Smt. Sravana Swathi Chintada

1 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

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

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: HANUMAKONDA.

Present: Smt. Sravana Swathi Chintada, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum – I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026.

D.V.C. NO.17 OF 2015.

(Old D.V.C. No.2 of 2013)

BETWEEN:

1.Ramula Swapna, W/o. Sammaiah, Aged 28 years, occ: Household.

2.Ramula Rudya, D/o. Sammaiah, Aged 7 years, Occ: Student, (being minor, represented by her natural mother/next friend as guardian i.e., petitioner No.1 herein).

Both are R/o. Chowtuparthy village, Parkal mandal,

Warangal district, presently R/o. Rahamatnagar, Kazipet. ...Petitioners

AND

1.Ramula Sammaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 36 years, Occ:Railway employee.

2.Ramula Srinivas, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ: Railway employee.

3.Ramula Yadagiri, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee.

4.Ramula Narsaiah, S/o. Not known, Aged 60 years, Occ: Retd. Employee.

5.Ramula Narsamma, W/o. Narsaiah, Aged 55 years, Occ: House hold.

All are R/o. H.No.1-1-1380, Venkatadrinagar, Kazipet, Hanumakonda district.

...Respondents

This case is coming on 05.03.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Samsani Sunil, Counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. Satyanarayana, Counsel for the respondent No.1 and petition against the respondents No.2 to 5 was dismissed due to not payment of process and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court made the following:

2 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

O R D E R

1.The petitioners have instituted the present petition under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking multiple reliefs against the respondents, including protection orders, provision of shelter, and maintenance, among other ancillary reliefs.

2.The brief averments of the petitioners are as follows: Petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of respondent No.1, and petitioner No.2 is their daughter.

Respondents No.2 to 5 are the family members of respondent No.1. The marriage of petitioner No.1 with respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.06.2005 at Sri

Bugulu Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chilpurgutta, Ghanpur Station Mandal,

Warangal District, in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions. At the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondents, the parents of petitioner No.1 presented gold jewellery and fulfilled all customary marriage formalities.

Thereafter, petitioner No.1 joined the matrimonial home of respondent No.1, the marriage was consummated, and out of the wedlock, petitioner No.2 was born.

It is further averred that, at the time of marriage, the respondents represented that respondent No.1 was employed as a Clerk in the South Central

Railways at the Electrical Loco Shed, Kazipet Railway Station. Believing the said representation, and upon the insistence of the respondents, the mother of petitioner No.1 was compelled to perform the marriage in haste, without making adequate enquiries, in the hope of securing a better future for her daughter.

3 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

After joining the matrimonial home, petitioner No.1 came to know that respondent No.1 was already married earlier, had a son, and had allegedly divorced his previous two wives, making petitioner No.1 his third wife. This material fact was deliberately suppressed by the respondents at the time of marriage. When petitioner No.1 questioned the same, the respondents allegedly threatened her, stating that respondent No.1 had earlier divorced two wives and that she too would meet a similar fate if she did not comply with their demands.

It is further stated that petitioner No.1 went to her parental home for delivery and gave birth to petitioner No.2, a female child, on 30.07.2006. The respondents did not visit or care for the petitioners. After about three months, petitioner No.1 returned to the matrimonial home and resumed cohabitation with respondent No.1. However, during this period, respondent No.1 initiated proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights before the Family Court, Warangal, despite petitioner No.1 residing with him, and obtained an ex parte decree in O.P.

No.39 of 2007. Subsequently, he caused issuance of a legal notice to petitioner

No.1, which her family members, being illiterate, could not comprehend.

Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in O.P.

No.103 of 2007 before the learned Family Judge, Warangal, which is being contested by petitioner No.1.

The petitioners further submit that they had filed M.C. No.34 of 2008 before the Family Court, Warangal, seeking maintenance from respondent No.1, but the same was dismissed for default without their knowledge. Upon coming to know of the same, they changed their counsel and are contesting the divorce proceedings.

4 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

It is further alleged that the respondents have been making threatening calls, pressurising the petitioners to concede to their illegal demand for divorce. The respondents, being residents of the same locality, are allegedly continuing such threats.

It is also averred that petitioner No.1 is a housewife with no independent source of income and that the petitioners are leading a life of hardship, dependent on the mercy of her mother. The petitioners claim that petitioner No.1 requires a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and petitioner No.2 requires Rs.5,000/- per month towards food, clothing, medical expenses, and other necessities.

It is further stated that respondent No.1 is employed as a Clerk in the South

Central Railways at Kazipet, earning a monthly salary of approximately Rs.30,000/-, and is also possessed of agricultural lands and a residential house. He is stated to have sufficient means to maintain the petitioners but has wilfully neglected and failed to provide any maintenance despite repeated demands. It is contended that respondent No.1 is under a legal obligation to maintain the petitioners and, being a

Government employee with a stable income and standard of living, is also bound to provide suitable accommodation to them in accordance with his status. Hence, the petition.

3.On 26.07.2013 the petition relief against the respondents No.2 to 5 was dismissed for non payment of process by the petitioners.

4.The respondent No.1 filed his counter denying the material averments of the petition, while admitting that petitioner No.1 is his legally wedded wife and 5 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015 petitioner No.2 is their daughter. He admits that their marriage was solemnized on 26.06.2005 at Sri Bugulu Venkateshwara Swamy Temple, Chilpurgutta, Ghanpur

Station, in accordance with Hindu customs and rituals, and that petitioner No.1 joined his matrimonial home at Kazipet, the marriage was consummated, and petitioner No.2 was born out of the wedlock. He further states that respondents

No.2 to 5 are his family members.

The respondent No.1 contends that respondents No.2 to 5 are residing separately at different places in connection with their employment and have no nexus with the present case, and that they have been unnecessarily implicated. He denies all allegations of harassment. He further submits that petitioner No.1 had earlier filed M.C. No.34 of 2008 before the Family Court, Warangal, which was dismissed for default. According to him, the present allegations are false and have been made only to claim maintenance. He asserts that he owns no house either at

Tharalapally or Kazipet, has no landed property, and is residing in a rented house by paying Rs.3,000/- per month as rent.

It is further contended that no dowry was demanded or received at the time of marriage, as petitioner No.1 belonged to a poor family and had no financial capacity, and that he himself bore the marriage expenses. He states that prior to the marriage, he had disclosed his past marital history, including the circumstances under which he obtained divorce from his earlier wives. He further states that he has a son, Sai Krishna, through his first wife, and that petitioner No.1, along with her family members, had verified the divorce decrees passed by the competent courts and, being satisfied, consented to the marriage.

6 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

The respondent further submits that after marriage, the couple resided at

Kazipet, and the sister of petitioner No.1, namely Bandi Buchamma, frequently visited their residence and allegedly influenced petitioner No.1 adversely. It is alleged that, under such influence, petitioner No.1 started quarrelling with the respondent and insisted that he should separate from his minor son, Sai Krishna.

The respondent asserts that he is deeply attached to his son, who was then about 7 years old and without maternal care, and therefore refused to part with him.

The respondent submits that he has two sons from his earlier marriages, namely Sai Krishna and Vamshi Krishna, who are residing with his mother. He states that Sai Krishna is pursuing Intermediate education at Hyderabad and Vamshi

Krishna is studying 8th class at Kazipet. He further submits that maintenance of

Rs.1,500/- per month each was awarded in M.C. No.5 of 2008 by the Family Court,

Warangal. He contends that, though he is employed as a Clerk in South Central

Railways, after statutory deductions, his take-home salary is only about Rs.5,000/- per month.

