Sri. Sugali Narayana

1 S.C.No.72 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.S.Narayana I. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

Tuesday, this the 07th day of April, 2026.

Sessions Case No. 72 of 2024.

(On committal made by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri in PRC No.28/2023 order Dt:30-01-2024 connected with Cr.No.283/2019 of P.S. Velgatoor)

Name of the complainant Circle Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri (in Cr.No.289 of 2010 of P.S Velgatoor).

Name and description of A1. Jella Kumar, S/o: Mallaiah,Age: 24 the Accused :years, R/o: Godishalapet village of Velgatoor Mandal.

A2. Jella Srinivas, S/o: Mallaiah, Age:28 years, R/o:Godishalapeta village of Velgatoor Mandal.

A3. Gopu Mallaiah, S/o: Muthaiah, Age: 50 years, R/o: Godishalapet village of Velgatoor Mandal.

A4. Jella Shankaravva @ Sattavva, W/o: Mallaiah, Age: 55 years, R/o; Godishalpeta village of Velgatoor Mandal.

A5. Jella Mallaiah, S/o: Rajaiah, Age:59 years, R/o; Godishalpeta village of Velgatoor Mandal.

A6. Thotla Mallesham, S/o: Katheraiah, Age: 41 years, R/o; 2 S.C.No.72 of 2024

Botlavanaparthy of Dharmaram mandal.

OffenceU/Secs.417, 420, 354 (D), 376 (1), 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty.

Finding of the CourtNOT Guilty.

Sentence or orderIn the result, Accused No.1 is not Accused is found guilty for the offence under sections 376(1), 420, 417, 354 (D), 509 & 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. A2 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.417, 420, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months or appeal time. The Mo.1 i.e., Redmi 5-MI phone which is under the safe custody of police concerned shall be ordered to return to its original owner/A1 after expiry of appeal time or six months under proper acknowledgment and receipt.

This case is coming on 30.03.2026, for final hearing before me in the presence of the Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri.K.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 3 S.C.No.72 of 2024

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Dharmapuri has laid the Charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Secs.417, 420, 354 (D), 376 (1), 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

2.Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 4-12-2019 at 12:00 hrs the complainant/LW.1/Gopu Bharathi/Victim came to PS Velgatoor and lodged a report by stating that, she is resident of

Godishelapeta village and completed her degree in the year 2016. While she was studying her degree, her relative and villager/A1 followed her in the name of love and marriage for which she denied his proposal. Upon that A1 took her phone number and harassed her by sending messages and making phone calls through his mobile, when the complainant denied to answer the call, A1 threatened her that he will come to her house and he say that he will marry her by conveying to his parents. On 01-11-2019 at about 2:00 PM., while the complainant was in her house A1 went to her house and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse with her in the absence of her parents. On knowing the incident A1 to A6 agreed to perform her marriage with A1. Later A1 refused to marry her with the instigation of A2 to A6 and damaged her prestige in the society. Then she narrated the entire issue to her parents and then her father along with elders Nagula Bapu, Kadari

Lachaiah asked the A1 about the marriage with the complainant, upon that A1 to 4 S.C.No.72 of 2024

A6 threatened with dire consequences to kill and bluntly refused for marriage.

Hence requested to take necessary action against the above car driver.

Basing on the above report the LW-23/T.Srinivas/SI of police P.S Velgatoor registered a case in Cr.No.283/2019, U/Sec.417, 420, 354 (D), 376 (1), 509, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and issued FIR. As the offences are grave in name, on the same day on 4-12-2019 the LW.24/T.Lakshmi Babu/CI of police, Dharmapuri took up

CD file from LW.23 and verified the investigation done by him and found it to be in correct lines. During the course of investigation the Lw-24 called the woman police officer over phone. Subsequently the woman police officer Lw-6/WSI-

D.Navatha of Pegadapalli PS of Jagtial dist rushed to PS Velgatoor on the same day ie., on 04-12-2019 and examined and recorded the statement of the victim woman/Lw-1 at Police Station U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C under the videography with the help of Lw-7/Pustam Suresh. The Lw-24 sent the victim/Lw-1 to Lw-19/Lady

Medical officer/Dr.Sunitha to Dist Hqrs Hospital Jagtial for examination and report under the escort of WPC 144 K.Mariya of PS Dharmapuri. Later the Lw-24 secured the presence of the Lw-2/Gopu Lachaiah and LW3/Gopu Suravva who are the father and mother of the victim woman and recorded their detailed statements at PS Velgatoor.

During the course of investigation on 04-12-2019 the Lw-24 visited to scene of offence situated at Godishelapeta (V), which was shown by the complainant/Lw-1 secured the presence of two mediators LWs- 15/Avula Sattaiah & LW.16/Sabbu Narsaiah and incorporated the details in Crime Details Form in 5 S.C.No.72 of 2024 their presence, prepared a rough sketch of scene of offence. The scene of occurrence is secluded one, affording privacy for the accused to indulge in this rape on the victim/Lw-1. The Lw-24 secured the presence of Lws. 4/Nagula Bapu @ Gatttaiah & LW.5/Kadari Lachaiah, who are the panchayath elders and examined them and recorded their detailed statements at Godishelapeta village.

On 06-12-2019 on reliable information Lw-24/C.I. of Police, Dharmapuri along with staff rushed to Godishelapeta Village, Al was apprehended at his house

B.No-3-83/13 at Godishelapeta village and the Al voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence in the presence of Lws.17/Odige Ravibabu &

LW.18/Mohammad Naseeruddin. During the course of interrogation, he voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. Later the Lw-24 recovered the Mobile phone, Redmi5-MI, silver in color, its IMEI No-868200030011347, and Jio SIM No-8374822396, from his possession under cover of confession and recovery panchanama before the same mediators and taken the signatures of the mediators and pasted panch chits on it. Later, the accused-Al was brought to O/o the Cl of Police Dharmapuri at 1430 hours and issued arrest memo under intimation to him and his relatives U/Sec.50-A Cr.PC. as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. All the formalities of the apprehension are observed and the accused referred to the government medical officer and obtained the certificate as being fit for the judicial remand.

6 S.C.No.72 of 2024

The Lw-24 collected the potency test report of the accused Al from the Lw-

20. In which the Lw-20 has opined that "There is nothing to suggest that he cannot perform sexual act" and the same report was submitted in the Hon'ble court at the time of remand ie. on 06-12-2019. On 06-12-2019 the Lw-24 has filed a requisition before the Hon'ble II Addl. JFCM Court with a pray to fix a date and issue the summon to the victim/Lw-1 to record her statement U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

On 08-12-2019 the Lw-24 forwarded the preserved material objects ie., Vaginal

Swabs to the RFSL, Karimnagar for analysis and report. On 21-12-2019 the Lw- 24 has proceeded to Godishelapeta village and secured the Lws-8/Boddula

Nagaraju & LW.9/Siluveri Swapna and examined them and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II CDs at Godishelapeta village. The Lw-21/Sri Partha Saradhi

Rao is the Hon'Ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, who examined the

Lw-1/victim and recorded her statement U/Sec.164 Cr.P.C on 01-02-2020 in which she corroborated the same facts as mentioned in the FIR. On 05-01-2020 the Lw- 24 has proceeded to Godishelapeta village and secured the Lws-10/Gopu

Rajesham, LW.11/Mogili Shekar & LW.12/Mucharla Odelu who are the neighbors of the victim woman house and examined them and recorded their detailed statements at Godishelapeta village.

The Lw-24 has collected RFSL report in which the scientific officer has opined that, "The item No.1 and 2 are examined, Semen and Spermatozoa are not detected on the Item Nos. 1 and 2. Basing on the RFSL report from the scientific 7 S.C.No.72 of 2024 officer the Lw-24 has collected the final opinion from the Lw-19. In which the

Lw-19 has opined that, "No possibility of recent intercourse as semen & spermatozoa not detected in the above samples, but 1. Accused may aspernic, 2.

Remove intercourse may be possible as hymen intact".

On 20-01-2020 the Lw-24 made a requisition to the kind SP Jagtial to address a letter to the Nodal Officer BHARATI AIRTEL Limited TS Hyderabad requesting to issue certified CUSTOMER APPLICATION FORM (CAF) AND

ATTESTED CDRS of cell Phone Number of the victim woman i.e., 9100321922, for the period from 01-01-2019 to 04-12-2019, the same is awaited from the Nodal officer and the accused Ph No-8374822396 from the Nodal Officer Reliance Jio

Limited TS Hyderabad. The Lw-24 has obtained the 65-B certificate of the accused from the Nodal Officer/Lw-22 Reliance Jio Limited TS Hyderabad. The 65-B certificate of the victim Phone No- 9100321922 is awaited from the nodal officer BHARATI AIRTEL Limited TS Hyderabad. It is to submit the Hon'Ble court that the requisition is made to the nodal Officer for the certificate U/sec 65-B

I.E. Act. The certificate will be produced before the Honorable court whenever it is received. On 6-4-2020 the LW.24 has proceeded to Godishelapeta village and secured the LW.13/Gorre Mamatha and LW.14/Gangadhari Bakkaiah who are the neighbours of the victim woman house and examined and recorded their statements. After completion of entire investigation and after collecting all relevant documents, he filed charge against the accused.

8 S.C.No.72 of 2024

3.The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dharmapuri has taken cognizance of the offence under U/Secs.417, 420, 354 (D), 376 (1), 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against accused No.1 to 6 vide P.R.C.No.28/2023 and on appearance of the accused No.1 to 6 and later the matter was committed to the Hon’ble

Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial as it is exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the case was made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the Accused No.1 to 6 before this court, they were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C and charge under sections.376 (1), 420, 417, 354 (D), 509 & 506 of IPC against A1 & U/Secs.417, 420, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A2 to A6, were framed against the accused for which, the accused had denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution in their attempt to establish the guilt of the accused has examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.26 and Mo.1 is marked.

