, Smt T.Rajyalakshmi, SC and ST Judge

-1-

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:-Smt. T. Rajya Lakshmi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the POCSO Act, Ananthapuramu FAC. Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes Act-cum-VIII Addl. District Judge, Ananthapuramu FAC. III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, the 6 th day of February, 2023

C.M.A.No.16 of 2017

Between:-

Kummari Sankar … Appellant/Petitioner. AND

1) Kummari Anjinappa,

2) Kummari Nagaraju @ Kummari Nagabhushana,

3) Kummari Thimmaraju,

4) Kaummari Sreenivasulu. … Respondents/Defendants.

On appeal against the order and decree of Junior Civil Judge,

Rayadurg in I.A.No.1162/2016 in O.S.No.204/2016, dated 4.4.2017 between:

Kummari Sankar … Petitioner/Plaintiff.

AND

1) Kummari Anjinappa,

2) Kummari Nagaraju @ Kummari Nagabhushana,

3) Kummari Thimmaraju,

4) Kaummari Sreenivasulu. … Respondents/Defendants.

This appeal coming on 23.1.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Lakshmana Char and Sri S.Surendra Chary,

Advocates for the appellant and Sri C.Nagaraju, Advocate for the respondents, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:- -2-

O R D E R

This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (C) of C.P.C on behalf of the appellant praying to set aside the order and decree dated 4.4.2017 passed in I.A.No.1162/2016 in O.S.No.204/2016 by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg and grant temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellant/petitioner over the schedule mentioned property.

2.The appellant/plaintiff filed I.A.1162 of 2016 before the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg for grant of injunction against the respondents/defendants stating that he got the petition schedule property in oral partition among his brothers and since the date of partition, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property without interruption from anybody by raising crops and considering his right, title, interest, possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities of Gummagatta Mandal issued pattadar pas book and title deed in favour of him after due enquiry. The respondents who have nothing to do with the petition schedule property are trying to dispossess him with ulterior motive and they are utter strangers and they are nothing to do with the petition schedule property and they never in possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

Recently some misunderstandings arose between him and respondents and due to ill-feelings, they are making efforts to disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment of petition schedule property highhandedly.

About week days back, they tried to disturb his possession and enjoyment over the petition schedule property and same is averted at the intervention of elders. Since yesterday, they are proclaiming in the village that they will disturb his peaceful possession and enjoyment -3- and if they are allowed to do so, he will be put to serious loss and damage. He is helpless person and under these circumstances, he is constrained to seek for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

3.The respondents filed counter denying the case of the petitioner specifically and it is submitted that they are absolute owners of petition schedule property and have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of it by regularly raising crops. Originally the petition schedule property belongs to their grandfather by name Kummari

Uleppa, who got the same through the conditional registered sale deed, dt.29.09.1948. He died in the year 1969. On his death, it devolved on his son Kummari Bheemappa who is their father and since then

Kummari Bheemappa has been in possession and enjoyment of it and recognizing his possession and enjoyment over the same, the revenue authorities of Gummagatta Mandal issued a pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour about 24 years back and his name is recorded in Adangals for the fasli 1400, 1401, 1402, 1404, 1405, 1407, 1409, 1410, 1412, 1415, 1416, 1417, 1418 and 1423. Kummari Bheemappa died intestate on 16.06.1999 leaving behind them/ respondents herein as his legal heirs. On his death, they inherited the petition schedule property being heirs. Since then they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same without any let or hindrance from anybody by regularly raising crops. The petitioner is a litigant in the general public, hatched a master plan to knock away schedule property and got incorporated the same in his pattadar pass book and title deed and prevailed upon the then revenue officials and got incorporated in revenue records by striking the names of defendants’ father Kummari -4-

Bheemappa in 1-B and Adangal. After coming to know it, they approached revenue officials Gummagatta Mandal and filed petition

before the Tahsildar, Gummagatta requesting to cancel the name of the

plaintiff in 1-B and adangal with respect to plaint schedule property and incorporate their names in it. The then Tahsildar, Gummagatta conducted an enquiry into the matter and passed an order on 2.8.2016 in R.C.No.119/2016 directing the Village Revenue Officer of S.Hosalli