The respondent contends that due to the alleged instigation of her sister, petitioner No.1 began behaving indifferently towards him and insisted that he separate from his sons. He submits that petitioner No.1 stayed with him until she was seven months pregnant and thereafter left for her parental home for delivery.

Upon receiving information of the birth of petitioner No.2 on 30.07.2006, he states that he, along with his parents, visited her, stayed for two days, incurred expenses, and thereafter continued to visit and enquire about her welfare.

7 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

It is further stated that the respondent frequently visited petitioner No.1 at her parental village and, after three months, brought her and the child back to his residence at Kazipet, accompanied by her mother. However, within three days, petitioner No.1 allegedly left his company and returned to her parental home in

October 2006, where she has been residing since then. The respondent claims that despite repeated requests and several mediations, petitioner No.1 refused to resume cohabitation.

The respondent submits that, having failed in his efforts to bring petitioner

No.1 back, he filed O.P. No.39 of 2007 for restitution of conjugal rights. As petitioner No.1 did not appear despite service of summons, an ex parte decree was passed on 11.04.2007 directing her to rejoin his society. He further states that even thereafter she failed to comply with the decree. He also issued a legal notice dated 19.05.2007 calling upon her to resume cohabitation, but she neither complied nor responded. He contends that petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted him, causing him mental agony.

The respondent further alleges that he has been receiving threatening calls from the relatives of petitioner No.1, including her sister, creating apprehension for his safety. He contends that petitioner No.1 and her sister have been harassing and blackmailing him, demanding that he deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of petitioner No.1 and provide 12 tulas of gold, which he was unable to fulfil. He further states that one Mr. M. Ravi, a railway driver and mediator of the marriage, was present when such demands were made.

8 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

The respondent reiterates that despite repeated efforts on his part, petitioner No.1 refused to rejoin him under the influence of her sister. He states that, notwithstanding her alleged conduct, he is still willing to forgive her and resume matrimonial life in the interest of their minor child and family harmony.

However, he contends that the reliefs sought in the petition are not maintainable in law, as petitioner No.1 voluntarily deserted him. He further asserts that she is not entitled to any relief, including protection or maintenance, and that he lacks sufficient means to pay maintenance in view of his obligations towards his children from earlier marriages. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.

5.To substantiate the claim, the petitioner examined Pws.1 and 2 and got marked Exts.P1 to P3. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1 to R9.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.1.

Perused the material evidence on record.

7.Point for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioners have proved that they were subjected

to domestic violence by the respondent No.1 and are entitled to

the reliefs sought under the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005?”

8.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even a divorced wife is entitled to claim maintenance under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as the Act is a beneficial and social welfare legislation intended to protect the rights of aggrieved women. In support of this 9 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015 contention, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Rina Kumari @ Rina Devi @ Reena v. Dinesh Kumar Mahto, wherein it was held that mere passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights at the instance of the husband, and non-compliance thereof by the wife, would not ipso facto attract the disqualification under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. It was further held that where the wife has justifiable and sufficient reasons to live separately, the bar under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. would not operate.

9.Placing reliance on the aforesaid principle, the learned counsel submits that the respondent cannot take shelter under the decree for restitution of conjugal rights or the subsequent divorce decree to deny maintenance, particularly when the separation of the petitioner is on account of the conduct of the respondent. It is further argued that the right to maintenance is a continuing right, and even a divorced woman can seek monetary relief under the DV Act during the subsistence of the domestic relationship. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioners are legally entitled to claim maintenance and other reliefs notwithstanding the decree for restitution of conjugal rights or dissolution of marriage, and the same cannot operate as an absolute bar to the reliefs sought.

10.Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the parties for about seven years prior to the filing of the present petition, and therefore, the very foundation for invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is absent. It is further contended that petitioner No.1 had earlier instituted maintenance proceedings before the Family Court in M.C. No.34 of 2008, which 10 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015 came to be dismissed for default, and having failed to pursue the said remedy, she cannot now seek maintenance under the present proceedings. It is also argued that the marital relationship between the parties has already been dissolved by a decree of divorce, and once the relationship of husband and wife has come to an end, the proceedings under the DV Act are not maintainable. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the judgment reported in 2024 (6) ALD 756 (TS), wherein it is held that in the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship, the reliefs under the

DV Act cannot be granted. On these grounds, the learned counsel for respondent

No.1 prayed for dismissal of the petition.

11.In order to claim reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005, the petitioners must establish the existence of a domestic relationship with respondent No.1. As per Section 2(f) of the Act, “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as members of a joint family.

12.Now the point that is to be examined whether the petitioners have established domestic violence so as to entitle them to relief under the Act. There is no dispute that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 were in a domestic relationship, as their marriage and the birth of petitioner No.2 are admitted. Thus, the foundational requirement under Section 2(f) of the Act stands established.

11 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

13.However, the primary requirement is proof of domestic violence. On perusal of the evidence of PW1, it is evident that the cohabitation between the petitioner

No.1 and respondent No.1 was very brief period. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 lived with the respondent No.1 for about one month after marriage and, after delivery, stayed with him only for three days before returning to her parental home, where she has been residing ever since. Thus, the total period of cohabitation is only about one month and three days. The pleadings and evidence of PW1 are silent about any specific instances of physical, verbal, emotional, or economic abuse during this short period. The allegations are general in nature and lack particulars.

PW.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that no criminal complaint was lodged against the respondent alleging harassment.

14.The evidence of PW.2 is of no assistance to the case of the petitioners, as he has no personal knowledge regarding the alleged acts of domestic violence and his testimony is confined only to the factum of marriage. Therefore, his evidence does not advance the case of the petitioners on the core issue.

15.On the other hand, the material on record discloses that respondent No.1 made bona fide efforts to resume cohabitation with petitioner No.1. In this regard, he had instituted proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, which culminated in a decree in his favour. Despite the same, petitioner No.1 did not choose to rejoin his society. Ultimately, on account of continued separation, the marriage between the parties came to be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of desertion.

These circumstances probabilise the contention of respondent No.1 that it was petitioner No.1 who withdrew from the matrimonial home without sufficient cause.

12 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

16.Though the legal proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a divorced wife can claim maintenance under the Act is well settled, such entitlement is not automatic. The precondition for grant of relief under the Act is proof of domestic violence. In the present case, the petitioners have failed to establish any act of domestic violence by respondent No.1 during the subsistence of the domestic relationship. Hence, the said judgment does not advance the case of petitioner No.1 on facts.

17.From the overall appreciation of pleadings and evidence, it is clear that (i) the cohabitation between the parties was only for a very brief period; (ii) there are no specific or substantiated allegations of domestic violence; and (iii) the conduct of the parties indicates prolonged separation attributable to petitioner No.1.

18.Accordingly, this Court holds that petitioner No.1 has failed to prove that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent No.1 and is therefore not entitled to any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

19.However, insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, she is the admitted minor daughter of respondent No.1 as on the date of filing this case, and her status is not in dispute. The obligation of a father to maintain his minor child is absolute and cannot be avoided. The evidence of RW.1 clearly discloses that he has not paid any maintenance to the child till date. Further, it is admitted that respondent No.1 is a

Railway employee and is earning a regular income. Therefore, having regard to his 13 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015 earning capacity and legal obligation, petitioner No.2 is entitled to maintenance from respondent No.1 till she attains majority.

20.In the result, petition is allowed in part. The petition, insofar as petitioner

No.1 is concerned, is dismissed. The petition, insofar as petitioner No.2 is concerned, is allowed, and respondent No.1 is directed to pay maintenance of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month to petitioner No.2 from the date of petition till she attains majority. The arrears of maintenance shall be paid within three (03) months from the date of this order. Further the respondent No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards litigation costs.