6. On conclusion of the trial by the prosecution, Accused No.1 to 6 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating part of the evidence found against them and they denied the said evidence and reported no defence on their behalf.

7.Heard arguments heard on both sides. The learned counsel for accused filed written arguments 9 S.C.No.72 of 2024

8. Now the point that arises for determination is “Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences 376 (1), 420, 417, 354 (D), 509 & 506 of IPC against A1 & U/Secs.417, 420, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A2 to A6?.

9.It is the allegation of the prosecution that A1 who followed the victim on the false promise of love and marriage and participated in sexual intercourse with her several times and when the victim asked about her marriage with A1, A1 with the instigation of his parents A2 to A6 cheated the victim further threatened her with dire consequences to kill.

10. PW.1 (Bharathi)/victim deposed that A1 is her brother-in-law and she knows A2 to A6. In the year 2016 A1 proposed the love but she did not accept his love and marriage. In this regard A1 threatened her and on 01-11-2019 at 2:00

P.M., in the absence of her parents A1 went to her house and participated in sexual intercourse forcefully by promising her to marry her. Later A1 to A6 not agreed to marry her. Thereafter her parents went to the house of A1 to convince and accept the marriage, but all of accused refused to marry her. Later on she along with her father went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

During the course of cross examination she admitted that, she got marriage with one Manoj in the year 2021, R/o: Rajampet village of Dandepalli mandal. A1 and herself are classmates from 6th class to 10th class in ZPHS Shool at

Godishelapet village. She further admits that, she did not file any complaint against A1 in P.S Dharmaram as well as before the Principal of Vivekananda

Degree college, Dharmaram where she studied graduation. She clearly admitted 10 S.C.No.72 of 2024 that on her consent only accused made sexual intercourse on her as accused made promise to marry her. She did not reveal the incident to her parents prior to 15 days of sexual intercourse. After 15 days she informed her parents and her sister came to their house about the sexual harassment by the accused. She denied the suggestions.

11. PW.2 (Goku Lachaiah) who is the father of PW.1 deposed the similar lines as that of PW.1. PW.3(G.Suravva) who is the mother of PW.1 deposed the similar lines as that of PW1. During the course of cross examination he admitted that

PW.1 never informed him anything against A1 regarding alleged love proposals to them till lodging of complaint. He denied the suggestions.

12.PW.6(B.Nagaraju) brother in relation to victim deposed that at about five years back PW.1 state to him that A1 loved her and herself and A1 would marry, as PW.1 asked with A1 in marriage, but A1 cheated her, then he along with elders went to the house of A1 to A6 to ask for marriage, but A1 to A6 refused to marry her. He denied the suggestions during the course of cross examination.

13.PW.14 (Dr.G.Sunitha) deposed that upon the requisition of police

Velgatoor she examined the PW.1 on 4-12-2019 at 9:15 hrs and found no injury over external genitalia, hymen torned. No injuries over vaginal and cervix and she opined that no possibility of recent sexual intercourse and semen and spermatozoa 11 S.C.No.72 of 2024 are not detected. She denied the suggestion during the course of cross examination.

14.PW.15(Dr.Muddassiruddin) deposed that upon requisition of police he conducted potency test of A1 on 6-12-2019 and in his opinion there is nothing that he cannot perform sexual act. He denied the suggestion during the course of cross examination.

15.PW.16 (D.Navatha) the then SI of police, Pegadapalli deposed that on 4- 12-2019, CI of police, Dharmapuri instructed her to record the statements of victim at Velgatoor police station and accordingly she went to PS Velgatoor P.S and examined and recorded the statements of victim in Cr.No.283/19. She denied the suggestion during the course of cross examination.

16.PW.17(T.Srinivas) the then SI of police, Velgatoor deposed that on 4-12- 2019 at 12:00 hrs she received written complaint from PW.1 basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.283/2019 U/Sec.417, 420, 354 D, 376 (1), 506, 509 r/w 109 of IPC. Ex.P1/FIR thereafter he handed over the CD file to LW.24 for further investigation. During the course of cross examination he admitted that there is a delay of one month four days in lodging complaint. Prior to lodging this complaint neither PW.1 nor her family members has lodged complaint against accused alleging that they have been harassing PW.1. He denied the suggestions.

12 S.C.No.72 of 2024

17.PW.18 (T.Lakshmi Babu) the then CI of police, Dharmapuri deposed that he received CD file from PW.17 and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines and he called WSI of P.S Pegadaplli to record the statement of victim and accordingly she recorded the statement of victim in the presence of photographer and sent the victim for medical examination. Thereafter he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence place conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.15 and LW.1

On 06-12-2019 he along with his staff rushed to Godishelapet village where apprehended A1 and on interrogation A1 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence with the instigation of A2 to A6 in the presence of LW.17 &18,

Thereafter he sent requisitions to Magistrate, doctors, nodal officer and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A1 to A6. During the course of cross examination he denied the suggestions.

18.PW.4 and PW.5 are the panchayath elders, PW.7 to PW.9 are the neighbouring witnesses and circumstantial witnesses, PW.10 and PW.11 are the panch witnesses for Crime details form and PW.12 and PW.13 are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama all of them turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not support the version of prosecution.

13 S.C.No.72 of 2024

19.Since, in the instant case the evidence of the complainant as PW.1 does not inspire confidence to believe in it as admittedly there are material improvements in it and also in view of the fact that her own evidence does not stand on own leg to support the case of the prosecution, the only finding that has to be arrived is that the prosecution has failed to prove any of the alleged guilt levelled against the accused. It is neither the case of the prosecution that accused had no such intention nor the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses much less PW.1 to PW.3 leads to any such inference. On the other hand, as observed above, before giving her consent for the very first time for sexual intercourse with the accused No.1, the complainant was already in love with the accused and it is only then she gave her consent.

20.The alleged promise to marry if at all can be taken as given by the accused

No.1, there is no instance of any sexual intercourse by the accused with the complainant. As such, any false promise by the accused to marry the complainant and by the said false promise was never intended by the accused to perform, since has not been proved by the prosecution, it cannot be said that the consent of the complainant was only upon the fraud practiced upon her by the accused or upon the false promise. On the other hand, the very evidence of none else than the complainant as PW.1 that the accused was acquainted and they were both classmates from 6th class to 10th class prior to the date of the incident and her evidence that the accused was taking her to different places and participating in sexual course at her house and at the house of A1, would all go to show that she 14 S.C.No.72 of 2024 being a girl major in her age was participating in the alleged act of sexual intercourse knowingly and with her consent only. In the present case, this court find that the prosecution has blatantly failed to prove the offences against the accused Nos.1 to 6 beyond shadow of doubt. Thus, this court left with no option, to acquit the accused persons.

21. In the result, Accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offence under sections 376(1), 420, 417, 354 (D), 509 & 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused

No.1 is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. A2 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.417, 420, 509, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months or appeal time. The Mo.1 i.e., Redmi 5-MI phone which is under the safe custody of police concerned shall be ordered to return to its original owner/A1 after expiry of appeal time or six months under proper acknowledgment and receipt.

Typed to Stenographer Gr.I, directly on computer screen, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 07th day of April, 2026.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: G.Bharathi. -None- PW-2: G.Lachaiah. PW-3: G.Suravva. PW-4: N.Gattaiah.

15 S.C.No.72 of 2024

PW-5: K.Lachaiah. PW-6: B.Nagaraju. PW-7: G.Mamatha. PW-8: G.Rajesham. PW-9: M.Odelu. PW-10: A.Sathaiah. PW-11: S.Narsaiah. PW-12: O.Ravi Babu. PW.13: Mohammad Naseruddin. PW.14: Dr.G.Sunitha. PW.15: Dr.Muddassiruddin. PW.16: D.Navatha. PW.17: T.Srinivas. PW.18: T.Lakshmi Babu.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 before the police. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 before the police. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 before the police. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 before the police. Ex.P6 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 before the police. Ex.P7: Signature of PW.10 on Crime Details form. Ex.P8: Signature of PW.11 on Crime Details form. Ex.P9: Signature of PW.12 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P10: Signature of PW.13 on confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P11: Medical examination report by PW.14. Ex.P12: Final Opinion. Ex.P13: FSL Opinion. Ex.P14: Requisition. Ex.P15: Potency Test. Ex.P16: FIR. Ex.P17: Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P18: Confession cum Seizure panchanama. Ex.P19: FSL Report. Ex.P20: Requisition. Ex.P21: CAF (Victim) Ex.P22: CAF (Accused). Ex.P23: CDR (Victim) Ex.P24: CDR (Accused). Ex.P25: 65-B Nodal Officer (Jio). Hyderabad. Ex.P26: 65-B (Bharathi Airtel). For Defence:---Nil--- Material Objects: Mo.1. Redmi -5 MI phone of A1 I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial.

1 S.C.No.105 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT JAGTIAL.

Present: Sri.S.Narayana I. Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial.

Thursday, this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Sessions Case No. 105 of 2024.

(On committal made by the Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Korutla in PRC No.18/2023 order Dt:14-3-2024 connected with Cr.No.140/2023 of P.S. Korutla)

Name of the complainant Circle Inspector of Police, Korutla.

Name and description of Matla Uday Kumar, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: the Accused :25 years, R/o: Mallapur village and Mandal.