Village of Gummagatta Mandal, to delete the name of the plaintiff in 1-

B and adangal and incorporate the names of the defendants in the place of plaintiff and same is communicated to the plaintiff and defendants. Then with afterthought, the plaintiff approached this court and filed unjust suit against the defendants in order to avoid revenue authorities in proceeding with their proposed act of cancellation of his name in 1-B and adangal of the plaint schedule property and incorporate the names of defendants in it. Therefore, plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands and so no injunction can be granted in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, sought to dismiss the petition with costs.

4.During course of enquiry, before the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Rayadurg, on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, Exs.P.1 to P.3 are

marked and on behalf of the respondents, Exs.R.1 to R.5 are marked.

5.No oral evidence was adduced. After considering the material on record and on hearing both sides, the learned Junior Civil

Judge, Rayadurg dismissed the petition by order dt.4.4.2017 vacating

ad-interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the petitioner.

6.Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/appellant filed this appeal contending in the grounds of appeal that the order passed -5- by the trial court is against law and trial court ought to have granted temporary injunction and trial court failed to consider properly the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant herein and he filed adangal/Ex.P.3 to show his possession on the date of filing of the suit and erred in considering the alleged registered sale deed/Ex.R.1. The said document is registered mortgage and the mortgagee got only right to realize the amount. The trial court considered the title as prima facie case. It ought to have considered the possession over the petition schedule property. The trial court erred in considering the proceedings of the Tahsildar/Ex.R.5 which was issued after filing of the suit.

Therefore, sought to set aside the order and decree, dated 4.4.2017 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg and grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner.

7.Heard the learned counsel for appellant and learned counsel for respondents.

8.The learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that the petitioner got the plaint schedule property in oral partition and has been in possession and enjoyment of it and his name is entered in revenue record for the suit schedule property and he is issued pattadar pass book. Ex.P.1/pattadar pass book, Ex.P.2/1-B extract and

Ex.P.3/adangal for the fasli 1426 clearly shows that the petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. He further contended that one of the adangal for the fasli 1426 filed by the respondents itself shows that the petition schedule property in Sy.No.33 is in the name of petitioner. So the petitioner’s possession over the schedule property has been established and inspite of it, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the petition. He further contended that Ex.R.1 is conditional mortgage -6- and even in the said mortgage, primacy number is mentioned as 33 and said number is not survey number basing on such document they are claiming title. Since the primacy number is different and Sy.No.33 is not there in Ex.R.1 mortgage deed, the respondents claim that their grandfather got it has no basis. He further contended that the Tahsildar has no right to pass orders for deleting the name of petitioner in 1-B and adangals. So the respondents cannot take any benefit from Ex.R.5 orders of Tahsildar. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit and there is a threat of interference from the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for injunction and therefore, sought to allow the appeal and grant injunction.

9.The learned counsel for the respondents mainly contended that the plaint schedule property is obtained by grandfather of respondents under Ex.R.1 registered conditional mortgage deed, in the year 1948 and since then he had been in possession and enjoyment of it and after his death, his son Bheemappa had got title and possession and after his death, his sons i.e., defendants have got property and the revenue record has been in the name of grandfather of respondents and thereafter in the name of his son since long time in respect of petition schedule property and same speaks the possession of respondents’ grandfather and father over it and the plaintiff by way of foul play got incorporated his name by influencing the revenue authorities and claiming the petition schedule property and on the representation of the respondents, Tahsildar passed order under Ex.R.5 for deletion of name of petitioner in 1-B adandal for the suit schedule property and incorporate the names of respondents. To stop the revenue authorities from implementing the said order, the petitioner -7- filed the unjust suit and claiming injunction and he has not come with clean hands and therefore, he is not entitled for any injunction against true owners. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the C.M.A.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for temporary injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the order dated 4.4.2017 passed by the learned

Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg is sustainable in law?