(Typed to my dictation on the computer by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22nd day of April, 2026. )

Sd/-

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR P ETITIONERS:FOR RESPONDENT: PW.1 R. SwapnaRW.1 Ramula Sammaiah PW.2 Bandi Bhadraiah

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR P ETITIONERS: Ex.P1 is certified copy of Order and decree passed in O.P NO.103/2007 on the file of Hon’ble Judge, Family Court, Warangal dt.5.8.2013. Ex.P2 is certified copy of Petition in O.P. NO.103/2007 on the file of

Hon’ble Judge, Family Court, Warangal.

Ex.P3 is certified copy of Order and decree passed in O.P. NO.39/2007 on the file of Hon’ble Judge, Family Court, Warangal dt.11.04.2007.

14 OF 14 D.V.C. No.17 of 2015

FOR RESPONDENTS

Ex.R1 is the Order copy of FC Appeal No.158/2014 on the file of

Hon’ble High Court for the state of Telangana.

Ex.R2 is Photostat copy of Order and Decree in O.P No.39/2007 on the file of

Hon’ble Family Judge, Warangal, dt: 11-04-2007.

Ex.R3 is Photostat copy of Legal notice, dt: 02-02-2007. Ex.R4 is Photostat copy of Legal notice, dt: 19-05-2007. Ex.R5 is Photostat copy of Acknowledgment. Ex.R6 is Photostat copy of Order and Decree in OP No.18/2000 on the file of

Hon’ble Prl Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, dt: 02-12-2000.

Ex.R7 is Photostat copy of Order and Decree in OP No. 36/2004, dt: 21-05-2005. Ex.R8 is Photostat copy of Lagna Pathrika, dt: 26-06-2005. Ex.R9 is Photostat copy of Marriage application submitted to Sri Buggul Venkateshwara Swamy Devasthanam. (Exts.R2 to R9 are marked as secondary evidence as per orders in Crl.MP No.1348/2025, dt: 16-10-2025).

Sd/-

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

1 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

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

IV ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

Tuesday, the 6th day of February, 2024

Present: Smt Sravana Swathi Chintada, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, IV Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda,

C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

BETWEEN

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

A-1. Nerella Manjula, W/o.Ramesh, Age.35 years, R/o.Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda. A-2. Raikanthi Sumathi, W/o.Subash Kumar, Age. 33 years R/o.Bheemaram, Hanamkonda. A-3. Chirra Kanaka Laxmi, W/o.Rajaiah, Age.68 years, R/o.Dandepalli(Died) (Case against A.3 is abated, as per the docket order dated 02.11.2022, since police filed death certificate of A3)

... Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 12.01.2024 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant; and of Sri Ch.Ramakrishna, 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, P.S. Elkathurthy filed the charge sheet against the accused persons in Crime No.165 of 2014 for the offences 2 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022 punishable under Sections 323, 504, 355 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code(herein after referred as IPC).

2.The factual matrix of the prosecution case are that on 11.10.2014 at 17.40 hours the complainant Chirra Vijender/LW.1 came to Police Station and lodged report stating that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are his sisters and accused No.3 is his mother. The parents of LW.1 are having five daughters and one son/LW1. The LW.1 was residing in A.3’s house along with his wife.

The A.3 who is his mother and father performed all their daughters marriages. The A.3 is having 10 acres of agricultural land in which some of the agricultural land was given to A1 and A.2. But his mother/A.3 is refusing to give agricultural land to LW.1 and stated not to live in the house. In this regard on 11.10.2014 in afternoon the accused A.1 and A.2 came to A.3’s house and at about 1500 hours the LW.1 and A.1 to A.3 argued with each other about agricultural land and abused the LW.1 in filthy language and warned him not to live in their house, then he left the house and went on road, but the accused did not leave him and abused him in filthy language, beat with hands and footwear.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, Ravi Machineni (LW.9), Sub

Inspector of Police, P.S. Elkathurthy, registered a case in Crime

No.165/2014 under Sections 323, 504, 355 r/w 34 of I.P.C., and issued FIRs to all the concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 19.11.2014 he along with his men visited the scene of 3 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022 offence, examined LW.1, recorded his statement, and in the presence of

LW.7/Paniganti Raji Reddy and LW.8/Paniganti Laxma Reddy drawn rough sketch and Crime Details Form, thereafter on 25.11.2014 examined and recorded the statements of eye witnesses. On 18.12.2014 at 14-00 hours accused A.1 to A.3 surrendered before him, where he effected the arrest of accused, and on interrogation, accused voluntarily confessed their guilt, and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

4.The case was taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 504, 355 r/w 34 of IPC, against the accused persons.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. The accused were examined under Section 251 of Criminal Procedure Code for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 355 r/w 34 IPC, and the substance of accusation against the accused is made, read over and explained in

Telugu, for which, the accused denied the allegations leveled against them, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial, on 02.11.2022 police filed report along with death certificate of A.3, stating that A.3 died. Hence, the case against A.3 is abated.

6.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined

PW.1 to PW.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

4 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, the accused denied the allegations against them and reported no defence evidence on their behalf, but marked Ex.D1.

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 able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 355 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. POINT:

The accused in the present crime are tried for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 355 r/w 34 IPC, for which, the prosecution has to prove the accusation levelled against the accused.

11.The defactocomplainant is examined as PW.1 and he deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 3:00 PM, accused Nos.1 to 3 came to his house and abused him in filthy language saying why he was staying in the house which was earned by his father and tried to beat him, on that he ran to road side, then accused beat him with hands and slippers. Thereafter, he went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

5 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

12. PW.2/Chirra Shailaja, who is the wife of PW.1 deposed that on 10.11.2014 at about 3.00 P.M, A1 and A2 came to her house and beat PW.1 with chappals and hands by stating that they would not live in the house of her father-in-law, abused them and A3 also beat PW.1 on his back, A2 bite the PW.1’s left hands. She further deposed that the above incident was witnessed by LW.3/Md. Basheeruddin and LW.4/Md. Hymad Pasha.

Thereafter, they went to police station and lodged report. Police examined and recorded her statement.

During cross examination, she stated that after two days of the incident police called them to police station, where A1 to A3 also came to the police station, and A3 lodged complaint against PW.1. She stated in her cross examination that 10 years ago, her family is separated from joint family, and living separately. She further stated that there were disputes between her family and in-laws family regarding partition of land, and at the time of filing the present case A3 is aged about 75 years and her father-in-law is aged about 80 years, on the date of alleged incident. She further admitted in the cross examination that criminal cases are pending against her and her husband/PW1.

13.PW.3/Md. Basheeruddin who is eye witness to the incident deposed that he is running a kirana shop at Dandepally village on road side, and at about 10 years back a quarrel took place between PW.1 and his mother/A3 with regard to land.

6 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

During cross examination, he admitted that PW1 and A3 are residing separately and within 10 years PW.1 never took his parents to hospital.

14.PW.4/Md.Hymad Passha @ Akbar and PW.5/Md. Aleema Begum who are cited as eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of the prosecution and their 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P2 and

Ex.P3 respectively.

15.PW.6/P.Shoba Rani who is another eye witness deposed that about 9 years ago, on one day in evening hours at 3.00 P.M, A3 beat PW.1 with chappal on his cheek and all over his body in connection with landed dispute pending between them.

During cross examination, she stated that she admitted that galata took place on the road, the incident occurred in far away from her house, but she can able to witness from her house. She further stated that there were land disputes between accused and PW.1.