OffenceU/Secs. 376 (2) (n), 420 & 506 of IPC.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty.

Finding of the Court Not Guilty.

Sentence or orderIn the result, Accused is not found Accused is guilty for the offence under sections 376 (2) (n), 420 & 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months or appeal time. The Mo.1 i.e., Samsung white color mobile which is under the safe custody of police concerned shall be ordered to return to its original owner after expiry of appeal time or six months under proper acknowledgment and receipt.

2 S.C.No.105 of 2024

This case is coming on 06.04.2026, for final hearing before me in the presence of the Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri.M.Prathip Kumar, Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Korutla has laid the Charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec. 420, 376 (2) (n) & 506 of IPC.

2.Brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

On 09-05-2023 at 17.00 hrs the complainant/victim/M.Varshini came to PS

Korutla and lodged report by stating that she studied up to degree (B.Com). Since five years back when the victim went to Ratnapur village of Mallapur mandal in order to attend Mallanna Swamy Jathara at that time accused introduced himself and took mobile number of the victim and proposed her he is loving her, he would get marry her, without her he will die and he likes so much. On believing the same she to love him. In the year 2022 he made a call to her by saying that come to Kamareddy as he is working in Mahindra Tractor show room. On that she went there, where he asked her to come to apartment but she refused for the same.

When she ready to go from there, after talking few hours and by convince the victim as he drops her at bus stand and forcibly participated sexual intercourse by saying that they both are getting to be married. Later many times he went to the house of victim at Paidimadugu village and had participated sexual intercourse with her in the absence of mother of victim. Later accused posted their photos on 3 S.C.No.105 of 2024

Instagram, which were took when both were together by without her knowledge, on seeing that when the victim for the last 8 months asked about that photos and when he will marry her. On that accused refused to marry her and advised her to marry some other person who was selected by her parents., further threatened her and black mailed her as if again forced him to marry, he post her personal photos on social media (Instagram) for no one will marry her and also he told very badly about her to her friends, villagers and caste people. Hence requested for necessary action.

Basing on the contents of the above complaint LW.15/Ch.Sathish (SI of police) registered a case in Cr.No.140/2023 U/Secs.376(2) (n), 420 of IPC and issued FIR and handed over the CD file to LW.16/CI of police for further investigation. On 9-5-2023, LW.16/M.Praveen Kumar (CI of police) took up further investigation and verified the investigation done by LW.15 and found it on correct lines and directed the LW.14/A.Rajasri/Woman police officer for recording the statement of the victim under videography/LW.5/Kokkula Murali and further directed the LW.15 to sent the victim to Government hospital, Korutla for medical examination and certificate. LW.10/Lady Doctor/Sri.Laxmi examined the victim and sent the material objects for RFSL Karimnagar and after receiving the scientific opinion from LW.12/K.Narsimha she opined that not consistent with of recent sexual intercourse, but as recent sexual intercourse occurred some times.

On 10-5-2023 LW.16 proceeded to the scene of offence -I at Paidmadugu village 4 S.C.No.105 of 2024 of Korutla Mandal and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

LW.6/Erra Sudarshan and LW.7/Lanka Bheemaiah.

While efforts are in progress to apprehend the accused on 16-5-2023 at about 10:00 hrs LW.16 arrested the accused at Veterinary college outskirts of

Korutla and conducted confession cum recovery panchanama and upon which accused admitted to have committed the offence. LW.16 seized the samsung white colour mobile and later brought the accused and affected the arrest of accused.

Later sent the accused for potency test of accused to LW.11/Dr.Vinod who conducted potency over the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the person examined is not capable of performing sexual intercourse. On 10- 5-2023 he made requisition to Prl.JMFC Jagital for recording Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement. On 18-5-2023 LW.16 proceeded to scene of offence-II situated at

Kamareddy along with the LW.1 and LW.14 and where he secured the presence of

LW.6 and Lw.7. After collecting all relevant documents, LW.16 filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Korutla for the offences under Sections. 420, 376(2) (n) & 506 of IPC against the accused and on his appearance copies furnished under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Having gone through the record and found the case as exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Court, Jagtial vide Orders in PRC.18/2023. The Hon’ble Principal

5 S.C.No.105 of 2024

District and Sessions Judge, Jagtial took the case on the file for the offences under

Sections. 420, 376(2) (n) & 506 of IPC and made over to this court for disposal according to law. On appearance of the accused before this court he was examined

U/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C for the charges under Sections. 420, 376(2) (n) & 506 of IPC against accused, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the same.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and Mo.1 is marked. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses and with that prosecution side evidence was closed.

6.After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC for which he denied the incriminating material available against him and reported no defence evidence. The learned counsel for accused filed written arguments. The learned prosecutor also filed written arguments, so also the Memo along with three citations i.e.,, State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh (1996 AIR SC 1393), State of Maharashtra Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990 AIR SC 658) & State of Gujarath Vs Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabai (1999) 8

SCC 624. Heard arguments on both sides.

7.Now the points for consideration are:-

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under Sections. 420, 376(2) (n) & 506 of IPC?

6 S.C.No.105 of 2024

POINT:-

8. PW.1 (M.Varshini)victim deposed that about five years back she finished her degree course and she went to Mallapur Jathara (Mallanna Jathara) at the time accused got acquaintance with her there, accused took her number and used to call her by saying that he is loving her and intends to marry her. She believed the love and she too also fall in love with accused. In the year 2022 upon the request of accused she went to Kamareddy where accused forcefully made sexual intercourse on her. She further deposed that accused went to her house and in the absence of her parents three or four times participated in sexual intercourse with her. She further deposed that accused morphed her photos with some other person and uploaded in instagram, then she met him and questioned him about the uploading of photos. She also asked accused about the marriage but accused refused to marry her. In the meantime her mother died on 27-8-2022 with cancer, later she again asked to marry her but accused refused for the same and threatened her to kill by abusing her. Then she went to police station and lodged report/Ex.P1.

During the course of cross examination, she stated that Mallanna Swamy

Jathara performed on 7-4-2019. She has not given the conversations or call data in police station. She has not stated to their family members that accused used to made phone calls to her. On 5-8-2022 she wen to Kamareddy in a bus, when she used to go to Kamareddy she informed to her mother. There is no name to that apartment. When she returned from Kamareddy to their house neighbouring woman saw her, but she do not know her name. On 7-8-2022 accused came to 7 S.C.No.105 of 2024 their house. She know about Instagram and so also created fake ID. She never tried to held panchayath before the elders. She denied the suggestions.

9.PW.2(Rajaiah) who is the father of the victim, deposed the similar lines as that of PW.1. PW.1 lodged complaint against accused in the year 2002. PW.1 alone went to P.S for giving complaint. He know PW.1 has friend in Ratnapur village but he do not know her friend name. He saw the photos of accused and his daughter. He never went to parents of accused and asked about cheating of marriage by the accused. He denied the suggestions.

10.PW.5(K.Murali) photographer deposed that in the month of May, 2023, when she was present in his photo studio at that Korutla police called him to P.S

Korutla to record statements of victim and accordingly he went to P.S and he got videograph and photos of the recordings statement of victim, then he handed over the CD and photos/Ex.P6 to the police. He denied the suggestions.

11. PW.6 (Dr.N.Vinod Kumar) deposed that on 16-5-2023, he received a requisition from CI of police, Korutla for conducting potency test of Matla Uday

Kumar and accordingly he examined the accused and concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that the person cannot participate in sexual intercourse. The he issued Ex.P8/Potency test. He denied the suggestions.

8 S.C.No.105 of 2024

11.PW.7 (Dr.Sri Laxmi) deposed that upon the requisition from SI of police,

Korutla to examine the victim and she examined the victim had also collected vaginal swabs, Pubic hair, nails scrubbing and sent for analyses and after receipt of

FSL report basing on FSL opined that no semen and spermatozoa detected and she concluded that the observations were not consistent recent sexual intercourse but as vagina admitting two fingers intercourse occurred some time back/ago.

Hymen torned and no injuries detected. She denied the suggestions.

12.PW.8(D.Rajasri) the then woman head constable Korutla deposed that on 9- 5-2023 upon the instructions of CI of police, she examined and recorded the statement of victim in P.S Korutla with the help of photographer/PW.5. She denied the suggestions.

13.PW.9 (Ch.Sathish) the then SI of police, Korutla deposed that on 9-5-2023 at 15;00 hrs he received a written complaint from PW.1 basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.140/2023 U/Sec.376 (2)(n), 420 of IPC and issued Ex.P13/FIR.

Since the offence is in grave nature, as such he handed over CD file to LW.16/CI of police, Korutla for further investigation.

14.PW.11.(M.Praveen Kumar) the then CI of police, Korutla deposed that he received CD file from PW.9 on 9-5-2023 and verified the investigation done by him and found it on correct lines. During the course of his investigation he 9 S.C.No.105 of 2024 instructed LW.14 to record the statements of PW.1 and he referred the PW.1 to government hospital Korutla for medical examination. Later he visited the scene of offence at Paidimadugu village so also Kamareddy and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW.6 and LW.7. On 16-5-2023 he along with his staff rushed to vaternary college Korutla outskirts where apprehended

Accused and on interrogation you voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. Thereafter he sent requisitions to the concerned and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against Accused.

During the course of cross examination he admitted that he had not collected conversion data in between accused and PW.1 and so also the Instagram photos from the accused. He seized the mobile phone from accused only. He had not examined the neighbour of scene of offence panchanamas I& II. He denied the suggestions.