3. To what relief?

11.Point No.1:-

The party, who is claiming temporary injunction, has to establish that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and that if injunction is not granted, he will be put to irreparable loss and injury. According to appellant, he got the petition schedule property in the oral partition among his brothers and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it and his name is entered in revenue record. He filed Ex.P.1 pattadar pass book and

Ex.P.2 1B extract and Ex.P.3 adangal for fasli 1426 wherein schedule property is recorded in his name as pattadar and enjoydar. Where as, it is the case of respondents that their grandfather Uleppa got plaint schedule property under Ex.R.1 conditional mortgage deed, dt.29.09.1948 and since then their grandfather had been in possession and enjoyment and after his demise, his father K.Bheemappa had been in possession and enjoyment of it and his name is entered in revenue record and he is issued Ex.R.2/pattadar pass book and Ex.R.3/title deed and also in adangals, his name is there as pattadar and enjoydar of schedule property and after his demise, they have been in possession and enjoyment of it and the plaintiff by foul play got incorporated his -8- name in 1-B adangal for the fasli 1426 in respect of schedule property and got inserted the plaint schedule property in his pass book which was issued for another property and on coming to know the same, they made a representation before the Tahasildar, Gummagatta and

Tahasildar made enquiry and ordered for deletion of name of plaintiff in 1-B and adangal under Ex.R.5.

12.From the version of the respondents, it is clear that they are claiming title over the plaint schedule property under Ex.R.1 registered conditional mortgage deed, dt.29.09.1948. Even though the learned counsel for appellant contended during course of arguments that the survey number of plaint schedule property is not there in

Ex.R.1 and the primacy number in Ex.R.1 is 33 and primacy and survey number are different and plaint schedule property survey number i.e., 33 is not there in Ex.R.1 and so the claim of the respondents that they got title for the petition schedule property under Ex.R.1 is not correct, in the grounds of appeal the appellant while contending that the trial court erred in considering the alleged registered sale deed (Ex.R.1), he submitted that the above said document is a registered mortgage and the mortgagee got only right to realize the amount. This submission indicates that the appellant/petitioner is admitting that Ex.R.1 registered mortgage is in favour of grandfather of respondents/defendants for the plaint schedule property. But according to him, it is not a title document and mortgagee got only the right to realize the amount. The said aspect will be decided after thorough trial.

As of now, appellant/petitioner is admitting that there is a registered mortgage deed in favour of grandfather of respondents by name

Uleppa. In the said Ex.R.1 registered mortgage deed, the schedule property which is shown with primacy No.33, has been mortgaged in -9- favour of Uleppa who is admittedly grandfather of respondents and delivered possession of it by the mortgagor on 29.09.1948 to him. So grandfather of respondents got possession of petition schedule property in the year 1948 itself under Ex.R.1. Exs.R.2 and R.3 title deed and pass books reveal that father of respondents was issued pattadar pass book and title deed with respect to petition schedule property.

Ex.R.4 adangals for the faslies 1400, 1401, 1402, 1404, 1405, 1407, 1409, 1410, 1412, 1415, 1416, 1417 and 1418 reveal that the petition schedule property stands in the name of Bheemappa, who is father of respondents, as possessor. It is true in one of Ex.R.4 adangals for the fasli 1423, the name of Bheemappa is rounded off and the name of the appellant/petitioner is entered as possessor with respect to the plaint schedule property. But when the grandfather of respondents got the possession of the petition schedule property under Ex.R.1 and had been in possession and enjoyment of it and thereafter his son

Bheemappa had been in possession and enjoyment of it and his name is entered in revenuer record and adangals for the faslies 1400, 1401, 1402, 1404, 1405, 1407, 1409, 1410, 1412, 1415, 1416, 1417, and 1418 stand in his name as possessor, how could petitioner gets the possession of the petition schedule property. It is not the case of petitioner that he got the petition schedule property from the respondents’ grandfather or their father and therefore, he could come into the possession of the property and his name is inserted in the place of respondents' father. In Ex.R.5 order, Tahsildar mentioned that the petitioner claimed the schedule property basing on agreement of sale said to be entered between his father and Bheemappa. But petitioner has been challenging the said order and even it is never the case of petitioner that agreement of sale is entered between -10-

Bheemappa and his father for petition schedule property and so his name has been entered. If that is so, it would have been different but it is the specific case of the petitioner that he got the petition schedule property in oral partition among his brothers and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of it.