16.PW.7/P.Laxma Reddy who is panch witness for Crime Details Form deposed that in the year 2014, one day police Elkathurthy conducted scene observation panchanama near the house of PW.1, and scene observation panchanama is marked as Ex.P4.

During cross examination, he stated that the CDF was reduced into writing at PW1’s house.

7 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

17.PW.8/M.Ravi Sub Inspector of police, deposed that on 11.10.2014 at about 17.40 hours, PW.1 lodged a report, and basing on it, he made GD entry and obtained permission from Hon’ble Court to investigate the case under Sections 323, 504, 355 of IPC and on receiving permission on 18.11.2014 at 14-00 hours, he registered a case in Cr.No.165/2014 under

Sections 323, 504, 355 of IPC, and issued Ex.P5 FIR and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 19.11.2014, he visited scene of offence, examined and recorded the statement of PW.1, and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of LW.7 and PW.7. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of PW.2, and on 25.11.2014 he examined PW.3 to PW.6, and served notices under section 41(A) Cr.P.C to

A1 to A3. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

During cross examination, he admitted that prior to Ex.P1, no complaint was lodged against A1 to A3, and in Ex.P5, GD entry number was not mentioned. He admitted that A3 lodged complaint against PW.1 on 11.10.2014 at 17.30 hours, and the receipt/Ex.D5 was issued by P.S

Elkathurthy. He admitted that he did not obtain the signature of PW.1 in

Ex.P5 at column No.14. Witness volunteered that after receiving permission from the Hon’ble court, he registered Ex.P5 and at that time the complainant was not present in the police station, and stated that he sent the copy of FIR on 18.11.2014 at 01.45 hours. He further stated that on 28.10.2014 he obtained permission from the court to register the case.

Witness again volunteered that after receiving official memorandum from 8 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022 court on 18.11.2014, he registered Ex.P5. He admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P5 that the permission accorded by Hon’ble court,

Huzurabad was communicated to him on 18.11.2014 and the date mentioned in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 is altered. He admitted that separate rough sketch of Crime Details Form is 18.11.2014 attached to Crime Details Form, but the date, time and signatures of panch witnesses were not reflecting on it. He stated that in the house of A.3,

A.3’s husband, PW.1 and PW.2 are residing. He admitted that there are land disputes between PW.1 and A.3’s husband and PW.1 is the son of A.3 and A.1 and A.2 are daughters of A.3 and their family is having total 10

Acres of agricultural land at Dandepally village.

18.The learned counsel for the defence submitted that PW1 beat and scolded A.3 and her husband, who are his parents for transferring their property in favour of A.1 and A.2. Prior to lodging of this case by PW.1, A.3 lodged a report against PW1 before PS Elkathurthy, but police did not register the same and PS Elkathurthy also issued receipt dated 11.10.2014 i.e., Ex.D1. After lodging report by A.3 police referred her to MGM hospital for treatment and there are property disputes between PW.1 and A.1 to A.3 and both civil and criminal cases were pending between them. The police has falsely registered the case against A.1 to A.3 and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt and hence accused persons are entitled for acquittal.

9 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

19.The case of the prosecution is that A.1 and A.2 are the sisters and

A.3 is the mother of PW.1. PW.1 was residing in A.3’s house along with his wife/PW.2. A.3 is having 10 acres of agricultural land and out of which some of the agricultural land was given to A.1 and A.2, but A.3 is refusing to give agricultural land to PW.1 and asked him not to stay in the house.

On 11.10.2014 at about 15-00 hours, the accused A.1 and A.2 came to

A.3’s house where PW.1 and A.1 to A.3 argued with each other about agricultural land and abused PW1 in filthy language and warned him not to live in the house of A.3, then PW.1 left the house and went out, but A.1 to

A.3 followed him and abused him in filthy language, beat him with hands and slippers.

20.On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, admittedly, the

PW.1 is the brother of A.1 and A.2, and son of A.3 and there are land disputes between them with regard to partition of properties. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 and PW.2 are staying in the house of A.3, along with A.3’s husband and A.3 along with A1 and A2 insisting PW.1 to leave the house of A.3, but in the cross examination of PW.2 and PW.6, they admitted that PW1 and PW2 are living separately since 10 years.

PW.3 and PW.6 who are cited as eye witnesses to the incident stated that there was a galata between PW.1 and A.3, with regard to land dispute and

PW.6 stated that A.3 beat PW.1 with chappal. PW.1 and PW.2 also stated that A.1 to A.3 beat PW1 with hands and chappals. The evidence of PW.1 10 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022 and PW.2 is not corroborating with the evidence of PW.3 and PW.6 about the specific overt acts of accused persons. The evidence of PW.1 is also not corroborating with Ex.P1 report about the specific overt acts of A1 to

A3. As per the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.6, the incident took place on the road, but the mediator on CDF i.e., PW.7 stated that the CDF i.e,

Ex.P4 is conducted at the house of A3. PW.8 admitted in the cross examination, that the boundary holders mentioned in Ex.P4 are not immediate neighbours to the scene of offence, hence, the scene of offence was not proved by the prosecution. The evidence of prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy and cannot be relied upon as PW.1 and PW.2 are wife and husband and interested witnesses and the evidence of PW.3 and PW.6 is silent about the assault and acts committed by the accused persons against PW1. The entire dispute between the parties is with regard to the partition of agricultural land and PW.8 admitted that A.3 also lodged a report against PW1 on 10.11.2014 at 17.30 hours and police Elkathurthy also issued receipt i.e., Ex.D1, and the same was admitted in the evidence of PW.2 also. PW8 stated that on 11.10.2014 at 1740 hours PW.1 lodged a report against A.1 to A.3. As seen from the evidence of PW.8, prior to lodging report by PW1, A.3 lodged a report against PW1, but police failed to register a case against PW.1 and upon the complaint of PW1, police registered a case against A.1 to A.3 which itself shows that no fair and proper investigation was conducted in this case. As such the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable 11 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022 doubt for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 355 of IPC.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

21.In the result, theaccused A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 355 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under Section 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. The case against A.3 is abated as died.

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

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of February, 2024.)

Sd/-

FAC. IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Ch.Vijender -None- PW2: Ch.Shailaja PW3: Md. Basheeruddin PW4: Md.Hymed Pasha PW5: Md. Alima Begam PW6: P. Shoba Rani PW7: P.Laxma Reddy PW8: M.Ravi/Investigating Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P4 : Crime Details Form 12 OF 12 C.C.No. 2164 OF 2022

Ex.P5 : First Information Report

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 : Receipt issued by P.S Elkathurthy dated 11.10.2014.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL-

Sd/-

FAC.IV ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM-

IV ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

HANUMAKONDA.

1 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022

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

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: HANUMAKONDA.

Present: Smt. Sravana Swathi Chintada, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum – I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.12 OF 2022.

BETWEEN:

Nagapuri Kannaiah, S/o. Uppalaiah, Aged 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-5-49, Machili bazar, Hanumakonda, Warangal.

...Plaintiff

AND

Tanveer, W/o. Mohammad Yakub, D/o. Shaik Ahmed, Aged 24 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. H.No.15-4-34, Pothana nagar, Warangal.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 20.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Azhar, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Mohd. Valiuddin, Counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 26 read with Order VII Rule 1 of

C.P.C., read with Section 34 of Specific Relief Act against the defendant praying the

Court to grant various reliefs viz., (a) to pass a preliminary decree for Rs.6,51,330/- against the defendant to pay the same within the time granted by the Court with future interest @ 2% per month on Rs.4,00,000/- till realization, (b) in case the defendant fails to pay the decreetal amount as per the preliminary decree within the time limit, the Court should pass a final decree directing for auction of the suit schedule property towards realization of the decreetal amount, costs and 2 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 pendenti lite interest, (c) to pass a personal decree against the person and property of the defendant and (d) to award costs of the suit.