15.PW.3 and PW.4 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanamas I & II, turned hostile to prosecution case. PW.10 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama of accused also turned hostile and did not support the version of prosecution.

16.Now reverting back to the case, prosecution, the PW.1 statement has been recoded thrice. The first statement is her complaint EXP.1 given to the SHO on the 10 S.C.No.105 of 2024 basis of case FIR has been registered. Her second statement is her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.PC EXP17 and her third statement is her evidence recorded in this case. In all her three statement PW.1 has stated that accused first time established physical relationship forcibly on 5.08.2022. There are number of contradictions in her three statements. In her complaint EXP.1 she stated that accuse made physical contact with her without her consent at Kamaraeddy. She kept stopping him but he said she should trust him and should not afraid as it is quite normal when two people are in relationship. In her statement u/s 164 Cr. PC she only stated that accused made physical relation forcefully and she became pregnant and lived one year is sexual relationship but she did not state that she kept stopping him but he said she should trust him and should not afraid as it is quite normal when two people are in relationship, whereas in her examination in cross she deposed that accused committed sexual intercourse on 5-8-2022. The victim did not stated in her complaint and evidence about she got pregnancy.

17.In the present case, it is pertinent to note that the PW.1 clearly admitted that there is no name of apartment at Kamareddy where the accused firstly committed rape on her, there is no single Iota of evidence of the incident and there are no other persons who have witnessed the alleged incident. Further the

Investigating officer did not examined the owner of the apartment and so also the brother-in-law of accused namely Ramesh where accused worked in the Mahindra 11 S.C.No.105 of 2024

Tractor show room at Kamareddy. Hence, the testimony of the PW.1 is to be solely relied upon to bring home the guilt of the accused but failed to do so.

18. It is true that in the cases of sexual offences, the sole testimony of the victim can form the basis of the conviction of the accused. However, the Courts have to be extremely careful while examining the sole testimony of the victim as cautioned in the case of Sadashiv RamraoHadbe v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 92. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the accused can be convicted solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, if the same is inspiring confidence of the Court. Since both the prosecutrix as well as the accused have a right for a fair trial, thus, if the statement of the prosecutrix does not inspire confidence and creates a doubt, the court must look for corroborative evidence, such as, medical evidence or the surrounding circumstances. The relevant para is extracted below:- "9. It is true that in a rape case the accused could be convicted on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it is capable of inspiring confidence in the mind of the court. If the version given by the prosecutrix is unsupported by any medical evidence or the whole surrounding circumstances are highly improbable and belie the case set up by the prosecutrix, the court shall not act on the solitary evidence of the prosecutrix.

19. In the present case, there are material contradictions by the PW.1 in her court evidence and statement recorded under section 164 of CrPC and the initial complaint, thus, the narration of the incident and other allegations made by the victim have to be examined to determine the question of quality 12 S.C.No.105 of 2024 of the testimony of the victim. The following inconsistencies were noticed by the learned Trial Court:-

I. Nature of consent: In her complaint, she mentioned resisting the accused, but this detail was absent in her statement under Section 164

Cr.PC. She never stated about she became pregnancy in her complaint and evidence but in her Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement she became pregnancy

II. Details of the incident: Additional details, such as the accused took her to apartment at Kamareddy and committed rape, whereas in her Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement never stated about committing rape at Kamareddy, were only mentioned in her court evidence so also in her complaint.

20. Another aspect which weighs with me is that the victim at the date of incident, was a major. She was not a gullible individual. The date of first incident is of five years before lodging the complaint and there is a delay of lodging the complaint. The victim was a young lady of 25 years old, the act of establishing physical relationship between the victim and the accused appeared to be consensual.

21. Thus, on perusal of the aforementioned contradictions in the statements of the victim, the victim has failed to establish and lead clear and cogent evidence regarding the rape on account of false promise of marriage. Therefore, in my 13 S.C.No.105 of 2024 considered opinion, the glaring contradictions in the testimony of the victim raises doubt over the authenticity of the prosecution's case which tilts the balance in favour of the accused. It would be unsafe to base conviction on an inconsistent solitary testimony.

22. Further the prosecution was also of the view that no WhatsApp, Facebook,

Instagram messages or chats were produced to show that the accused had made a false promise of marriage to the accused for establishing sexual relationship.

Further the Investigating officer failed to produce the call data before this court to prove the allegation of call transactions between the PW.1 and accused. Further the PW.1 in her chief examination deposed that accused morphed her photos with some other person and uploaded in his instagram, but the investigating officer did not produce alleged photographs before this court which is fatal to the case of prosecution. Therefore, in view of major inconsistencies and contradictions and lack of any corroborating evidence, medical or otherwise, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the above said charges. The prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. So it is a fit case to give benefit of doubt to the accused. So the point is answered against the prosecution.

23.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offence under sections 376 (2) (n), 420 & 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said charges. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands 14 S.C.No.105 of 2024 cancelled after six months or appeal time. The Mo.1 i.e., Samsung white color mobile which is under the safe custody of police concerned shall be ordered to return to its original owner after expiry of appeal time or six months under proper acknowledgment and receipt.

Typed to Stenographer Gr.I, directly on computer screen, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 09th day of April, 2026.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: M.Varshini. -None- PW-2: M.Rajaiah. PW-3: L.Bheemaiah. PW.4: E.Sudharshan. PW.5: K.Murali. PW.6: Dr.N.Vinod Kumar. PW.7: Dr.Srilaxmi. PW.8: A.Rajasri. PW.9: Ch.Sathish. PW.10: P.Sathaiah. PW.11: M.Praveen Kumar.

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Complaint. Ex.P2: Signature of PW.3 on CDF-I Ex.P3: Signature of PW.3 on CDF-II. Ex.P4: Signature of PW.4 on CDF-I. Ex.P5: Signature of PW.4 on CDF-II. Ex.P6 : Photos along with CD. Ex.P7: Requisition. Ex.P8: Potency test. Ex.P9: Requisition. Ex.P10: FSL Report. Ex.P11: Medical examination report. Ex.P12: Final Opinion. Ex.P13: FIR. Ex.P14: Signature of PW.10 on confession cum seizure panchanama.

15 S.C.No.105 of 2024

Ex.P15: Scene of offence panchanama -I. Ex.P16: Confession cum seizure panchanama. Ex.P17: Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P18: Scene of offence panchanama-II.

For Defence: ---Nil--- Material Objects: --NIL--.

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial.

Page No.1 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF THE I . ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

:: AT :: JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: SRI. S.NARAYANA

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

JAGITIAL

Monday, the 06 th DAY OF April, 2026

APPEAL SUIT NO.29 OF 2025

Between :

1.Rasamalla Gangamma, W/o: Devaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,

2.Rasamalla Gangarajam, S/o: Devaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Rasamalla Devaiah, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: Ithupalli village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Jagtial District.

...Appellant/Defendants.

// AND //

Savanpalli Vajramma, W/o: Late Ramesh, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Ithupalli village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Jagtial District.

...Respondent/Plaintiff.

Appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the I.Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Jagtial in O.S.No. 212 of 2018, dated 14-12-2023.

Between :

Savanpalli Vajramma, W/o: Late Ramesh, Age: 47 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Ithupalli village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Jagtial District.

...Plaintiff.

AND

1.Rasamalla Gangamma, W/o: Devaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Household,

2.Rasamalla Gangarajam, S/o: Devaiah, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3.Rasamalla Devaiah, S/o: Narsaiah, Age: 65 years, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o: Ithupalli village of Pegadapalli Mandal of Jagtial District.

..Defendants.

Page No.2 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 r/w XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.

This Appeal came on before me 11.3.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Vurimetal Rajesh & Rachakonda Devendar, Advocates for Appellants/Defendants and of Sri.D.Laxma Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent/Plaintiff: upon hearing arguments of both counsels and upon perusing the material papers on record, the matter having stood over for consideration this day the Court delivered the following:-

: :J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is an appeal preferred under Order XLI Rule 1 CPC by the appellants who are the unsuccessful defendants before the trial Court thereby praying the Court to set aside the impugned Judgment and decree dated:

14.12.2023 in OS.No.212 of 2018 passed by the I.Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Jagtial whereby and where under the relief of perpetual injunction.

2.Brief facts of the plaintiff/respondent case:-

The Plaintiff is the exclusive, absolute possessor of agricultural land to an extent of A: 2-23 1/2 guntas in Sy.No. 343/ Dry land, situated at shivar

Ithupalli village of Pegadapalli Revenue Mandal, is subject matter of the suit, hereinafter will be referred as suit schedule land. Originally one Vilasagarapu

Lachaiah was the owner of suit schedule land, from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land about 12 years ago and odd through a registered sale deed bearing document No 19/2006 dt: 5-1-2006, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoying by cultivating it. After her purchase, the plaintiff has applied for mutation of suit land on her name in the revenue

Page No.3 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

record, there upon the revenue officials after due enquiry effected the mutation of suit schedule land in the name of plaintiff in revenue records vide Khatha

No. 520, issued patta pass book and title deed, entered the name of plaintiff in the pahanies. In the recent Bhuprakshalana scheme also the plaintiff issued new patta pass book vide pass book No. T-18150090395. To substantiate her title and possession, the plaintiff filed copy of registered sale deed, copy of patta pass book, copy of pahani for the year, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and computerized extract of 1-B extract.

