Sri T.Kanhyalal

1OS 56 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VEMULAWADA

PRESENT : Sri T. KANHYALAL, Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2019

OS.No. 56 of 2014

Between:- Yenugula Mallesham S/o Rajaiah, aged 34 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Yengal v/o Chandurthy mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Plaintiff. // AND //

Dayyala Renuka W/o Late Sudarshan, aged 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 1-2-51/1, Shasthri Nagar, Jathraground, Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Defendant.

This suit is coming on 10-05-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K. Ratnaiah, Advocate for the defendant, and after having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

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

1 -This suit is filed by plaintiff for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing Sy.No. 939 to an extent of

Area 140.55 Sq.Yds, situated at Vemulawada town and mandal bounded by East : house of defendant, West : Road, North : House of Reddy,

South : House of Pusaverla Kotaiah, herein after called as suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, his workmen, labour, henchmen, supporters and agents from trespassing and interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2 -It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site bearing Sy.No. 939 to an extent of area 140.55 Sq.Yds within the boundaries in the schedule, situated at

Vemulawada town and mandal. The Plaintiff has purchased the above said land from its original owner by name Yengula Devavva through a 2OS 56 of 2014 registered sale deed Doc.No. 3543 of 2011, dt: 25.06.2011. After purchasing the suit schedule plot the plaintiff went to Gulf countries for his livelihood. Later, the plaintiff had taken permission from

Nagarapanchayath Authorities to construct a house, vide file No.

G1/457/2014, dt: 14-8-2014. After deduction of the area i.e., for

Nagarapanchayath, Vemulawada, the plaintiff became owner of area 131.67 Sq.Yds. The defendant is a stranger of the suit schedule house plot and having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Finally, on 02-09-2014 at Vemulawada town and Mandal the defendant with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to occupy the same, but with the help of well wishers the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and remained in possession. Hence this suit.

3-The defendant filed her written statement by denying the contents of the plaint. She further submitted that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot an extent of area 20 Sq.Yds in

Sy.No. 939 situated at Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district as the defendant purchased the said open plot on 10-9-2008 from Yenugula Devavva through a simple sale agreement, since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the open plot an extent of area 20 sq.yds in Sy.No.939, situated at Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district, therefore, the plaintiff has no way concerned with the suit schedule property and requested to dismiss the suit.

4-On rival contentions of both the parties, this Court framed the following issues on 22-12-2015.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule

property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

3OS 56 of 2014

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

4. To what relief ?

5-Heard for counsel for the plaintiff.

6-Issue No.1 to 3:

The plaintiff himself was examined as Pw-1 and in his chief affidavit he has mentioned that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule plot and he has purchased the same from one

Yengula Devavva through a registered sale deed doc.No.3543/2011, dt:

25.06.2011 and her vendor became the owner of the suit schedule plot through a registered sale deed document No. 692/2004, dt; 27.04.2004 and he got permission from the Nagar panchayath for construction of the ground and first floor. He further deposed that the defendant is having her house towards eastern side of the suit schedule land and approached him to sell the suit schedule property to her, but he refused to do so and the defendant developed thought to grab the suit schedule house and when the plaintiff collected raw material for construction, the defendant caused recurring interference over the suit schedule house plot and by taking the advantage of the plaintiff as he is residing at Engal village, on 2.9.2014 along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule plot and tried to occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from there.