13.Here it is relevant to note that the petitioner had not filed any document standing in the name of his predecessors to show that his predecessors are in possession and enjoyment of it and in oral partition among his brothers, he got it. Atleast he did not tell when oral partition has taken place. On the other hand, the respondents have placed Ex.R.1 showing that the possession of schedule property had been delivered to their grandfather and Exs.R.2 and R.3 showing that the plaint schedule property is entered in the name of their father in revenue record and Ex.R.4/adangals showing that his father had been in possession and enjoyment of it. When it is so and when the petitioner failed to establish how he got possession of the petition schedule property from the respondents, possession over petition schedule property claimed by him basing on Exs.P.1 to P.3 cannot be accepted that too when Ex.R.5 order has been passed by Tahsildar for deletion of name of the petitioner in 1-B and adangal. The genuinity or otherwise of Ex.R.5 order cannot be gone into in this petition and it will be decided after full pledged trial.

For the foregoing discussion, it is held that the appellant/petitioner failed to prove that there is a prima facie case and balance of convenience is in his favour and so appellant is not entitled for the relief of temporary injunction.

-11-

14.Point No.2:-

In view of findings in the above point, I find that the order and decree dated 04.04.2017 passed by learned Junior Civil Judge,

Rayadurg is quite sustainable in law.

15.Point No.3:-

In the result, the C.M.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court this the 6th day of February, 2023.

Sd/-T.Rajya Lakshmi,

FAC. III Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

- Nil -

Id/- T.R.L,

FAC. III A.D.J.

Copy to the Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg along with trial Court records in I.A.No.1162/2016 in O.S.No.204/2016.

//By order//

Superintendent, III A.D.J Court, Ananthapuramu.

­1­

In the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),

Ananthapuramu

Present:- Smt T.Rajya Lakshmi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu FAC.III Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 30th day of September, 2022

Sessions Case No.100 of 2019

[Cr.No.90 of 2017 of Kanaganapalli P.S]

Name of complainant :Sub Inspector of Police, Kanaganapalli P.S.

Crime No. and PS:Cr.No.90 of 2017 of Kanaganapalli P.S

Name of accused:Garaka Nagesh, aged 38 years, Son of G.Thimmaiah, Thagarakunta Village, Kanaganapalli Mandal.

Charges:Charge u/sec.302 IPC is framed against accused.

Plea of accused:Not guilty.

Finding of Judge:Not guilty.

Order or sentence:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of said charge U/sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Case conducted by:Sri K.V.Ramana Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused is defended :Sri Y.Narasimhulu, advocate, Anantapuramu. by

This case coming on 26.9.2022 for hearing before me and after hearing the counsel of both parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Ramagiri Circle filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.90 of 2017 of Kanaganapalli Police Station alleging that the deceased Venkataramudu and accused are brothers and deceased married P.W.6 Narayanamma about 15 years back and all are ­2­ residing under one roof in RDT house in S.C. Colony of Thagarakunta. After few days of marriage, P.W.6 started to move closely with accused. Since accused is unmarried, the deceased Venkataramudu started suspecting his wife Narayanamma that she developed illegal intimacy with accused and in that regard, deceased and accused used to quarrel often. About three months prior to the incident, accused quarrelled with the deceased and witnessing the same, P.W.6 Narayanamma left for Bangalore and living there. Deceased grew wild against accused as his wife left his company because of him and warned him that he will kill him and on that, accused decided to kill his brother to get rid off from the issue. On 31.10.2017 at evening, accused and deceased quarreled with each other. Witnessing the same, P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are their parents and neighbours separated them, then accused left the place and returned to house at 8.30 p.m. and noticed deceased was sleeping infront of the house on the cot and he took pestle available near the house and beat him on his head twice with pestle resulting death of deceased. Thus, accused committed the offence U/sec. 302 IPC.