It is further submitted by the plaintiff that she is a widow taking the said advantage the Defendants, who belongs to one and same family without any right, title or possession started their illegal and unauthorized interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule land, making attempts to occupy part of land, however the plaintiff has been resisting the ill efforts of Defendants, but on 18-06-2018 at Ithupalli village, the

Defendants with the help of their associates have trespassed into the suit schedule land, removed some boundary stones, tried to occupy part of land from out suit schedule land, upon which the Plaintiff with the help of her well wishers resisted the illegal attempts temporarily, but there is every likely hood that the Defendants at any time may occupy part of land from out of suit schedule land, in such case, the plaintiff will lose her valuable land. Thus the

Page No.4 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

Defendants are strangers and aggressors to the Plaintiff and to the suit schedule land. Under the said circumstances, there is no other alternative remedy is left to the Plaintiff to avert the defendants except to approach this Hon'ble seeking relief of perpetual injunction to protect her land from the hands of Defendants.

Hence the suit.

3.The case of the defendants:-

The plaintiff by suppressing the true facts has illegally filed this suit with an ulterior motive to grab the suit land of defendant No.1 which is not at all neither owned nor possessed by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 submitted that the plaintiff is the exclusive and absolute owner and possessor of the agricultural land to an extent of A: 2-23% Guntas in Sy.No. 343/ Dry land, situated at shivar Ithupalli Village of Pegadapalil Revenue Mandal is utterly false, fabricated by he plaintiff in order to grab the plaint schedule land owned and possessed by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 denied that originally one Vilasagarapu Lachaiah was the owner of suit schedule land, from whom the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule land about 12 years ago and odd through a registered sale deed bearing Doc No. 19/2006 Dt: 5-1-2006 since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoying it by cultivating it. It is denied that after her purchase, the plaintiff applied for mutation of suit land on her

Page No.5 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

name in the revenue record, thereupon the revenue officials after due enquiry effected the mutation of suit schedule land in the name of plaintiff in revenue records vide Khatha No. 520, issued patta pass book and title deed, entered the name of plaintif in the pahanies. In the recent Bhuprakshalana scheme also the plaintiff issued new patta pass book vide pass book No. T-18150090395.

It is denied by the defendants that the plaintiff is widow taking the said advantage the Defendants without any right, title or possession have started their illegal and unauthorized interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule land, making attempts to occupy part of land, however the plaintiff has been resisting the ill efforts of

Defendants, but on 18-06-2018 at Ithupalli village, the Defendants with the help of their associates have trespassed into the suit schedule land, removed some boundary stones and tried to occupy part of land from out suit schedule land, upon which the Plaintiff with the help of her well wishers resisted the illegal attempts temporarily, but there is every likely hood that the Defendants at any time may occupy part of land from out of suit schedule land, in such case, the plaintiff will lose her valuable land, it is further denied that the

Defendants are very strangers, aggressors to the Plaintiff and to the suit schedule land, there is no other alternative remedy is left to the Plaintiff to avert the defendants except to approach this Hon'ble seeking relief of perpetual

Page No.6 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

injunction to protect her land from the hands of Defendants. The father of defendant No.1 Vilasagaram Sailu is the exclusive owner, possessor of wet land bearing Sy.No.343 area AC.2-23 ½ guntas situated at Ithupalli Shivar of

Pegadapally Mandal for his legal necessity sold away Ac.2-12 ½ to one

Gannaveni Narsaiah and Gannaveni Komuraiah both are resident of

Maddulapally village of Pegadapally Mandal, father of defendant No.1 by name Vilasagaram Sailu died about 10 years back left the said balance agricultural of Ac.0-11 Guntas by leaving the defendant No.1 as his only sole

Class-I legal heir, who succeeded the same after demise of her father

Vilasagaram Sailu, ever since the defendant No.1 became exclusive owner and possessor of AC.0-11 Guntas land, the name of defendant No.1 is in continued in the Revenue Records of Ithupalli village as Pattedar, and possessor, after demise of father of defendant No.1 Vilasagaram Sailu the same was succeeded by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff with a sole Intention to grab defendant's

No.1 land the plaintiff and with other unsocial elements trying to occupy the land of defendant No.1 has filed the above suit with all false allegations since the plaint schedule land purchased by the father of defendant No.1 about 30 years back.

It is further submitted that, the remaining balance of agricultural wet land of Ac.0-11 Guntas in Sy.No.343/C Situated at Ithupalli village, the

Page No.7 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

pattadhar pass book and title deed were issued by Tahsildar Pegadapally under

Raithu Bandu Programme of Telangana State in favour of defendant No.1 by entering her name in the pahani records as owner and possessor thereof to substantiate the rights of defendant No.1 over her said agricultural land of

Ac.0-11 Guntas she filed the copy of Original registered sale deed vide Doc

No.815 of 2003 Dt: 30-06-2003, copy of pattadar pass book and title deed issued by Tahsildar Pegadapally. The defendant No.1 submitted that since the date of demise of her father Vilasagaram Sailu to till this date she had has been in physically peaceful and uninterrupted possession over the agricultural land of Ac.0-11 Guntas by raising agricultural crops like paddy and maize. The defendant No.1 submitted that taking advantage of fabricated and created documents filed this false suit against the defendants with false allegations for the relief of perpetual injunction suppressing and misrepresenting the real facts of the case approached to this Hon'ble court with unclean hands without any title and possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule land at any point of time or as on the date of filing of the suit. As such prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.For the sake of convenience the parties to the appeal are hereinafter will be referred to the appellants as defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs as arrayed in the OS.No.235 of 2012 in the trial Court.

Page No.8 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

5.The counsels for both parties orally argued.

6.The trial court framed the three issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of perpetual injunction as against the defendants as prayed for?

3.To what relief?

7.After hearing counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, and PW.2 and 3 examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 in rebuttal defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and ExsB1 to B3 were marked.

8.On perusal of the pleadings made the points by the learned trial Court has decreed the suit OS.No.212 of 2018 by its judgment dated 14.12.2023.

Grounds of appeal.

The judgment and decree is against contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. The trial court ought to have dismissed the case as the suit is badly barred by limitation rather decreeing the suit. The trial court ought to have observed that the evidentiary value of the Exhibits marked on behalf of the Plaintiff. After death of her father i.e., Appellant No.1/Defendant No.1

Page No.9 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

inherited and succeeded the said Ac.0-11 gts of land in Sy.No.343. The appellant/Defendant no.1 is also mutated her name in revenue records i.e.

pahanies, 1-B (ROR) in respect of Ac.0-11 gts and also got issued pattedar pass book and title deed book/Ex.B3. To knock away the said Ac.0-11 gts of land the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit on false and baseless allegations and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Now the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether Judgment and decree of lower Court in OS.No.212 of 2018 is sustainable?

3. To what relief?

11.POINT NO.1:-

The learned Advocate for the appellants/defendants orally argued and reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal grounds and stated that the lower

Court failed to consider Ex.B1 to B3 and passed the Judgment and decree simply by relying on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ex.A1 to A9. Hence prayed to set aside the Judgment and decree passed by the lower Court.

12.The learned advocate for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the

Page No.10 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

lower Court had rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the documents filed by the plaintiff and arrive to a correct conclusion and decreed the suit and he prays to confirm the decree of the trial court judgment and prays to dismiss the appeal.

13.In the present suit the PW.1 is the plaintiff, PW.2 and PW.3 are the adjacent land owners. The defendants cross examined the PW.1 to PW.3 at length but nothing was elicited against the possession of the plaintiff. Ex.A1to

Ex.A9 reflects that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. Where as coming to the case of defendants that they are in possession of Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.343/C but defendant No.1 as DW.1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that she cannot say the boundaries of the land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts. Nothing was brought on the record against the claim of the plaintiff, the DW.2/defendant

No.1 also clearly admitted in the cross examination that he was a kid of (18) years at the time of selling the land by his grandfather, he to also cannot say the boundaries for the land sold by his grandfather(Sailu) to Gannaveni Narsaiah and Komuraiah. The defendant disclosed the boundaries for the extent of Ac.0- 11 gts but he fairly admitted in his cross examination that he has not mention the said boundaries in his written statement and as well as in his chief examination affidavit.

Page No.11 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

14.The DW.2 further admitted in his cross examination that he do not know the boundaries for the land under Ex.B1. On over all evidence of DW.1 and 2 and Ex.B1 the extent of Ac.0-11 gts of land was not shown to any side boundary for the land sold by the grandfather of DW.2 in Ex.B1, which shows their case as doubtful. Further the DW.1 admitted in his cross examination the said extent of Ac.0-11 gts was occupied by the plaintiff thereby the defendants not have and physical possession over the extent of land claimed by them and on the other hand the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land. So therefor the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The evidence of PW.1 to 3 is that the defendants illegally started interference into the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, thereby the plaintiff filed the present suit.

15.Coming to the documentary evidence, Ex.A1 is the original pattedar pass book vide patta No.520 which shows the name of the plaintiff as owner and possessor to an extent of Ac.2-23 ½ gts over the suit schedule property.

Ex.A2 to Ex.A6 are the certified copies of pahnies for the fasli years 1423 to 1427 which clearly shows the name of the plaintiff as owner and possessor over the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.2-23 ½ gts. Ex.A7 is the CC of 1-

B (ROR) Namuna which is showing the same. Ex.A8 is the crucial document which is the CC of pahani for the year 2004-05 which shows the name of the

Page No.12 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Vilasagaram Lachaiah S/o:Narsaiah as possessor to an extent of 2-23 ½ gts. Further the name of Vilsagaram Narsaiah showing to an extent of Ac.2-23 ½ gts in Sy.No.343. Ex.P9 is the registered sale deed document No.19 of 2006, dt:05-01-2006 which is clearly revealing that the vendor of plaintiff namely Vilasagaram Lachiah sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. By virtue of Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 the plaintiff proved that she is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

16.Be that as it may, the, defendants got exhibited Ex.B1to B3. Ex.B1 is the

C.C of registered sale deed vide document No.815 of2003, dt:3-6-2003 which clearly goes to show that one Vilasagarm Sailu S/o: Ramaiah sold out the land to one Gannaveni Narsaiah and Gannaveni Komuraiah to an extent of Ac.2-12 ½ gts. Ex.B2 which is the 1-B Namuna shows that the defendant No.1 is having land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.343/C and the same is acquired from ancestors. Ex.B3 is the pattedar cum title deed book which also reveals the same as that of Ex.B2.