On behalf of Pw-1, Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed which shows the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule plot house one Yenugula Devavva and the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed are also tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in which the 4OS 56 of 2014 defendant was shown as neighbor at the eastern side of the suit schedule plot. Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed between

Devaraju Narahari, Devaraju Bhaskar and Yenugula Devavva and as per the said registered sale deed the vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the petition schedule plot from Narahari and Bhaskar on 27.04.2004 and the boundaries shown in the Ex.A2 is also tallying with the Ex.A1 and schedule of the plaint. Ex.A3 is the building construction permission issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Vemulawada

Nagarpanchayth and the survey number is also tallying with the petition schedule plot. Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year, 2014 issued by Me-seva which also shows Pw-1 has possessor of the suit schedule plot. The document marked on behalf of Pw-1 are showing that the plaintiff is the possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant did not chose to cross examine the Pw1, therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 was remained un- rebutted. On behalf of the Pw-1 his vendor Yenugula Devavva was examined as Pw-2 and she has deposed in favour of the plaintiff by stating that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule plot from her through a registered sale deed and got the possession and the defendant is trying to occupy the suit schedule plot.

7-According to the defendant the Pw-2 had sold 20 sq.yds of land in Sy.No.39 on 10.09.2008 for Rs.20,000/- to the defendant through a simple sale deed, but the defendant except taking the plea that the vendor of the plaintiff sold 20 sq.yds in suit survey number neither challened the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 nor adduce any evidence on their behalf. According to Pw-2, she never sold any land to the defendant and when the plaintiff approached her for asking about the selling of 20 sq.yds land to defendant then she asked plaintiff to show the copy of the sale deed, dt: 10.09.2008 and the plaintiff showed the same to her, then 5OS 56 of 2014 she found that the signature on the said agreement did not belong to her and it was forged and therefore, she has filed a complaint before the SHO PS Vemulawada against the defendant, but the SHO PS

Vemulawada did not take any action against the defendant, therefore, she filed a complaint before the JMFC, Vemulawada and the said complaint was referred to the SHO PS Vemulawada and an FIR was issued vide Cr.No.93/2015 against the defendant for the offence under section 468, 471, 420, 506 of IPC and the same was numbered as

CC.No. 194/2016 and the same is pending against the defendant.

Therefore, Pw-2 denied the contention of the defendant in written statement and the defendant did not come forward to cross examine the

Pw-2, therefore the evidence of Pw-2 was also remained unchallenged.

Therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 is corroborated with the evidence of Pw-2 and also documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to A8 are proving that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants has been interfering into his peaceful possession with an intention to grab the land of the plaintiff. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8-Issue No.4 : IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction infavour of the plaintiff and the defendant and their agents, workmen, henchmen and supporters are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, which is described in the schedule of the plaint.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of September, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

6OS 56 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW-1: Yenugula Mallesham-None- PW-2: Yenugula Devavva

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex. A1is original registered sale deed document no.3543/2011, dated 25-06-2011. Ex.A2is the original registered sale deed of the vendor of the plaintiff, vide doc.No.692/2004, dt: 27.04.2004. Ex.A3is the original building permission order issued by Nagarapanchayath, Vemulawada, dt: 14-08-2014. Ex.A4is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 614 of 1983. Ex.A5is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A6is the certified copy of pahani for the year 205-06. Ex.A7is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424. Ex.A8is the original registered sale deed, vide doc.No.3025/1985, dt: 20.12.1985

FOR DEFENDANTS :

-NIL- Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

1OS 56 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT VEMULAWADA

PRESENT : Sri T. KANHYALAL, Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

Thursday, the 12th day of September, 2019

OS.No. 56 of 2014

Between:- Yenugula Mallesham S/o Rajaiah, aged 34 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Yengal v/o Chandurthy mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Plaintiff. // AND //

Dayyala Renuka W/o Late Sudarshan, aged 40 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No. 1-2-51/1, Shasthri Nagar, Jathraground, Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district. ….Defendant.