2.Plaint pleadings, in brief, are as follows :

2.1.The plaintiff and the defendant are acquainted with each other and out of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to meet her family needs and necessities; keeping in view of acquaintance and out of savings, the plaintiff gave the said amount to the defendant towards hand loan on 21.05.2019; immediately after the receipt of the said amount, the defendant executed a registered mortgage deed vide document No.12672/2019 dt.21.05.2019 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of her property i.e., M.Tiles/AC sheets of structure house property with open place vide H.No.15-4-39 (part) to an extent of 75 sq.yards situated at Pothana nagar, Warangal, in the presence of witnesses.

2.2.The defendant further agreed that she will repay the borrowed amount along with interest @ 2% per month within eight (8) months from the date of borrowal and handed over the original registered sale deed vide doc No.5466/2019 dt.28.02.2019 through which she purchased the said property to the plaintiff, as such the defendant is under obligation to clear off the debt in favour of the plaintiff along with interest accrued thereon.

2.3.Subsequently, the defendant failed to keep up her promised and did not repay the borrowed amount along with accrued interest thereon; several times, the plaintiff approached the defendant and demanded her to repay the debt but she 3 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 postponed the matter either on one pretext or other by showing some false and baseless grounds.

2.4.The plaintiff waited all these period with a fond hope that the defendant may come forward to clear off the borrowed amount along with interest but all his hopes were proved futile; the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.17.12.2021 to the defendant demanding her to clear off the debt and the defendant got issued reply notice dt.20.12.2021 with false and baseless allegations; the plaintiff lost hopes that he will get back the aforesaid debt under registered mortgage deed from the defendant; the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards principal and a sum of Rs.2,49,330/- towards interest @ 2% per month from 21.05.2019 to 26.12.2021 (31 months 5 times) and legal notice charges of Rs.2,000/-, in total

Rs.6,51,330/-. Hence the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement specifically denying the plaint averments and contended that Mr. Khaja Hussain is the sister’s husband of the defendant; Khaja Hussain and the plaintiff are acquainted with each other; the plaintiff is a professional money lender doing money lending business without valid money lending licence; one Sridhar is common friend of the plaintiff and Khaja

Hussain; Khaja Hussain was in need of money for his financial requirements and he with the help of said Sridhar approached the plaintiff and requested him to lend

Rs.4,00,000/-; the plaintiff agreed on condition to furnish security and since the said Khaja Hussain had no property to furnish as security to the plaintiff for borrowing amount, as such Khaja Hussain requested the defendant to hand over 4 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 her property documents to him to enable him to borrow the amount from the plaintiff, which she did.

3.1.Khaja Hussain obtained signatures of the defendant on some papers and told that Sridhar collected Rs.40,000/- from him towards his commission for arranging the above loan amount from the plaintiff to Khaja Hussain; the said Khaja

Hussain told the defendant that the plaintiff asked him to pay interest @ 4% per month on the above said loan amount and he paid Rs.16,000/- to the plaintiff per month for seven months, amounting to Rs.1,12,000/- towards interest; the plaintiff did not pass receipts in favour of Khaja Hussain despite his several requests and later Khaja Hussain could not pay the interest amount due to his poor financial condition.

3.2.On the demand of the plaintiff on 03.07.2020 Khaja Hussain executed a document on Rs.20/- non judicial stamp paper in favour of the plaintiff promising to repay the loan amount and interest within 03.08.2020 but Khaja Hussain failed to comply the terms of the said document dt.3.7.2020; the plaintiff convened a panchayat before elders at Machili bazar, Hanamkonda and the elders advised

Khaja Hussain to pay the monthly interest @ Rs.8,000/- to the plaintiff instead of

Rs.16,000/- and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiff on or before 10.12.2021 and balance of Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid within six months from 10.12.2021.

3.3.The defendant is an illiterate and parda nasheen lady and she did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time muchless on 21.05.2019; the plaintiff never paid Rs.4,00,000/- to her on 21.05.2019 or any other date; she 5 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 never agreed to repay the alleged borrowed amount with interest @ 2% per month to the plaintiff within eight months; she is not under legal, moral and statutory obligation to clear the debt in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by him; after receipt of the legal notice dt.17.12.2021 from the plaintiff, she got issued reply notice dt.20.12.2021 calling upon the plaintiff to furnish her the authenticated alleged documents mentioned in the legal notice within one week from the date of receipt of the reply to enable her to give comprehensive reply failing which she will treat that the plaintiff’s claim is bogus; the plaintiff received the reply notice but failed to comply with the terms; had the plaintiff furnished the alleged documents, she would have given the reply to the legal notice of the plaintiff, as such she is not liable to pay the suit claim and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.4.There is no cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the suit and Khaja

Hussain is necessary party to the suit; the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary party; the plaintiff is a professional money lender without having valid money licence and the suit is liable to be dismissed on the above grounds.

4. Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial:

i. Whether the registered Mortgage deed vide document

No.12672/2017 in respect of plaint schedule property is true,

valid and binding on the defendant?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim, as prayed for?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree, as

prayed for?

iv. If so, to what relief?

6 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked

Exts.A1 to A6 (as indicated in the appendix of evidence). The defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on her behalf.

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant. Perused the material on record.

7.The plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and his evidence is replica of plaint pleading. In support of oral evidence, PW.1 got marked Exts.A1 to A6 which are

Ex.A1 is original registered simple Mortgage deed (without possession) vide document No.12672/2019 dt.21.05.2019, Ex.A2 is original registered Sale deed vide document No.5466/2019 dt.28.02.2019, Ex.A3 is Legal notice dt.17.12.2021, Ex.A4 is Postal receipt dt.17.12.2021, Ex.A5 is Postal acknowledgment card and Ex.A6 is

Reply notice dt.20.12.2021.

8.PW.2 deposed that he knows the plaintiff and the defendant; the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to meet her family needs and necessities; accordingly the plaintiff gave the amount to the defendant towards hand loan on 21.05.2019; immediately after receipt of the amount, the defendant executed a registered Mortgage deed vide doc

No.12672/2019 dt.21.05.2019 in his favour in respect of her property i.e.,

M.Tiles/AC sheets roof structure house property with open place vide H.No.15-4-39 (part) to an extent of 75 sq.yards situated at Pothana nagar, Warangal; he was very much present on the date of execution of the registered Mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff by the defendant; he and one Md.Khaja Hussain attested the said 7 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 document as witnesses; he came to know through the plaintiff that the defendant failed to keep her promise and failed to repay the borrowed amount along with accrued interest; several times the plaintiff demanded the defendant for repayment of borrowed amount but she postponed the matter either one or other pretext by showing some false and baseless grounds; the plaintiff also issued legal notice to the defendant demanding her to clear off the debt and she issued reply notice with false allegations; in order to recover the due amount from the defendant, the plaintiff filed the present suit.

9.At the outset, the burden lies upon the plaintiff to establish that the defendant borrowed the suit amount and executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed as security, thereby rendering herself liable to discharge the debt.

10.The learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that Ex.A1 is a registered document and carries a statutory presumption of due execution. It is further contended that the photograph of the defendant is affixed on Ex.A1, which establishes her identity and presence at the time of execution of the document. It is also argued that there is no legal prohibition for a pardanashin woman to borrow money or execute a mortgage, and therefore such a plea cannot invalidate the transaction.

