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3543/2022	PS ELKATHURTHY vs Vssirangi sridhar	21 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/4861/2022	State of Telangana vs Vsparvatham kanakaiah	21 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1795/2022	Thota Thiurpathi vs Swargam Ranga	20 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1800/2022	Adupa Thirupathi vs Baseri Rajeshwarrao	20 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/106/2022	PS RAYAPARTHY vs MOHAMMED JAVEED PASH	16 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/211/2022	Elukaraju Sadanandam vs Gunju Kumari	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1771/2022	KURAPATI YADAGIRI vs MD FASIUDDIN	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1356/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S Valair vs Vennavaram Ravinder reddy	15 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
OS/700639/2011	Kaluri Bhadraiah vs Kaluri Suresh,	14 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
DVC/38/2022	Potharaju Srilatha, W/o. Rajneekar vs Potharaju Rajneekar, S/o. Balalingam	13 Mar 2023	Order	—
MC/13/2022	Potharaju Srilatha, W/o Rajneekar vs Potharaju Rajneekar, S/o Balalingam	13 Mar 2023	Order	—
OS/1708/2022	Barupati Satyaprakash vs Eera Anil	13 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/91/2019	SHO PS Nellikudur vs VANKUDOTH Mahender	09 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1819/2022	Bandi Lingaiah s/o Chandraiah vs Dubbakula Venkataiah s/o Laxmaiah	08 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2372/2022	POTHRAVENI NALLA KOMURAIAH vs JAKKULA ODELU	08 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/71/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S. GHANPUR(M) vs GUNDU VISHNU	02 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1901/2022	T Ganesh vs Kasthuri Lingaiah	01 Mar 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1930/2022	Siluveru Prathap, S/o. Devaiah vs Kodepaka Aravind, S/o. Venkateshwarlu	27 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2013/2022	Gundeti Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Komuraiah vs Thallapelli Nagaraju, S/o. Mondaiah	27 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2154/2022	KURRA BIKSHAPATHI vs BASHAVENA LINGAIAH	27 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/5167/2022	PS ELKATHURTHY vs Errabelli venkat rao	27 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/13/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs VENDI @ PARANGI VARA PRASAD	24 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1568/2021	Teegal Pushpa vs The District Collector Warangal	23 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4541/2022	Thogaru Vijaya vs Dharavath Ravi	23 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1799/2022	Medi Kalyani Vijayalaxmi vs Koyyada Anjaneyulu	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1855/2022	Bobbala Narsimha Reddy vs Lade Mahender	22 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/58/2022	Indian Bank Kazipet Branch Hanamkonda vs Singarapu Rajaiah	21 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4800/2022	Kunta Peddamma Sunitha vs Pothula Dilip	21 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/37/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA P.S HASANPARTHY vs KODARI KUMAR	17 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/12/2019	SHO PS NARSIMHULAPET vs MARAPELLI SURYA	16 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/33/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs THALLA RAVI THEJA	16 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4416/2022	Challa Vasudeva Reddy vs Narra Ramesh	15 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3942/2019	SHO PS Valair vs Karre Shiva	14 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2152/2022	UPPARA PALLY MALLAIAH vs MUPPU LACHAIAH	13 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2142/2022	YELTHURI RAMESH vs MADAPA SAMPATH REDDY	08 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4453/2022	Koti Anji Reddy vs Y Venkatesh	08 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1919/2022	Kundarapu Bhaskar vs Eggeti Komuraiah	07 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1751/2022	V Sampath S I of Kamalapur vs Rupani Sathaiah s/o Admaiah	07 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/870/2021	ANAGANDULA RUPA @ SARITHA vs BOMMINENI RAMANA REDDY	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1811/2022	Kompelly Kranthi Kumar vs Janne Venugopal	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3932/2019	SHO PS Velair vs Bandi Kumar	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3933/2019	SHO PS Velair vs Bandi Kumar	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3934/2019	SHO PS Valair vs Bandi Kumar	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3936/2019	SHO PS Valair vs Bandi Kumar	06 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/883/2020	BANDA SATHEESH REDDY vs POLASANI NARASINGA RAO	01 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/1195/2022	Balagoni Subhash vs Datla Sambaiah	01 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4458/2022	Pentareddy Vasantha vs Y Venkatesh	01 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1803/2022	Vuppagandla Manohar vs Jakkuraju	01 Feb 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/69/2022	PS NALLABELLI vs LADE SHIVA	27 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/81/2019	SHO PS Kesamudram vs KONKATI VENKATESH	27 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1788/2022	Dharmula Srinivas, S/o Rajaiah vs Dharmula Laxmi, W/o Rayamallu	18 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1796/2022	Nerella Bagyamma, W/o Chandramouli vs Lakum Sarojana, W/o Sadanandaham, 40 yrs	18 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/1857/2022	SK Shakeel baig vs Nune Vijaya	18 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/3140/2018	SHO PS VELAIR vs GUNDU RAJAIAH	11 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/2496/2018	SHO PS VELAIR vs AADARI KUMARASWAMY	10 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
OS/4932/2022	Ramanujapuram Padma vs Chowdarapu Rakesh	09 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/4216/2022	State of Telangana vs Gorre Aravindh	09 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
CC/4217/2022	State of Telangana vs Kemsarapu Arun	09 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
OS/5109/2022	Sura padma vs Allepu Bakkamma	09 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/1/2020	STATE OF TELANGANA PS Duggondi vs BUDDA GANESH	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/129/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs ELIGETI @ ELIKATTE RAMU @ RAGHU RAM	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/186/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MOTTADI PRAMOD REDDY @ SAI	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/192/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MOTTADI PRAMOD REDDY @ SAI	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/193/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MOTTADI PRAMOD REDDY @ SAI	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/194/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs MOTTADI PRAMOD REDDY @ SAI	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/400060/2016	SHO SHayampet vs Kommula Rajkumar	06 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/5/2022	STATE OF TELANGANA vs GAJVELLI ADITHYA	05 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/76/2021	nZtglBqdWQODwcGsKEd8P7+/bfq/XFvaC8skFmDwxBk= vs XXXXX	05 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/134/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs BANOTH BIXAPATHI	05 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/165/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs BANOTH BAVSINGH @PAPA	05 Jan 2023	Judgement	—
JCC/400140/2017	SHO, PS Ghanpur(W) vs Jogu Kalyan	05 Jan 2023	Judgement	—