This suit is coming on 10-05-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri K. Ratnaiah, Advocate for the defendant, and after having stood over for consideration this court delivered the following:-

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

1 -This suit is filed by plaintiff for perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing Sy.No. 939 to an extent of

Area 140.55 Sq.Yds, situated at Vemulawada town and mandal bounded by East : house of defendant, West : Road, North : House of Reddy,

South : House of Pusaverla Kotaiah, herein after called as suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, his workmen, labour, henchmen, supporters and agents from trespassing and interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2 -It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the house site bearing Sy.No. 939 to an extent of area 140.55 Sq.Yds within the boundaries in the schedule, situated at

Vemulawada town and mandal. The Plaintiff has purchased the above said land from its original owner by name Yengula Devavva through a 2OS 56 of 2014 registered sale deed Doc.No. 3543 of 2011, dt: 25.06.2011. After purchasing the suit schedule plot the plaintiff went to Gulf countries for his livelihood. Later, the plaintiff had taken permission from

Nagarapanchayath Authorities to construct a house, vide file No.

G1/457/2014, dt: 14-8-2014. After deduction of the area i.e., for

Nagarapanchayath, Vemulawada, the plaintiff became owner of area 131.67 Sq.Yds. The defendant is a stranger of the suit schedule house plot and having no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Finally, on 02-09-2014 at Vemulawada town and Mandal the defendant with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule property and tried to occupy the same, but with the help of well wishers the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendant and remained in possession. Hence this suit.

3-The defendant filed her written statement by denying the contents of the plaint. She further submitted that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the open plot an extent of area 20 Sq.Yds in

Sy.No. 939 situated at Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district as the defendant purchased the said open plot on 10-9-2008 from Yenugula Devavva through a simple sale agreement, since then she has been in possession and enjoyment of the open plot an extent of area 20 sq.yds in Sy.No.939, situated at Vemulawada town and mandal of Karimnagar district, therefore, the plaintiff has no way concerned with the suit schedule property and requested to dismiss the suit.

4-On rival contentions of both the parties, this Court framed the following issues on 22-12-2015.

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule

property as on the date of filing of the suit ?

3OS 56 of 2014

2. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file this suit?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction?

4. To what relief ?

5-Heard for counsel for the plaintiff.

6-Issue No.1 to 3:

The plaintiff himself was examined as Pw-1 and in his chief affidavit he has mentioned that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule plot and he has purchased the same from one

Yengula Devavva through a registered sale deed doc.No.3543/2011, dt:

25.06.2011 and her vendor became the owner of the suit schedule plot through a registered sale deed document No. 692/2004, dt; 27.04.2004 and he got permission from the Nagar panchayath for construction of the ground and first floor. He further deposed that the defendant is having her house towards eastern side of the suit schedule land and approached him to sell the suit schedule property to her, but he refused to do so and the defendant developed thought to grab the suit schedule house and when the plaintiff collected raw material for construction, the defendant caused recurring interference over the suit schedule house plot and by taking the advantage of the plaintiff as he is residing at Engal village, on 2.9.2014 along with some unsocial elements came to the suit schedule plot and tried to occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff from there.

On behalf of Pw-1, Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed which shows the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule plot house one Yenugula Devavva and the boundaries mentioned in the registered sale deed are also tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint in which the 4OS 56 of 2014 defendant was shown as neighbor at the eastern side of the suit schedule plot. Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed between

Devaraju Narahari, Devaraju Bhaskar and Yenugula Devavva and as per the said registered sale deed the vendor of the plaintiff had purchased the petition schedule plot from Narahari and Bhaskar on 27.04.2004 and the boundaries shown in the Ex.A2 is also tallying with the Ex.A1 and schedule of the plaint. Ex.A3 is the building construction permission issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Vemulawada

Nagarpanchayth and the survey number is also tallying with the petition schedule plot. Ex.A7 is the CC of pahani for the year, 2014 issued by Me-seva which also shows Pw-1 has possessor of the suit schedule plot. The document marked on behalf of Pw-1 are showing that the plaintiff is the possessor of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and the defendant did not chose to cross examine the Pw1, therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 was remained un- rebutted. On behalf of the Pw-1 his vendor Yenugula Devavva was examined as Pw-2 and she has deposed in favour of the plaintiff by stating that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule plot from her through a registered sale deed and got the possession and the defendant is trying to occupy the suit schedule plot.