11.Ex.A1 being a registered document, duly executed and attested, carries a presumption of genuineness. The affixture of the photograph of the defendant on the document further strengthens the proof of execution. The defendant has not 8 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022 taken any steps to challenge the registration of the document nor has she initiated any proceedings to cancel or set aside the same.

12.Though the defendant has contended that she is a pardanashin and illiterate woman, it is well settled that there is no legal bar for such a person to enter into contractual transactions. The only requirement is that the transaction must be shown to have been entered into voluntarily and with knowledge. In the present case, Ex.A1 is a registered document executed before the Sub-Registrar, and there is no evidence on record to show that the execution was vitiated by fraud, coercion, or undue influence.

13.The oral evidence of PW.1 clearly establishes that the defendant borrowed

Rs.4,00,000/- and executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed as security. His evidence is consistent with the pleadings and is supported by documentary evidence. PW.2, who is an attesting witness to Ex.A1, has categorically deposed that the defendant borrowed the amount and executed the mortgage deed in his presence. His testimony corroborates the version of PW.1.

14.Much emphasis was placed by the learned counsel for the defendant on the admissions made by PW.1 and PW.2 regarding the involvement of Khaja Hussain. It is true that PW.1 admitted acquaintance with Khaja Hussain and also stated that

Khaja Hussain was involved in the transaction. It is also in evidence that Khaja

Hussain did not possess any property and that the defendant executed Ex.A1 as security.

9 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022

15.However, these admissions, in the considered view of this Court, do not in any way absolve the defendant of her liability. Even assuming that Khaja Hussain facilitated the transaction or was also a beneficiary, the fact remains that the defendant, being the owner of the property, voluntarily executed a registered mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff. The execution of Ex.A1 creates a legal obligation against the mortgagor, irrespective of whether the loan was utilised by her or by a third party at her instance.

16.Further, the admission that Khaja Hussain executed an undertaking agreement to repay the amount does not negate the liability of the defendant. At best, it shows that Khaja Hussain also undertook responsibility for repayment. Such an arrangement would only make him an additional or co-obligant, but does not extinguish or dilute the liability of the defendant arising out of a registered mortgage.

17.It is also pertinent to note that the defendant has not entered the witness box to substantiate her defence. She has neither examined herself nor produced any documentary evidence to support her plea that she did not borrow the amount or that her signatures were obtained without knowledge. In such circumstances, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendant.

18.The plea of non-joinder of Khaja Hussain is also not sustainable. The suit is based on a registered mortgage executed by the defendant. The mortgagor alone is a necessary party to such proceedings. At best, Khaja Hussain may be a proper party, but his non-impleadment does not render the suit bad.

10 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022

19.Thus, on an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully established that the defendant executed Ex.A1 mortgage deed in his favour and that the same is supported by consideration. The defendant has failed to rebut the presumption attached to the registered document. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount under ExA1 from the defendant and Issues No. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff.

20.IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs granting a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for recovery of money of Rs.6,51,330/- (Rupees Six Lakhs

Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty only) from the defendant together with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of

Rs.4,00,000/- from the date of suit till realization. The time fixed for redemption is 90 days from the date of decree.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27th day of April, 2026. )

Sd/-

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

11 OF 11 Original Suit No.12 of 2022

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR P LAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT : PW.1 N. Kannaiah- None - PW.2 V. Sridhar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is original registered simple Mortgage deed (without possession) vide document No.12672/2019 dt.21.05.2019. Ex.A2 is original registered Sale deed vide document No.5466/2019 dt.28.02.2019. Ex.A3 is Legal notice dt.17.12.2021. Ex.A4 is Postal receipt dt.17.12.2021. Ex.A5 is Postal acknowledgment card. Ex.A6 is Reply notice dt.20.12.2021.

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

Sd/-

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

1 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022

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

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: HANUMAKONDA.

Present: Smt. Sravana Swathi Chintada, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum – I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

Wednesday, the 22nd day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.4910 OF 2022.

BETWEEN:

Boddu Anandam, S/o. Devaiah, Aged 51 years, Occ: Home Guard, R/o. H.No.1-30, Mustafapur village, Bheemadevarapally mandal, Warangal Urban district.

...Plaintiff

AND

Thipparaju Jayaraj, S/o. Late Veeraiah, Aged 58 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H.No.1-28/26, Mustafapur village, Bheemadevarapally mandal, Warangal Urban district.

...Defendant

This suit is coming on 21.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri D. Nagaraju, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri Y. Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for the defendant and upon hearing the arguments of counsel for both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The plaintiff filed the suit under Section 26 and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., against the defendant praying the Court to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his supporters, agents etc., or any other person or persons acting on his behalf from interfering or in any way invading with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land and to award costs of the suit.

2 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022

2.Plaint pleadings, in brief, are as follows :

2.1.The plaintiff is owner, pattedar and possessor of the agricultural dry land measuring Ac.0-30 guntas out of survey No.173/A9/2 situated at Mustafapur village, Bheemadevarapally mandal, Warangal Urban district (hereinafter referred to as suit land) having purchased the same through registered sale deed bearing document No.2497/2019 dt.30.04.2019 from its owner, pattedar and possessor

Gouda Balaji; since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment over the suit land and the revenue records reflect his name; the

Tahsildar issued pass book No.T21010070711 Khata No.60117 in favour of the plaintiff; the plaintiff deposited his original Pass book with Canara bank,

Bheemadevarapally branch and obtained the crop loan.

2.2.The defendant is a stranger to the suit land and has no manner or right over the suit land but with a malafide intention to gain wrongfully, is trying to encroach the suit land ; on 12.08.2020 at 2.00 P.M., the defendant removed the boundaries of the suit land in order to grab the same but the plaintiff could resisted him; the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences, as such he made a complaint before the police Mulkanoor on 12.08.2020 vide acknowledgment

No.WRLU/MLK-WGLU/120820/00390 dt.12.08.2020 but no action was taken.

2.3.The defendant is holding land towards Northern side of the suit land and as his attempts to purchase the suit land could not succeed, he resorted to illegal interference in the suit land; on 24.09.2020 the defendant along with his supporters came to the suit land and tried to obstruct the plaintiff from conducting 3 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 the agricultural operations and tried to dispossess the plaintiff, however, the plaintiff could resist his illegal acts with the help of well wishers and adjacent owners; the defendant left the suit land threatening the plaintiff to dispossess him at any cost.

2.4.Again on 27.09.2020 the defendant repeated his illegal interference and the plaintiff resisted his acts with the help of adjacent land owners and well wishers; the acts of the defendant in interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land persists day in and day out; the plaintiff has no muscle power to resist the illegal acts of the defendant without aid and assistance of the Court. Hence the suit is for permanent injunction.

3.The defendant filed the written statement specifically denying the plaint averments and contended that the cause of action is false and created for the purpose of filing the suit; the suit valuation is false and Court fee paid is insufficient; the plaintiff failed to mention that the suit is filed within the period of limitation and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3.1.The total extent of land in suit survey No.173 is Ac.18-18 guntas and the said land belongs to one Moinoddin Qadri, S/o. Mustafa Qadri and the said person has donated the land to an extent of Ac.10-00 guntas out of Ac.18-18 guntas to ten members belonging to SC Community of Mustafapur village; the said persons donated the land orally each Ac.1-00 guntas in the suit survey number but there is no documentary proof to them; subsequently, the said persons name were entered in the concerned revenue record as pattedars and possessors.