17. Although the defendant No.1 in her written statement clearly admitted that her father namely Vilasagarm Sailu is the owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.343 to an extent of Ac.2-23 ½ gts and out of which her father sold away Ac.2-12 ½ to Ganaveni Narsaiah and Gannaveni Komuraiah but on

Page No.13 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

perusal of Ex.A8 it is showing one Vilasagarapu Lachaiah and Vilasagarm

Narsaiah is reflecting further the defendants failed to prove that how the father of defendant No.1 got acquired the land and how they remained the land of

Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.343, so also the boundaries over the survey No.343.

18. From the evidence and documentary evidence of both the parties it can be safely concluded that suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff from his vendor namely Vilasagarapu Lachaiah in Sy.No.343 to an extent of 2- 23 ½ gts and the same is evident from Ex.A8 as the plaintiff acquired the land through Ex.A9. Defendants cannot take advantage of Ac.0-11 gts available after selling the land to an extent of Ac.2-12 ½ gts by his father/Vilasagarapu

Sailu to Gannaveni Narsaiah and Gannaveni Komuraiah, but the defendants failed to show their father acquired the land and on perusal of Ex.A8 the name is shown as Vilasagarpu Narsaiah this piece of evidence creates doubt over the version of defendants. If they acquired the remaining balance of Ac.0-11 gts after selling, it might be reflect the name of Vilasagarpu Sailu but in Ex.A8 it is showing Vilasagarpu Narsaiah, but on Ex.B1 it is showing Vilasagarpur Sailu this piece of evidence creates doubt that how the defendants acquired Ac.0-11 gts of land as well as boundaries to the suit schedule property.

Page No.14 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 29 of 2025

19.The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PW1 to 3 and disbelieved the evidence of DW1 and Dw.2 When the plaintiff proved her case by oral and documentary evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 proving possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. All these aspects are rightly appreciated by the trial

Court, in its own findings and arrived to a correct conclusion and no fault of the trial court in decreeing the plaintiff as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. So also directing the defendants are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Accordingly this point is answered.

20.POINT NO.2:- In view of the discussion on Point No.1 this Court is of the opinion that there is no need of interference by this Court in the said findings of the trial Court. Judgment and decree passed by trial Court in OS.No.212 of 2018 is sustainable. Accordingly this point is answered.

21.POINT NO.3:- In the result, this appeal is dismissed without costs confirming the decree and Judgment made in OS.No.212 of 2018 dated 14.12.2023 on the file of I.Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of April, 2026.

I.Addl. District Judge, Jagtial. :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: --- NIL --- I.Addl. District Judge, Jagtial.

Page No.1 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF THE I . ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

:: AT :: JAGTIAL.

PRESENT: SRI. S.NARAYANA

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

JAGITIAL

Wednesday, the 08 th DAY OF April, 2026

APPEAL SUIT NO.51 OF 2024

Between :

Paripalli Anjaiah, S/o: Yellaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Thatipalli village of Mallial Mandal of Jagtial District.

...Appellant/Plaintiff.

// AND //

1.Paripalli Laxmi, W/o: Late Balaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Paripalli Mogili, S/o: Late Balaiah, age:26 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both are R/o: Thatipalli village of Mallial Mandal.

...Respondents/Defendants.

Appeal against the Judgment and decree passed by the I.Addl. Junior Civil

Judge, Jagtial in O.S.No. 10 of 2017, dated 25-09-2024.

Between :

Paripalli Anjaiah, S/o: Yellaiah, Age: 52 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Thatipalli village of Mallial Mandal of Jagtial District.

...Plaintiff.

AND

1.Paripalli Laxmi, W/o: Late Balaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Paripalli Mogili, S/o: Late Balaiah, age:26 years, Occ: Agriculture, Both are R/o: Thatipalli village of Mallial Mandal.

...Defendants.

Page No.2 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 r/w XLI RULE 1 & 2 OF C.P.C.

This Appeal came on before me 03.02.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.R.Sriramulu, Advocate for Appellant/Plaintiff and of Sri.T.Shankar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants: upon hearing arguments of both counsels and upon perusing the material papers on record, the matter having stood over for consideration this day the Court delivered the following:-

: :J U D G M E N T ::

1.This is an appeal preferred under Order XLI Rule 1 CPC by the appellant who is the unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial Court thereby praying the Court to set aside the impugned Judgment and decree dated:

25.9.2024 in OS.No.10 of 2027 passed by the I.Addl.Junior Civil Judge,

Jagtial whereby and where under the reliefs of declaration of title and perpetual injunction.

2.Brief facts of the plaintiff/Appellant case:-

The plaintiff is the absolute owner and exclusive possessor of land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts, in Sy.No.24/ఇ, Dry land situated at Shivar of Thatipalli village of Mallial revenue Mandal, is subject mater of the suit, is suit schedule land. Originally Paripalli Balaiah, the husband of defendant No.1 (father of defendant No.2) was the owner of said land, but in the year 1984 for his personal necessities he sold the said land to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- having received the sale consideration, Paripalli Balaiah executed a simple sale deed on 1-2-1984 in the presence of elders delivered the

Page No.3 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

possession of suit land to the plaintiff, put him in possession, since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoying it by cultivating. The plaintiff’s name also recorded in the revenue records as owner and possessor of suit schedule land. The father of defendant No.2 died about four years back. It is further submitted that due to hiking of land rates, the defendants developed coveted eye over the suit schedule land, to extract money from the plaintiff started their illegal and unauthorized interference into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land with a propagation that

Paripalli Balaiah never sold the suit schedule land to the plaintiff and on after 20-12-2016 at Thatipelli village the defendants with the help of some unsocial elements seriously tried to occupy the suit schedule land and when the plaintiff averted them, the defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff that one or the other day, they will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule land, therefore, the plaintiff entitled to relief for declaration that he is the owner of suit schedule and and also for perpetual injunction.

3.The case of the defendants:

The defendant No.1 filed written statement and the same is adopted by defendant No.2. The defendants denied all the allegations made in the plaint against them are absolutely false. The Defendant No.1 asserted that the plaintiff

Page No.4 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

has filed the suit with a malicious intention to knock away the suit schedule land from the possession of the defendants No.1 & 2. It is denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of land to the extent of 0-11 guntas in

Sy.No. 242/ఇ, situated at Thatipelli village of Mallial Mandal. It is also denied that the plaintiff purchased the said land under simple sale deed in the year, 1984 i.e., on 1-2-1984 from Paripelli Balaiah for a consideration of Rs.

15,000/- and since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment etc.

It is also denied that the defendants to extract money from the plaintiff started illegal inference into peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule land and they started propagating in the village that

Paripelli Balaiah never sold the suit schedule land to the plaintiff, they tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule land and tried to occupy it and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The Defendant No.1 asserted that neither the plaintiff is owner nor the possessor of suit schedule land as claimed by him, as such question of dispossess him from the suit schedule land does not at all arise, since the defendants are the possessors of suit schedule land, as they succeeded the suit schedule land from Paripelli Anjaiah. The Defendant No.1 also asserted that the suit schedule land belongs to her husband Paripelli Balaiah, as he purchased the said land long ago and got mutated on his name in the revenue records. Till his

Page No.5 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

death, Paripelli Balaiah was in possession and cultivated it. Paripelli Balaiah, died in the year, 2012, later the suit schedule land kept fallow, as the defendant

No.1 being household lady is unable to cultivate it, whereas the defendant No.2 is small boy, who just now completed his age of majority.

The defendant No.1 also asserted that after death of Paripelii Balaiah in the year, 2012, since the suit schedule land is kept fallow, the plaintiff developed coveted eye, thereby created a sham and bogus simple sale deed alleged to have been Paripelli Balaiah has sold the suit schedule land to him in the year, 1984 for a consideration of Rs.15000/-as a matter of fact, during his life time, Paripelli Balaiah never sold the suit schedule land to the plaintiff,simple sale deed is fictitious documents for the purpose of this case and is sham and bogus simple sale deed, the plaintiff after the death of Paripelli

Balaiah filed the present suit with creation of some revenue documents. The defendant No.1 also asserted the alleged document through which the plaintiff alleged to have been purchased the suit schedule land is not the simple sale deed, as it is the document to avail some hand loan, but later converted it into simple sale deed with the help of some over writings, as the recitals of said document are completely pertains to availing hand loan, as the word "ROKHA" means, hand loan. On other hand, in the year, 1984 the plaintiff was a small boy having 15 or 16 years old, he do not have such capacity to purchase the

Page No.6 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

suit schedule land. Paripally Balaiah never executed any simple sale deed and the signature and thumb impression are not belongs to Balaiah.