7-According to the defendant the Pw-2 had sold 20 sq.yds of land in Sy.No.39 on 10.09.2008 for Rs.20,000/- to the defendant through a simple sale deed, but the defendant except taking the plea that the vendor of the plaintiff sold 20 sq.yds in suit survey number neither challened the evidence of Pw-1 and 2 nor adduce any evidence on their behalf. According to Pw-2, she never sold any land to the defendant and when the plaintiff approached her for asking about the selling of 20 sq.yds land to defendant then she asked plaintiff to show the copy of the sale deed, dt: 10.09.2008 and the plaintiff showed the same to her, then 5OS 56 of 2014 she found that the signature on the said agreement did not belong to her and it was forged and therefore, she has filed a complaint before the SHO PS Vemulawada against the defendant, but the SHO PS

Vemulawada did not take any action against the defendant, therefore, she filed a complaint before the JMFC, Vemulawada and the said complaint was referred to the SHO PS Vemulawada and an FIR was issued vide Cr.No.93/2015 against the defendant for the offence under section 468, 471, 420, 506 of IPC and the same was numbered as

CC.No. 194/2016 and the same is pending against the defendant.

Therefore, Pw-2 denied the contention of the defendant in written statement and the defendant did not come forward to cross examine the

Pw-2, therefore the evidence of Pw-2 was also remained unchallenged.

Therefore, the evidence of Pw-1 is corroborated with the evidence of Pw-2 and also documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A1 to A8 are proving that the plaintiff is in the possession of the suit schedule property and the defendants has been interfering into his peaceful possession with an intention to grab the land of the plaintiff. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

8-Issue No.4 : IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs by granting perpetual injunction infavour of the plaintiff and the defendant and their agents, workmen, henchmen and supporters are restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule property, which is described in the schedule of the plaint.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of September, 2019.

Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

6OS 56 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS :

PW-1: Yenugula Mallesham-None- PW-2: Yenugula Devavva

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex. A1is original registered sale deed document no.3543/2011, dated 25-06-2011. Ex.A2is the original registered sale deed of the vendor of the plaintiff, vide doc.No.692/2004, dt: 27.04.2004. Ex.A3is the original building permission order issued by Nagarapanchayath, Vemulawada, dt: 14-08-2014. Ex.A4is the certified copy of registered sale deed document No. 614 of 1983. Ex.A5is the certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05. Ex.A6is the certified copy of pahani for the year 205-06. Ex.A7is the certified copy of pahani for the fasli year 1424. Ex.A8is the original registered sale deed, vide doc.No.3025/1985, dt: 20.12.1985

FOR DEFENDANTS :

-NIL- Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada.

1CC 60 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT VEMULAWADA.

Present:- Sri T. Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

Friday, this the 13 th day of September, 2019

C.C. No. 60 of 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Gangadhara Cr.No.04/2015.

... Complainant

/ / AND //

1.Kumba Shivaji, S/o Mani, aged 22 years, Yerukala, R/o A10 Block, Groud Floor, Flat No.5 Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

2.Thummashetti Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Rao, S/o Kali, aged 24 years, Caste; Waddera, R/o Sindhi Nagar, Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

3.Challa Narayana @ Nani @ Nancharaiah, S/o Nancharaiah, aged 28 years, Waddera, R/o Chuttugunta, Shivaramnagar village of Nagarapalem mandal of Guntur district, now at 2nd Floor, 95 block, Plot No. FF-2, YSR Colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

... Accused No.1 to 3.

The case against the A4: Pemmasani Narendra was split up and numbered as CC.No.54/2019

This case is coming before me on 26-08-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and Sri K. Kranthi Kumar, Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gangadhara has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.04/2015 for the offence

U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2014 at 01.00 pm, A1 to A3 came to the sheepcote of Lws 1 to 4 and committed theft of 22 sheeps which is subject matter of Cr.No. 193/2014 and again A1 to A4 planned to commit theft of sheeps of Lws 1 to 4, therefore, on 09.01.2015 they left from Vijayawada and reached shed of Lws 1 to 4 on 10.01.2015 at 01.00 pm, through Bolero Vehicle 2CC 60 of 2015 bearing No.AP-07-TE-4370 which belongs to A4 and committed theft of 30 numbers of sheeps worth of Rs.80,000/-.