4 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 3.2.The father of the plaintiff i.e., Boddu Devaiah is also one of the beneficiary among the above ten SC community members and subsequently the said Boddu Devaiah sold out the land to an extent of Ac.1-20 guntas to one Gouda

Balaji; at that time, he was in possession over Ac.1-00 guntas land only; after the said transaction, the said Gouda Balaji sold the land to an extent of Ac.0-30 guntas to one Rachakonda Venu and Shyamala Rajitha, Ac.0-10 guntas of land was merged under the road, which leads to Mulkanoor from Kothakonda; again the said Balaji sold out Ac.0-30 guntas of land to the plaintiff by mentioning the wrong boundaries.

3.3.In fact there is no land to the plaintiff or his vendor within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property; the plaintiff and his vendor/Gouda Balaji colluded with each other and an after thought got created the registered sale deed vide doc No.2497/2019 dt.30.04.2019 of SRO, Bheemadevarapally in favour of the plaintiff by mentioning wrong boundaries; now by filing the present suit against the defendant, the plaintiff is trying to grab his land under the guise of ad interim injunction.

3.4.The defendant is no way concerned with the suit survey number i.e., survey No.173/A9/2 and he is owner and possessor of the land in survey No.173/A3 to an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas, as such there is no scope to situate his land towards

Northern side of the suit land; the plaintiff is not having any land in survey

No.173/A9/2; the defendant’s father is having land only to an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas in survey No.173 and it’s sub division but instead of Ac.1-00 guntas of land, he sold out Ac.0-20 guntas excess land to the plaintiff’s vendor and in fact got 5 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 delivered the possession over Ac.1-00 land only that too not within the suit schedule boundaries.

3.5.The plaintiff’s vendor sold Ac.0-30 guntas out of Ac.1-00 guntas, as such he is having only Ac.0-10 guntas of land but the plaintiff’s vendor alienated the land in suit survey number Ac.0-30 guntas instead of Ac.0-10 guntas; from the same, it is clearly revealing that the plaintiff did not approach the Court with clean hands and only to grab the land of the defendant, he filed the suit.

3.6.Unless and until the boundaries fixed among the all land holders in the suit survey number, injunction cannot be granted against the co-owner i.e., defendant since there are no registered documents showing the respective boundaries of each person in connection with the suit survey number for the land holders; the defendant’s father was owner and possessor of the land in survey

No.173 to an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas and after his death, the defendant being only son to his father became as owner and possessor to the above said land.

3.7.At the time of purification of land records, the concerned Revenue

Authorities committed mistakes and issued title deed in favour of the defendant mentioning only an extent of Ac.1-00 land in survey No.173/A3 instead of Ac.2-24 guntas; till today the defendant is approaching the concerned Revenue Authorities for enter his entire land in his title deed by rectification of revenue records; the ancestors of Moinuddin Qadri also disputing the title of all land holders in the suit survey number.

6 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 3.8.The defendant has been in possession over the land which is situated within the suit schedule boundaries; the said land is situated within the boundaries is not the survey No.173/A9/2 but the same is 173/A3 which belongs to the defendant; the Northern side boundary of suit land is wrong and towards Northern side, the land of one Kothapelli Sammaiah, S/o. Sathaiah is situated; towards

Eastern side also, the land of one Oddula Raghu is situated; the plaintiff is never in possession over the land bearing survey No.173/A9/2 and in fact he is having only

Ac.0-10 guntas that too with different boundaries other than the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above rival contentions, the following issues were settled for trial.

i. Whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment

of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual

injunction, as prayed for?

iii.If so, to what relief?

5.To substantiate the claim, the plaintiff examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exts.A1 to A7 (as indicated in the appendix of evidence). Per contra, despite conditional orders, the defendant failed to adduce any oral or documentary evidence and hence the defendant’s evidence was recorded as nil and closed on 01.04.2026.

7 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022

6.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The arguments on behalf of the defendant is recorded as heard basing on his written statement. Perused the material on record.

ISSUE NO.1 & 2:

7.This suit is filed for perpetual injunction, so the plaintiff is under obligation to prove his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and his evidence is replica of plaint pleading.

8.The plaintiff examined PW.2 and he corroborated the evidence of PW.1 that PW.1 is the owner and possessor of the suit land having purchased the same through a registered sale deed from his vendor/Gouda Balaji in the year 2019 and since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land; his land is situated in survey No.173/C to an extent of Ac.0-33 guntas towards West side of suit land; the defendant is stranger to the suit land and has no manner of right but caused interference in the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment on 12.08.2020 and 24.09.2020 and obstructed the agricultural operations and threatened the plaintiff to dispossess him and with his (PW.2) help, the plaintiff resisted the defendant’s acts.

9.In support of oral evidence, the plaintiff got marked Exts.A1 to A7, which are Ex.A1 is original registered Sale deed vide doc No.2497/2019 dt.30.04.2019,

Ex.A2 is original Loan Sanction memo issued by Canarana Bank,

Bheemadevarapally branch, Warangal showing the deposit of pattedar pass book 8 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 cum title deed vide Khata No.60117, Pass book No.T21010070711, Ex.A3 is Pahani copy obtained through mee-seva for Fasli 1426, Ex.A4 is Pahani copy obtained through mee seva for Fasli 1427, Ex.A5 is Pahani copy obtained through mee-seva for Fasli 2017, Ex.A6 is Pahani copy obtained through mee seva for Fasli 2020 and

Ex.A7 is 1-B Namoona obtained through mee seva dt.21.07.2020. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with the documentary evidence clearly reveals that the plaintiff has been in dejure possession of the suit land as on the date of filing of the suit.

10.On the other hand, the defendant filed written statement and contended that the total extent of land in suit survey No.173 is Ac.19-18 guntas and the said land belongs to one Moinoddin Quadri; the said Moinuddin Quadri donated the land to an extent of Ac.10-00 guntas of land to ten SC community members each

Ac.1-00 guntas; out of said 10 members, the plaintiff’s father is one such beneficiary but instead of Ac.1-00 gunta of land, the plaintiff’s father sold Ac.1-20 guntas to Gouda Balaji, who sold Ac.0-30 guntas land to one Rachakonda Venu and Shyamala Rajitha and remaining 10 guntas of land was merged under the road leading from Kothakonda to Mulkanoor but again the said Balaji sold the suit land to the plaintiff with wrong boundaries; the alleged sale deed No.2479/2019 dt.30.04.2019 is created in favour of plaintiff by mentioning wrong boundaries; the plaintiff is not having land in survey No.173/A9/2; the defendant’s father was owner and possessor of the land in survey No.173 to an extent of Ac.2-24 guntas and after his death, being only son, the defendant became owner and possessor of the above said land; at the time of purification of land record, the Revenue 9 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022

Authorities have committed mistake and issued Title deed in his favour mentioning only an extent of Ac.1-00 guntas in survey No.173/A3 instead of

Ac.2-24 guntas and he is approaching the concerned Revenue Authorities for rectification of the entries in revenue records; the plaintiff filed the suit in order to grab his land under the guise of ad interim injunction.

11.But to prove the above said contentions, the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao [1999 0 Supreme (SC) 327] held that “where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct”. Even the defendant failed to cross examine PW.1 and PW.2 to elicit the true facts despite several opportunities.

Hence, the evidence of the plaintiff is remained unrebutted. Therefore, the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with Exts.A1 to A7 clearly establishes that the plaintiff is in the peaceful dejure possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Accordingly, the issues No.1 and 2 are answered favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant granting perpetual injunction restraining defendant, his supporters, agents etc., or any other person or persons acting on his behalf from 10 OF 10 Original Suit No.4910 of 2022 interfering or in any way invading with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade III on the computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 22nd day of April, 2026.)