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmavaram,

before whom the above charge sheet was filed, has taken cognizance of the

offence U/sec.302 IPC against accused and registered it as P.R.C.No.32/2018 and committed it to the court of Sessions U/sec.209 Cr.P.C, as the offence

U/sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu registered it as S.C.100/2019 and made over

it to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

3.On appearance of accused and on hearing the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, charge U/sec. 302 IPC has been framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu to which, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

4.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 are examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.20 and M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of other witnesses/L.W.13

E.Jagadeesh, L.W.14 J.B.Pothi Reddy, L.W.15 Y.Radha Krishna, VRO, ­3­

Kanagapalli village and Mandal and L.W.18 K.Jaya Nagaraj, Scientific

Assistant, RFSL, Tirupati.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined

U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Accused denied it and reported no evidence on his behalf.

6.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

7.Now the point for determination is, “Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against accused for the offence U/sec.302 IPC with which he is charged, beyond reasonable doubt?

8.POINT:-

It is the case of prosecution that accused and deceased

Venkataramudu are own brothers and wife of deceased started moving with accused closely and so deceased developed suspicion that his wife developed illegal intimacy with accused and in that regard, quarrel had taken place between brothers often and in view of said quarrel about three months back of incident, wife of deceased left for Bangalore and due to it, deceased grew wild against his brother and warned him to kill and on that accused decided to kill his brother and on 31.10.2017 at evening hours they both had quarrel and their parents and neighbours intervened and at about 8.30 a.m., while deceased was sleeping on cot infront of the house, accused beat him on his head with pestle and caused his death. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are parents of deceased and accused, P.W.7 is son of deceased, P.W.4, P.W.8 to P.W.10 and

P.W.12 are relatives and P.W.5 is villager of deceased and accused. According to prosecution, P.Ws.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 12 are eye witnesses to the quarrel between accused and deceased and incident of murder of deceased. But P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated before court that about 5 years back, the deceased

Venkataramudu got fits and fell down from the cot and sustained injury and died. P.Ws.4 and 5 stated that they came to know that about 5 years back, ­4­ deceased Venkataramudu got fits and fell down from the cot and sustained injury and died. P.W.7 son of deceased stated that about 5 years back, the deceased Venkataramudu got fits and fell down on stone and sustained head injury and died. P.Ws.8, 9, 10 and 12 also stated that about 5 years back, the deceased Venkataramudu got fits while he was sleeping on cot and fell down and sustained injury to his head and died. Thus, P.Ws.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 12 did not support the case of prosecution. They were declared hostile and were cross-examined but nothing was elicited from them that supports the case of prosecution. They even denied to have stated before police as in Exs.P.2 to 5, 7, 10 and 14 their statements recorded U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5, 7 to 10 and 12 is of no use for the prosecution.

9.P.W.6 Narayanamma is wife of deceased. According to prosecution, the deceased suspected that his wife developed illegal intimacy with the accused that ensued quarrel between brothers and leaving the company of deceased by her which led to further quarrel between brothers which resulted the incident and death of deceased. But P.W.6 stated before court that she and her husband lived happily and they had no disputes and her husband was suffering from fits and therefore, she left him and children at village and went to Bangalore for livelihood and about 5 years back, while her husband was sleeping on cot, he got fits and fell down from the cot and died.

In view of this evidence of P.W.6, she was declared hostile and was cross- examined. In the cross-examination, nothing was elicited from her that supports the case of prosecution. She even denied to have stated before police as in Ex.P.6/161 Cr.P.C statement. So the evidence of P.W.6 is also of no use for prosecution. P.W.1 is Village Revenue Assistant in Tagarakunta village at relevant time and defacto-complainant. According to prosecution,

P.W.1 gave a report with regard to incident of murder of deceased. P.W.1 stated that he knew the deceased Venkataramudu and he died on 31.10.2017.