3-On receiving the report, LW-12/G. Rajeshwar, ASI of police

Gangadhara has registered a case vide Cr.No. 04/2015 for the offences U/Sec.

380 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation and examined, recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 5. Later, the Lw-13/K. Rajendra Prasad, took up the investigation and visited the scene of offence. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 4.

5-On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.) 6-The accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation leveled against them in the Charge Sheet in vernacular language and after understanding the same, they denied their involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence a charge

U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3 are framed and they were tried by this court by issuing summons to the material witnesses. The case against the

A4 is split up and numbered as CC.No. 54/2019.

7-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

8-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence 3CC 60 of 2015 found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same by stating them false. They reported no evidence on there behalf.

9-Heard both sides Arguments.

10-Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

11-POINT:-

On behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 3 are examined. Pw-1, who is the informant and owner of the sheeps deposed that he knew all the accused who were present in the Court hall and he himself filed case against all the accused for committing theft of sheeps. His report was marked as Ex.P1. He was not subjected to cross examine.

12-Pw-2 who was the neighbor of sheepcote and circumstantial witness deposed that about two to three years ago some one committed theft of sheeps of Pw-1. Except that he did not know anything about this case.

13-Pw-3 was the panch for confession and recovery panchanama was declared hostile as he deposed that he knew all the accused and in the year, 2014 police obtained his signatures on some paper, except this he did not know anything about this case. In cross examination, the learned APP put the question that the police conducted confession and recovery panchanama at

Kurikyala junction in his presence and in the presence of Lw-10 and after reading out the confession and recovery panchanama he put his signature on it.

Now he is deposing false to help the accused, but the same was denied by the

Pw-3.

14-In this case Pw-1 deposed that he knew all the accused who committed the theft of sheeps, but after perusing Ex.P1 report and 161 Cr.P.C 4CC 60 of 2015 statement of Pw-1 he deposed that he came to know through neighbors that some unknown persons committed theft of sheeps and he did not mentioned anything about the identity of the accused in his report or in his statement and he never stated that he can identify the theft or he had any chance of identifying the theft if shown to him. This case is pertaining to 2014 and after more than four years Pw-1 who is having 62 years of age identified the accused

before the Court without any base clearly shows that Pw-1 has been tutored by

the prosecution to identify all the accused before the Court.

15-Pw-2 did not depose anything about the identity of all the accused, but his evidence goes to show that some sheeps were stolen by some unknown offenders.

16-Pw-3 evidence is very important for the prosecution case, because the entire prosecution case is depend upon the confession and recovery of the sheeps from the accused in front of Pw-3, but Pw3 was declared hostile and did not depose that sheeps were recovered from the possession of the accused and in cross-examination also learned APP failed to disprove the evidence of Pw-3.

17-In this case the other witnesses were not examined by the prosecution as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and when the prosecution also failed to serve the summons on the remaining witnesses even though sufficient time was given to the prosecution to serve the summons, therefore, this Court has closed the evidence of remaining witnesses.