Sd/-

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

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR P LAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT : PW.1 B. Anand- None - PW.2 E. John

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.A1 is original registered Sale deed vide doc No.2497/2019 dt.30.04.2019. Ex.A2 is original Loan Sanction memo issued by Canarana Bank, Bheemadevarapally branch, Warangal showing the deposit of Pattedar pass book cum title deed vide Khata No.60117, Pass book No.T21010070711. Ex.A3 is Pahani copy obtained through mee-seva for Fasli 1426. Ex.A4 is Pahani copy obtained through mee seva for Fasli 1427. Ex.A5 is Pahani copy obtained through mee-seva for Fasli 2017. Ex.A6 is Pahani copy obtained through mee seva for Fasli 2020. Ex.A7 is 1-B Namoona obtained through mee seva dt.21.07.2020.

FOR DEFENDANT: - Nil -

Sd/-

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

1 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021

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

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :: HANUMAKONDA.

Present: Smt. Sravana Swathi Chintada, I Addl. Junior Civil Judge – cum – I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Hanumakonda.

Thursday, the 23rd day of April, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE NO.2565 OF 2021.

(Crime No.84 of 2020 of Police station Madikonda.)

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Madikonda. ...State/Complainant.

AND

Korre Yakanna, S/o. Peeru, Aged 25 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Owner cum driver of Trolley Auto bearing No.TS 24 T 5133, R/o. Swamy Naik thanda, H/o. Maheshwaram village, Narsampet mandal.

...Accused.

This case is coming on 09.04.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and Sri P. Basava Raju, Counsel for the accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The state of Telangana represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Madikonda filed charge sheet against the accused in crime No.84 of 2020 of

Police station Madikonda for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of T.S.

Excise Act, 1968.

2.The case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is :

The accused is resident of Swamynaik Thanda, H/o. Maheshwaram village,

Narsampet mandal and with an intention to earn more money, he used to purchase 2 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021 black jaggery and alum in Begum bazar, Hyderabad on low price and transported the same in his trolley auto to his thanda and selling the same to the ID liquor manufacturers on higher price; accordingly the accused went to Begum bazar,

Hyderabad and purchased 300 Kgs of black jaggery, packed the same in 25 white carton boxes, 36 Kgs of alum packed in one plastic bag, later while he was transporting the same in his trolley auto bearing No.TS 24 T 5133 from Hyderabad to his thanda, he was apprehended by LW.1-B.Sambaiah, Head Constable (PW.1) along with his staff on 12.08.2020 at 06.30 hours in front of Police station

Madikonda, the police seized the 300 Kgs of black jaggery and 30 Kgs of alum and trolley auto from the possession of the accused in the presence of mediators under the cover of confession cum seizure panchanama and on the report lodged by

PW.1, a case in crime No.84 of 2020 for the offence under Section 34 (e) of T.S.

Excise Act was registered, FIR was issued and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused.

3.Cognizance of the offence under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act was taken against the accused by my predecessor and issued summons.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of case material documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., charge for the offence under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act was framed, read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021

6.To prove the case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked

Exts.P1 to P5 (as indicated in the appendix of evidence).

7.The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW.2/K. Srinivas PC 1080,

LW5/Ethari Raju, LW6/A.Ramu, Scientific Officer and LW7/R.Suresh, Dy.

Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal division.

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

Section 313 Cr.P.C., confronting him with the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the defence. Perused the material on record.

10.Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of T.S.

Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

11.To prove it’s case, the prosecution in all examined seven witnesses, among them PW.1 is the complainant, PW.2 is circumstantial witness, PW.3 is mediator on confession cum seizure panchanama, PW.4 is First Investigating Officer, PW.5 is

Second Investigating Officer, PW.6 is Motor Vehicle Inspector and PW.7 is

Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet against the accused.

12.The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 reveal that on 12.8.2020 at 06.00 AM, they along with LW.2/K.Srinivas, PC 1080 of PS Madikonda while conducting patrolling 4 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021 duty in front of Police station Madikonda and checking vehicles, stopped one auto and checked the same and found black jaggery and Alum in 25 carton boxes each 12 Kgs of black Jaggery and Alum in gunny bag; immediately, PW.1 secured two mediators, prepared panchanama and seized the property in the presence of mediators; later they took two samples i.e. 100 grams from each box Jaggery and

Alum and brought the accused along with seized property and confession cum seizure panchanama and handed over to Station House Officer, Police station

Madikonda and PW.1 lodged a report.

13.PW.3 deposed that in the year 2020, he went to Rotebanda area of

Madikonda near Police station for servicing of wires , then police called him and one person was present in their custody and police seized Alum and Black Jaggery from his possession and police prepared panchanama in his presence and in the presence of LW.5/E.Raju, thereafter they signed on it. PW.3 further deposed that he cannot say the name of accused but he can identify him and identified the accused who was present in the court hall. PW.3 further deposed that police also prepared scene observation panchanama and drew rough sketch in his presence and in the presence of LW.5 and they signed on it.

14.The evidence of PW.4, PW.5 and PW.7, who are the Investigating Officers in this case, is on the lines of investigation done by them in this case. The evidence of

PW.6/Motor Vehicle Inspector reveal that on the requisition of police, Madikonda, he inspected the crime vehicle bearing No.TS 24 T 5133 and issued report fixing the upset price of the crime vehicle basing on it’s present physical condition.

5 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021

15.The allegation of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2020 at 06.30 hours, while the accused was illegally transporting the black jaggery and alum for preparation of

I.D. liquor in violation of T.S. Prohibition and Excise Act, PW.1 and PW.2 apprehended the accused and conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of PW.3 and seized 300 Kgs of black jaggery and 36 Kgs of alum from his possession.

16.On careful perusal of the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, admittedly there are no eye witnesses to the incident of accused purchasing the black jaggery and alum and selling the same to the manufacturers of ID liquor in his thanda. The case of the prosecution rests entirely on the alleged confession of the accused and recovery of the case property. It is pertinent to note that the alleged confession made by the accused before the police is inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under law relating to discovery. Therefore, the prosecution must establish that the recovery of the stolen property was made pursuant to the voluntary confession made by the accused.

17.In this regard, the evidence of PW.3, who is the mediator to the confession- cum-seizure panchanama, assumes significance. A careful perusal of the evidence of PW.3 reveals that the police scribed panchanama and crime details form in the

Police station and he along with LW5/E.Raju signed on it in the Police station. But as per confession cum seizure panchanama, it was conducted in front of Police station Madikonda. Moreover, the evidence of PW.3 is not on the lines of confession cum seizure panchanama. Hence, it to be noted that mere recovery of property, in the absence of credible and convincing evidence connecting the 6 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021 accused with the crime, is not sufficient to base a conviction. The prosecution has failed to examine the purchasers and sellers of alleged black jaggery and alum from the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

18.The burden is on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act beyond reasonable doubt. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must stand on its own legs and cannot derive benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 to 7 is not at all sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged crime in the absence of any independent evidence since they are interested in the outcome of the prosecution case. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under

Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act beyond all reasonable doubt, as such he is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34 (e) of T.S. Excise Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order as to the disposal of the case property since nothing is deposited before this Court.

(Typed to my dictation on the computer by the Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 23rd day of April, 2026. )

Sd/-

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

7 OF 7 C.C. No.2565 of 2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW.1 B. Sambaiah, Head Constable - None - PW.2 I. Ravinder Reddy, Home Guard PW.3 G. Srikanth PW.4 K. Sarangapani, ASI of Police. PW.5 K. Kumarswamy, SI of Police. PW.6 S. Sreenivas, MVI. PW.7 E. Narasimha Rao, SI of Police.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 is Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 is Report lodged by PW.1. Ex.P3 is Crime details form. Ex.P4 is First information report. Ex.P5 is RFSL report.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

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