Villagers informed him that there was illegal contact between accused and his sister-in-law and in that connection,accused beat the deceased with pestle and caused his death. Immediately, he went to the scene of offence and found the ­5­ deceased died, then he went to police station and gave Ex.P.1 report. P.W.15

Sub-Inspector of Police, Kanaganapalli Police Station at relevant time stated that on 31.10.2017 at 10.30 p.m., P.W.1 came to police station and presented

Ex.P.1 written complaint and basing on it, he registered a case in

Cr.No.90/2017 u/sec. 302 IPC under Ex.P.17 FIR. As per the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 report, P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident. P.W.15 also in the cross-examination stated that P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the incident. As per P.W.1, he came to know through the villagers that there was illegal contact between accused and his sister-in-law and in that connection, accused beat the deceased with pestle and caused his death. P.W.1 did not state names of villagers who informed him about the illegal contact between accused and his sister-in-law and in that connection, accused beat the deceased with pestle. In his cross-examination he stated that he has no personal knowledge of family affairs of accused and deceased and illegal intimacy with accused and his sister-in-law and he cannot say the names of villagers who gave the information. It is elicited from P.W.1 in the cross by defence that deceased fell down from cot and sustained injury and died. In view of above evidence of

P.W.1, his evidence is also of no use for the prosecution.

10.P.W.14 is doctor who conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased. He stated that on 1.11.2017 as per requisition of police at 1.00 p.m., he conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased

Venkataramudu and found lacerated injury of 6 x 2 c.m., over the forehead, lacerated injury of 8 x 1 c.m. over the occiput, fracture of occiput noted, bleeding from left ear, haemotoma of 4 x 1 c.m., noted over cerebrum and he issued Ex.P.16 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to cerebral hemorrhage or neurogenic shock. Accused is not disputing the death of Venkataramudu due to head injury. But his defence is that deceased fell down from the cot and sustained injury on his head and died and even it was elicited from doctor that the injuries mentioned in postmortem certificate are possible due to fall from height on rough surface and stone.

­6­

11.The prosecution wants to connect the accused with the death of deceased stating that accused made extra judicial confession before Village

Revenue Officer i.e., P.W.11. P.W.11 stated that on 7.11.2017 accused came to him while he was in Tahsildar office, Tagarakunta and made confession that he killed his brother/Venkataramudu and asked him to produce him before police and he recorded his confession and produced accused along with his confessional statement and report, through him, extra judicial confession and his report are marked as Exs.P.12 and P.13 respectively. P.W.11 in his cross- examination admitted that Ex.P.12 extra judicial confession does not contain the signature of accused and Ex.P.13 also does not contain the signature of accused and he admitted that he prepared extra judicial confession/Ex.P.12 as per instructions of police. This admission goes to the root of his evidence given in chief that accused came to him and confessed about the offence and he recorded his confession. When admittedly, Ex.P.12 extra judicial confession is prepared as per instructions of police, it cannot be treated as extra judicial confession of accused and in view of it and further admittedly Ex.P.12 does not contain the signature of accused, no weight can be given to it.

12.P.W.16 Investigating Officer speaks that on 7.11.2017 after P.W.11 produced accused in police station with special report and extra judicial confession, he secured L.W.15 Yadava Radhakrishna and P.W.13 Bathala

Nallappa and in the presence of mediators, he arrested accused under cover of Ex.P.15 arrest mahazar. P.W.13 Village Revenue Officer speaks that on 7.11.2017 at 1.00 p.m., as per instructions of M.R.O, he and Radhakrishna went to Kanaganapalli police station and at that time P.W.11/Maruthi Prasad,

C.I, S.I, Constables and accused were present in the police station and accused confessed the offence and police arrested accused in their presence under cover of arrest mahazar/Ex.P.15. So according to P.W.16 and P.W.13, the accused confessed about the offence and then he was arrested under Ex.P.15 mahazar. The confession made by accused while in the custody of police cannot be used against him in view of bar u/sec.25 and 26 of Indian Evidence

Act.