18-As the evidence of Pw1 is not trust worthy due to the reasons mentioned above and the other evidence are not against the accused, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused were the persons who committed theft of sheeps from the shed of Pw-1, under such circumstances all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the 5CC 60 of 2015 prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19-In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 380 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. and there bail bonds shall be canceled after six months under

Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property which was deposited vide SI.No. 24/2015 out of which Item No.1 i.e., Net cash was given to the owner Pulla Lachaiah for interim custody, Item No.2 i.e., Bolero Jeep AP-07-TE-4370 was given to the police for safe custody and Item No.3 i.e., Nokia cell phone which was deposited before the Court and five sheeps which were handedover to the owner for safe custody the same order shall be continued till disposal of the case against the A4 whose case was split up vide CC.No. 54/2019.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of September, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: PW.1 – Pulla Lachaiah – complainant. – Nil – PW.2 – Amaragonda Komuraiah – circumstantial witness. PW.3 – Kothapalli Sathyanarayana – panch for confession and recovery.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

Ex.P1: is the report marked by Pw-1. -Nil- Ex.P2: is the signature of Pw-3 marked on confession and recovery panchanama.

MOs. MARKED:- – Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

1CC 60 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT VEMULAWADA.

Present:- Sri T. Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

Friday, this the 13 th day of September, 2019

C.C. No. 60 of 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Gangadhara Cr.No.04/2015.

... Complainant

/ / AND //

1.Kumba Shivaji, S/o Mani, aged 22 years, Yerukala, R/o A10 Block, Groud Floor, Flat No.5 Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

2.Thummashetti Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Rao, S/o Kali, aged 24 years, Caste; Waddera, R/o Sindhi Nagar, Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

3.Challa Narayana @ Nani @ Nancharaiah, S/o Nancharaiah, aged 28 years, Waddera, R/o Chuttugunta, Shivaramnagar village of Nagarapalem mandal of Guntur district, now at 2nd Floor, 95 block, Plot No. FF-2, YSR Colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

... Accused No.1 to 3.

The case against the A4: Pemmasani Narendra was split up and numbered as CC.No.54/2019

This case is coming before me on 26-08-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and Sri K. Kranthi Kumar, Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gangadhara has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 in Cr.No.04/2015 for the offence

U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.12.2014 at 01.00 pm, A1 to A3 came to the sheepcote of Lws 1 to 4 and committed theft of 22 sheeps which is subject matter of Cr.No. 193/2014 and again A1 to A4 planned to commit theft of sheeps of Lws 1 to 4, therefore, on 09.01.2015 they left from Vijayawada and reached shed of Lws 1 to 4 on 10.01.2015 at 01.00 pm, through Bolero Vehicle 2CC 60 of 2015 bearing No.AP-07-TE-4370 which belongs to A4 and committed theft of 30 numbers of sheeps worth of Rs.80,000/-.

3-On receiving the report, LW-12/G. Rajeshwar, ASI of police

Gangadhara has registered a case vide Cr.No. 04/2015 for the offences U/Sec.

380 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation and examined, recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 5. Later, the Lw-13/K. Rajendra Prasad, took up the investigation and visited the scene of offence. After completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 4.

5-On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.) 6-The accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation leveled against them in the Charge Sheet in vernacular language and after understanding the same, they denied their involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence a charge

U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3 are framed and they were tried by this court by issuing summons to the material witnesses. The case against the

A4 is split up and numbered as CC.No. 54/2019.

7-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

8-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence 3CC 60 of 2015 found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same by stating them false. They reported no evidence on there behalf.

9-Heard both sides Arguments.

10-Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

11-POINT:-

On behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 3 are examined. Pw-1, who is the informant and owner of the sheeps deposed that he knew all the accused who were present in the Court hall and he himself filed case against all the accused for committing theft of sheeps. His report was marked as Ex.P1. He was not subjected to cross examine.

12-Pw-2 who was the neighbor of sheepcote and circumstantial witness deposed that about two to three years ago some one committed theft of sheeps of Pw-1. Except that he did not know anything about this case.

13-Pw-3 was the panch for confession and recovery panchanama was declared hostile as he deposed that he knew all the accused and in the year, 2014 police obtained his signatures on some paper, except this he did not know anything about this case. In cross examination, the learned APP put the question that the police conducted confession and recovery panchanama at

Kurikyala junction in his presence and in the presence of Lw-10 and after reading out the confession and recovery panchanama he put his signature on it.