Showing 100 of 213 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2023		25
Mar 2023		24
Feb 2023		31
Jan 2023		29
Dec 2022		20
Nov 2022		34
Oct 2022		6
Sep 2022		30
Aug 2022		8
Jul 2022		2
Jun 2022		8

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. Saritha Matta handled?

Smt. Saritha Matta has handled 217 court orders since 2022 at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 20 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. Saritha Matta hear?

Based on available records, Smt. Saritha Matta primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Domestic Violence Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt. Saritha Matta currently posted?

Smt. Saritha Matta is posted as III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Hanumakonda at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex, Hanumakonda, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt. Saritha Matta available online?

Yes. 10 judgments by Smt. Saritha Matta are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. Saritha Matta dispose cases?

Smt. Saritha Matta disposes approximately 20 cases per month, based on 217 orders handled over their tenure at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt. Saritha Matta serving?

Smt. Saritha Matta has been serving at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex since 2022.

Case Types

CC 46%

OS 27%

JCC 25%

EP 1%

DVC 1%

MC 0%

Posting History

Aug 2022 — May 2023

III Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-III Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class ,Hanumakonda · 14 orders
Jun 2022 — May 2023

IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-IV Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Juvenile Court) ,Hanumakonda · 203 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 4

Other Judges at this Court

M.R.Sunitha

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda

5 orders

Dr T Srinivas Rao

LRAT-cum- I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Han...

4 orders

Smt. G.L. Sridevi

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda

1 orders

Gandu Rama Lingam

Pricipal Senior Civil Judge-cum- Assistant Session...

247 orders

Smt. V.Usha Kranthi

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge cum I Addl Assistant Se...

35 orders

Smt Sampathi Rao Chandana

II Addl. Senior Civil Judge cum II Addl Assistant...

519 orders

Ms. B.Anusha

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Addl. Judicial M...

0 orders

Mr. Prateek Sihag

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistr...

2 orders

← View all judges at Hanumakonda, PDJ Court Complex