The defendant No.1 further asserted that her husband Paripelli Balaiah died in the year, 2012, when she along with the defendant No.2 tried to get record their name in the revenue records, plaintiff made his objection and in collusion with the revenue officials created a sham and false pancharnama alleged to have been that the plaintiff is in possession and that the mother of plaintiff burried in the suit schedule land, the defendant No.2 also did labour work in the suit schedule land on behalf of plaintiff etc.. The said panchanama

dated: 3-9-2015 is completely table made one, since no signature of defendants

obtained thereon, panchanama conducted in the absence of defendants, with that of sham panchanama, taking the old age defendant No.1, whereas the defendant No.2 was small boy, taking the said all advantages behind back of the defendants, he got recorded his name in the revenue records for the year, 2015 and 2016. If really, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule and in he year, 1984, his name would have appeared in possession column from 6 the year, 1984, or at least from the year, 1990 or 2000, but till the year, 2015, his name is not recorded in the revenue records. Therefore, the entire documents relied upon by the plaintiff are sham and fictitious documents in order to knock away the suit schedule land from the possession of defendants. The plaintiff

Page No.7 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

even also do not know the boundaries of suit schedule land, since the towards southern side to the suit schedule land, the land of Pilli Muthaiah is situated, but not the land of Thirupathi Reddy as pleaded in the schedule, thereby the

Defendant No.1 sought for dismissal of the suit.4.For the sake of convenience the parties to the appeal are hereinafter will be referred to the appellants as defendants and the respondents as the plaintiffs as arrayed in the

OS.No.235 of 2012 in the trial Court.

5.The counsels for both parties orally argued.

6.The trial court framed the four issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is owner/title holder of the suit schedule property as claimed by him or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit or not?

3. whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for or not?

4.To what relief?

7.After hearing counsel for the plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff himself examined as PW.1, and PWs.2 to 4 examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 in rebuttal defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and one Sura Linga Reddy examined ExsB1 to B14 were marked.

Page No.8 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

8.On perusal of the pleadings made the points by the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit OS.No.10 of 2017 by its judgment dated 25.9.2024.

Grounds of appeal.

The judgment and decree is against contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case. The trial court ought to have decree the suit. The trial court did not discussed the issue No.1 and 2 and not appreciated the documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff further the plaintiff claimed the suit schedule property in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.242 situated at Thatipelli village of Malial mandal to declare the plaintiff as owner and possessor and not to interfere of peaceful possession and enjoyment of appellant and the same is purchased through/Ex.A4 and Ex.A1 is the attested copy of panchanama issued by Tahsildar Mallial Dt:03-9-2015, further the trial court failed to appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of the appellant/plaintiff and the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Now the following points arise for determination:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and perpetual injunction as the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit?

2. Whether Judgment and decree of lower Court in OS.No.10 of 2017 is sustainable?

3. To what relief?

Page No.9 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

POINT NOs.1 & 2:-

10.The material evidence on record, the plaintiff specifically pleaded that he is the exclusive owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.242/ ఇ to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts situated at Thatipalli village, Mallial Mandal, having purchased the same from Paripalli Balaiah who is the husband of defendant

No.1(father of defendant No.2) through a simple sale deed dt:1-2-1984, ever since the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment over the same. On perusal of

Ex.A1 which is panchanama report reveals that plaintiff is in possession over the suit land from the date of his purchase. Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are the pahanies for the fasli years 1425 & 1426 which reveals the Donga Bapu Reddy to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts as pattedar and possessor in Sy.No.242/ ఇ and Paripelli

Balaiah to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts as pattedar and plaintiff as possessor to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts. Ex.A4 clearly goes to show that the husband of the defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 had executed a document that he received an amount of Rs.15,000/- and suit schedule land was sold to the plaintiff.

11.Coming to the documentary evidence on the side of defendants i.e.,

Ex.B1 to B13 reflects the name of husband of defendant No.1 to an extent of

Ac.0-11 gts as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. In Ex.B14

Page No.10 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

the name of one Sura Ashireddy is recorded as pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property. If really the husband of defendant No.1 died in the year 2012 and the present suit is filed in the year 2017, then what prevented the defendants to mutate their names in the revenue records. As per Ex.A1 panchanama in which it is clearly revealing that the defendant No.1 is the third wife to the said Paripalli Balaiah. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of filing suit by exhibiting Ex.A1 which is a public document in which one Donga Bapu reddy who is having land in the suit survey number acted as one panch witness along with Gundarapu Vijay and Atla Malareddy in which on 3-9-2015 it is revealing that husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 sold the land to plaintiff to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts in Sy.No.242/ఇthrough simple sale deed on 01-2-1984/Ex.A4. Further in Ex.A1 it is clearly revealing that through the land which the plaintiff has to live three guntas of land to other land owners as path way to their lands.

12.Ex.A1 further revealing that the mother of the plaintiff namely Gouravva died about eight years back and she was burried in the suit schedule property and so also the aunt of plaintiff also burried in the suit schedule property.

Further the defendant no.2 who is the son of defendant No1 (third wife) of

Paripalli Balaiah applied for mutation but till now he is not in possession of the

Page No.11 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

suit schedule property and defendant No.2 assisted the plaintiff in cultivating the suit schedule property.

13.There must be some documentary evidence in support of their (defendants) possession like cultivation account of the village and payment of tax etc., but obviously for different reasons the defendants did not produce cultivation account subsequent to mutation of land at least any land revenue receipt evidencing payment of land revenue to the Government. Thus the defendants except asserting that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and their husband and father name is reflecting in the revenue records and what prevented them to produce any documentary proof in support of their contention that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

14.Defendants failed to offer any plausible explanation as to how the possession of plaintiff is recorded in pahanies from the year 2015-2016 which were produced by plaintiff and marked as Ex.A2 and A3. The evidence of defendants is amply silent about the aspect as to when the plaintiff got mutation done on its name in the revenue records and also the steps if any taken by the defendants before the concerned authorities for rectification of the revenue entries. It is well settled principle of law reiterated in a catena of Judgments from time to time that the entries made in the revenue records under the ROR

Page No.12 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

Act are presumed to be true and correct unless those entries are amended as per the provisions of the said Act or cancelled by the proceedings of a Court.

15.The principle of law is explained in “Ganta Chinna Shankaraiah Vs.

Nadunoori Swamy (2006 (6) ALT 178) and in “M.Varthamma and others Vs.

Kanappa (died) and others” (2013 (5) ALT 241). In Kondaveti Francis Vs.

M.Ludramma and others (2000 (3) ALT 433) the High Court held that Section 6 of the A.P.Records of Rights in land and pattedar pass books Act 1971 provides that every entry prepared under the Act shall be presumed to be true and correct until the contrary is proved or otherwise it is amended in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Pahanies filed by the plaintiff under

Ex.A2 & A3 show that it was recorded as possessor of suit schedule lands.

Evidently the defendants have not taken any steps to proceed under the provisions of ROR Act for seeking rectification of the revenue records. In the absence of such steps entries shown under pahanies cannot be said as true mutation. Therefore, the entries in the revenue records showing the rights of the plaintiff are presumed to be true and correct for the present suit proceedings.

Page No.13 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

16.As per the detailed discussion in the foregoing paras the plaintiff upon whom the heavy burden lies to prove the title of the suit schedule property in order to succeed in the present suit for the grant of the relief of title over the suit schedule property successfully proved the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land vide Ex.A4 through which the plaintiff was in possession of suit schedule property to an extent of Ac.0-11 gts. On the other hand the defendants who mainly contested the suit failed to prove the payment of

Rs.15,000/- to the father of defendant and plaintiff for purchasing the suit schedule land and also failed to prove that entries in favour of plaintiff in revenue records is fairly done by following procedure under ROR Act.

Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief as sought for. Accordingly these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff.

17.ISSUE NO.3:- Since plaintiff established its possession and enjoyment through entries in revenue records plaintiff is entitled to seek the relief of perpetual injunction. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiff.

On evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and on looking into the findings recorded by the trial Court in dismissing the suit, I found infirmity and impropriety in the Judgment of trial Court warranting interference.

Page No.14 of 14 Appeal Suit No. 51 of 2024

18.In the result, appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the decree and Judgment in OS.NO. No.10 of 2017 dt:25-9-2024 passed by the

I.Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Jagtial.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.I directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 08 th day of April, 2026.

I.Addl. District Judge, Jagtial.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :: --- NIL ---

I.Addl. District Judge, Jagtial.

1 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS COURT

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO

ACT CASES, AT JAGTIAL .

Present: Sri.S.Narayana I Addl. Sessions Judge, Jagtial FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

Thursday, this the 25th day of January, 2024

SC (POCSO) No. 71 of 2018

State: represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Gollapalli. ……Complainant v. Kothuri Lalitha W/o Peddamondaiah, Age: 38 years, SC-Madiga, R/o Shankaraopet village of Gollapalli mandal.