­7­

13.P.W.16 also speaks that he visited scene of offence and observed it and prepared rough sketch of scene under Ex.P.18 and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased at the scene of offence under Ex.P.11 inquest report in the presence of P.W11, L.W.13/Jagadeesh, L.W.14/Bala Pothi Reddy and during inquest, he seized M.O.1 pestle and M.O.2 wooden blanket. P.W.11

Village Revenue Officer also stated that police conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Venkataramudu on 1.11.2017 at the house of deceased in his presence and in the presence of Sarpanch Jagadeesh and Bala Pothi

Reddy and during inquest, police seized pestle and wooden blanket and police prepared Ex.P.11 inquest report and they attested it. This evidence of P.W.16 and P.W.11 does not connect the accused with the offence alleged as there is no evidence before the court to say that accused beat the deceased with pestle and caused his death.

14.As noticed above, all the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and did not speak anything against accused and extra judicial confession is not proved to be true and there is no other evidence

before the court to say that accused committed murder of deceased by hitting

with pestle on his head. Therefore, it is held that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence U/sec.302 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is to be acquitted for the offence with which he is charged. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.302 IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted of said charge

U/sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months, as contemplated U/s.437-A of

Cr.P.C. M.O.1 and M.O.2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 30th day of September, 2022. Sd/­ T.Rajya Lakshmi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases, Ananthapuramu. FAC Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, (FTC), Ananthapuramu.

­8­

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1: M.Syam Kumar. - None- P.W.2: G.Thimmaiah. P.W.3: G.Subbamma. P.W.4: G.Chittemma. P.W.5: S.Narayanaswamy. P.W.6: G.Narayanamma. P.W.7: G.Raja Sekhar. P.W.8: G.Govindu. P.W.9: G.Venkatesulu. P.W.10: Lingamma. P.W.11: K.Maruthi Prasad, VRO. P.W.12: G.Peddanna. P.W.13: B.Nallappa, VRO. P.W.14: Dr.K.Lakshmi Ram Naik. P.W.15: M.Rama Rao, Inspector of Police. P.W.16: V.Yugandhar, Circle Inspector.

Exhibits marked for prosecution

Ex.P.1 : Report. Ex.P.2 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.3 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.4 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.5 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 Ex.P.6 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.7 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.8 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.9 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9. Ex.P.10 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10. Ex.P.11 : Inquest report. Ex.P.12: Extra judicial confession statement. Ex.P.13 : Report. Ex.P.14 : 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12. Ex.P15 : Arrest mahazarnama. Ex.P.16 : Postmortem certificate. Ex.P.17: First information report. Ex.P.18 : Rough sketch. Ex.P.19 : Letter of advice. Ex.P20: R.F.S.L Report. Exhibits marked for defence: Nil ­9­

Mos. marked for prosecution:

M.O.1: Pestle.

M.O.2: Woolen blanket. Id/- T.R.L. FAC. Addl.Dist Sessions Judge.

Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000070/2021 Vaikuntam Venkataramana Vs Ukkisala Madhavaiah

Date : 01-03-2023

Presence: Vaikuntam Venkataramana N.P.Sreenivasulu Ukkisala Madhavaiah S.Ramalinaga Reddy Business: Salary attachment served. Attachment is made absolute. EP is closed. Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 01-03-2023 III Addl. District Judge

Daily Status

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000070/2021 Vaikuntam Venkataramana Vs Ukkisala Madhavaiah

Date : 01-03-2023

Presence: Vaikuntam Venkataramana N.P.Sreenivasulu Ukkisala Madhavaiah S.Ramalinaga Reddy Business: Salary attachment served. Attachment is made absolute. EP is closed. Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 01-03-2023 III Addl. District Judge

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0001289/2017 D.Sreenivasulu Vs S.Anasuya

Date : 16-11-2022

Presence: D.Sreenivasulu

D SHYAM SUNDER

S.Anasuya S.Amaresh R.Jayalakshmi Exhibits: since Business: since not pressed. This EP is dismissed. Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED Disposal Date: 16-11-2022 III Addl. District Judge