……..Accused

This case coming on 03.01.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of the Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and Sri R.Sriramulu, Advocate for accused, upon hearing on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Gollapalli has filed Charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.27/2017 for the offence under Sec.354-D, 506, 109 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 of Protection of the Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 with the following allegations:

On 23.02.2017 at 1520 hours, the complainant/PW1/S.Sudha came to police station and lodged a written complaint under Ex.P1 in which she stated that she was studying Intermediate First year in 2 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

Shrivani College, Jagtial. The JCWL/Kothuri Prem Sagar who is the son of the accused is native of her village and he used to follow her near

Shankaraopet Bus Stop while she was going to her college and also used to follow her near their college at Jagtial and harassed her by stating that he is loving her and he want to marry her. JCWL has phoned to her mother and while asking her particulars, her mother admonished him, even then he continuously following her in the name of love and thereby harassed her. On that her mother went to the accused house and questioned the accused who is the mother of JCWL, on that she told that her son will do like that only and supported the illegal acts of her son, even though the JCWL did not change his attitude and continuously following her from their village bus stop to their college and threatened to love him, marry him or otherwise he will kill her. She is unable to bear the torture of JCWL and finally she requested to take necessary action. On the complaint from PW1,

PW13/ASI of Police, P.S.Gollapalli has registered a case in

Cr.No.27/2017 u/sec.354-D, 506 and 109 IPC and Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 of

POCSO Act and issued Ex.P7/FIR, he handed over the CD file to

PW12/S.I of Police, P.S.Gollapalli for further investigation, he took up further investigation, he visited the scene of place and secured the presence of Pws.7 and 9 and drawn the rough sketch map and he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 6 and PW10. After that he collected the date of birth certificate of the victim from 3 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

PW11/Vice Principal, T.S.W.R School. As per the date of birth certificate victim was minor and her age is 15 years 8 months. He filed the requisition before PW8/WPC of P.S Mallapur to record the statement of the victim/PW1. On 20.03.2017 at about 1230 hours, he arrested the accused at Shankaraopet village at her house and sent the accused for judicial custody and while the efforts are in progress on 25.03.2017, he apprehended JCWL at his house. He filed the requisition before the learned JFCM, Jagtial to record the 164 Cr.P.C statement of the victim and after collecting the documents and after completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet. Thereby, the accused has committed the offence u/s.354-D, 506, 109 of IPC and Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Hence, the charge.

2)The case is taken on file against the accused for the offences U/sec. 354-D, 506, 109 of IPC and Sec.11 (iv) r/w 12 of POCSO

Act, 2012.

3) On appearance of the accused before the court, copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to him as mandate U/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On examination, the accused denied the offence and pleaded not guilty of the charges under sec.354 (D) r/w 109, 506 r/w 109 IPC and Sec.12 r/w 17 of POCSO Act and claimed to be tried.

4 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

4)To prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 13 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7.

5)After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material evidence available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence on his behalf.

6)Now the point for determination is:

1.Whether the prosecution has established that the accused abetted the JCWL to love with the victim, marry her, harassed her and threatened to kill her?

2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for which the accused is charged?

3. To what result?

7)POINT: The charge sheet allegations against the accused is that she abetted her son/JCWL to stalked the victim/PW1, harassed her and to marry her by uttering words to fulfill his sexual lust and threatened her to kill her and when the mother of PW1 questioned her about the illegal acts of JCWL, she told her that her son will do like that only as he is a male and supported the illegal acts of JCWL.

8)To prove the allegations, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to

13. PW1/victim she testified in her chief examination that she was 5 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018 studying intermediate in the year 2017 at Sreevani college at Jagtial, her villager Kothuri Prem Sagar (JCL) used to follow her in the name of love from Shankarraopet village bus stop to her college and he harassed her and tortured her in the name of love. He also made phone call to her mother and enquired about her particulars, thereafter, he followed her and threatened her that, if she did not marry him, he would kill her, on that she informed the same to her mother, her mother took Sriram Sujatha to the house of Erram Laxmi and summoned accused to the house of E.Laxmi and her mother asked accused about the harassment of her son and that she stated to her mother that, her son will behave likely and her mother can do what she can against her son. Even though Kothuri Prem Sagar did not change his attitude and followed her and harassed her and then she took her to police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.

In her cross examination, she admit that she did not mention in

Ex.P1 that her mother took Sriram Sujatha to the house of Erram Laxmi and summoned Kothuri Lalitha to the house of E.Laxmi. She further admit that she did not reveal about the incident to anyone except her mother. She further admitted in cross examination that she did not mention the specific date when JCL harassed her and also she did not state before police about the specific dates of harassment by the JCL.

She stated that the case was registered against her parents LW2, LW3, 6 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

LW7 and LW8 and she deposed that she did not inform about that harassment of JCL to the principal, lecturers of their college.

9)PW2 deposed the same version of PW1. In her cross examination she admit that there was a registered against them prior to two days of this case. She did not report against JCL before caste elders, she did not inform the same to principal or lecturers at college. PW3 deposed the same version of Pws.1 and 2.

10)PW4 deposed that PW1 is residing near his house and he asked her what happened for that she stated that Premsagar asking her to love her and torturing her.

11)PW5/eye witness to the incident she deposed that PW1 was used to stay at their house and used to attend her college. Two or three days prior to the case, PW1 made phone call to her stating that JCL came to the college and threatened her to love him, then she went to the college, by that time, JCL, Suddala Krishna/PW4 and A.Ranjith were present, then she asked them why they came to college and that there is no entry even for the parents, then Suddala Krishna and Ranjith left the college, JCL stated to her that he came to see PW1, then she asked him not to follow the PW1 and not to harass Pw1 and that she will call his mother by phone, then he stated to her that the matter known to his mother and his mother asked him to do like so and he asked her to 7 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018 speak with his mother over phone. He also further stated that his mother sent him stating that he was male and to proceed any how.

She warned him not to followed the PW1 for that he stated to her that she cannot do anything. Then, she informed the same to the parents of PW1.

In her cross examination, she admit that two days prior to this case, a case was registered against her.

12)PW6 testified in her chief examination that about 6 years ago,

PW2/Suddala Laxmi came to her and informed her that, JCL Kothuri

Premsagar have been harassing her daughter to love him and following her daughter and that threatened her daughter if her daughter does not accept his love that he will kill her daughter. She further deposed that PW2 took her to the house of LW9/E.Laxmi and there they called accused to the house of LW9/E.Laxmi and informed about her son’s acts. On that accused stated that her son is male and that he will jump seven walls and supported her son.

In her cross examination, she admit that after registering this case a case was registered against her also.

13)PW7/panch witness for scene of offence panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. PW8/Woman

Constable deposed that she examined and recorded the statement of the victim with the help of videographer. PW9/one of the scene of 8 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018 offence panchanama deposed that police conducted scene of offence panchanama at the scene of place and Ex.P3 is attested photostat copy of crime detail form. PW10 is the relative and one of the eye witness to the incident did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile to the case of prosecution. PW11/Jr.Lecturer at the request of police he issued Ex.P5/attested copy of bonafide certificate of the victim. PW12/Investigating Officer, S.I of Police, stated that he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and drawn the rough sketch and collected the date of birth certificate of the victim and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. In his cross examination, he admit that prior to this case there was a case registered against the victim family in Cr.No.26/2017 of P.S.Gollapalli under sections 143, 294-B, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.174 Cr.P.C and filed charge sheet in the said crime. PW13/Retired ASI of Police,

P.S.Gollapalli stated that he received the complaint, registered a case and issued Ex.P7/FIR.

14) Thus, as seen from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses as narrated above. Though the defacto complainant/PW1 has testified in her chief examination that JCL followed her in the name of love and marriage and threatened her to kill. Pws.1 to 5 did not state in their evidence that the accused instigated or abetted the JCL to do love with the victim/PW1 and follow her and threatened her. Pws.2 and 3 are the 9 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018 parents deposed the same version of PW1. Pws.1 to 3 and PW5 are the interested witnesses and already there was a case registered against

PW1 family two days prior to the incident and naturally they will speak against the accused keeping the same grudge in mind. When the JCL followed PW1 in the name of love, harassed her and threatened but she did not reveal either in the college or to the principal or friends except her mother and supposed JCL used to harass her and followed her in the name of love and marriage, she would have lodged the complaint but she kept quit silent and after registering the case against her family members, subsequently PW1 lodged complaint and there is no independent witnesses to support the aforesaid testimony of witnesses Pws.1 to 5. As testimony of PW1 is not believable, her version not supporting by any independent witnesses and PW5 is eye witness of the incident she is also relative of PW1 and she also admit that there was a case registered against her. She too also keeping the same in mind naturally she speak against the accused. The testimony of PW1 in the light of her admission in cross examination she stated false version in her chief evidence and her testimony does not inspire confidence in this court and moreover though PW5/eye witness to the incident she too also admitted in her cross examination that there was a case registered against them and her evidence has been improved in support of the case of prosecution. Admittedly, there was a case registered against the PW1 family and therefore the evidence of Pws.1 10 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018 to 5 is unbelievable version in view of inheritent and inconsisting evidence to convict the accused for the offence alleged against her.

15) Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, this court hold that prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s.354 (D) r/w 109, 506 r/w 109 IPC and Sec.12 r/w 17 of POCSO Act, beyond all reasonable doubt, as such the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. These points are answered against the prosecution.

16) In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.354 (D) r/w 109, 506 r/w 109 IPC and Sec.12 r/w 17 of

POCSO Act and accordingly she is acquitted under Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from today and bind over the accused for her appearance before the appellant Court if any appeal is filed against this judgment.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.III, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open court on this the 25th day of January, 2024.

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.

11 S.C.POCSO No.71 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW-1: Victim -None- PW-2: Mother of victim PW-3: Father of victim PW-4: S.Krishna PW-5: S.Padma PW-6: S.Sujatha PW-7: K.Gangaram PW-8: D.Rajasree PW-9: V.Thirupathi PW-10: E.Laxmi PW-11: G.Ashok Reddy PW-12: M.Upendra Chary PW-13: Md.Mahmood Ali

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P1: Complaint lodged by PW1. Ex.P2: Signature of PW7 on attested copy of Crime Detail Form. Ex.P3: Attested photocopy of Crime Detail Form. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10. Ex.P5: Attested copy of Bonafide certificate of victim. Ex.P6: Attested copy of crime detail form. Ex.P7: First Information Report

For Defence:

---Nil---

Material Objects: ---Nil---

Sd/-

I Addl.District and Sessions Judge Jagtial. FAC: SPL.Judge (POCSO cases), Jagtial.