Now he is deposing false to help the accused, but the same was denied by the

Pw-3.

14-In this case Pw-1 deposed that he knew all the accused who committed the theft of sheeps, but after perusing Ex.P1 report and 161 Cr.P.C 4CC 60 of 2015 statement of Pw-1 he deposed that he came to know through neighbors that some unknown persons committed theft of sheeps and he did not mentioned anything about the identity of the accused in his report or in his statement and he never stated that he can identify the theft or he had any chance of identifying the theft if shown to him. This case is pertaining to 2014 and after more than four years Pw-1 who is having 62 years of age identified the accused

before the Court without any base clearly shows that Pw-1 has been tutored by

the prosecution to identify all the accused before the Court.

15-Pw-2 did not depose anything about the identity of all the accused, but his evidence goes to show that some sheeps were stolen by some unknown offenders.

16-Pw-3 evidence is very important for the prosecution case, because the entire prosecution case is depend upon the confession and recovery of the sheeps from the accused in front of Pw-3, but Pw3 was declared hostile and did not depose that sheeps were recovered from the possession of the accused and in cross-examination also learned APP failed to disprove the evidence of Pw-3.

17-In this case the other witnesses were not examined by the prosecution as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and when the prosecution also failed to serve the summons on the remaining witnesses even though sufficient time was given to the prosecution to serve the summons, therefore, this Court has closed the evidence of remaining witnesses.

18-As the evidence of Pw1 is not trust worthy due to the reasons mentioned above and the other evidence are not against the accused, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused were the persons who committed theft of sheeps from the shed of Pw-1, under such circumstances all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the 5CC 60 of 2015 prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19-In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 380 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. and there bail bonds shall be canceled after six months under

Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property which was deposited vide SI.No. 24/2015 out of which Item No.1 i.e., Net cash was given to the owner Pulla Lachaiah for interim custody, Item No.2 i.e., Bolero Jeep AP-07-TE-4370 was given to the police for safe custody and Item No.3 i.e., Nokia cell phone which was deposited before the Court and five sheeps which were handedover to the owner for safe custody the same order shall be continued till disposal of the case against the A4 whose case was split up vide CC.No. 54/2019.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of September, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: PW.1 – Pulla Lachaiah – complainant. – Nil – PW.2 – Amaragonda Komuraiah – circumstantial witness. PW.3 – Kothapalli Sathyanarayana – panch for confession and recovery.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

Ex.P1: is the report marked by Pw-1. -Nil- Ex.P2: is the signature of Pw-3 marked on confession and recovery panchanama.

MOs. MARKED:- – Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

1CC 59 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT VEMULAWADA.

Present:- Sri T. Kanhya Lal,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Vemulawada.

Friday, this the 13 th day of September, 2019

C.C. No. 59 of 2015

Between:- The State of Telangana represented by SHO, PS Gangadhara Cr.No.193/2014.

... Complainant

/ / AND //

1.Kumba Shivaji, S/o Mani, aged 22 years, Yerukala, R/o A10 Block, Groud Floor, Flat No.5 Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

2.Thummashetti Thirupathi @ Thirupathi Rao, S/o Kali, aged 24 years, Caste; Waddera, R/o Sindhi Nagar, Vambay colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

3.Challa Narayana @ Nani @ Nancharaiah, S/o Nancharaiah, aged 28 years, Waddera, R/o Chuttugunta, Shivaramnagar village of Nagarapalem mandal of Guntur district, now at 2nd Floor, 95 block, Plot No. FF-2, YSR Colony, Vijayawada of Krishna district.

... Accused No.1 to 3.

This case is coming before me on 26-08-2019 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state of Telangana and Sri P. Bhoomesh, Advocate for Accused and after hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gangadhara has filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 in Cr.No.193/2014 for the offence

U/Sec.380 of Indian Penal Code (herein after called as IPC).

2.The brief facts of the case are :-

It is the case of the prosecution that A1 to A3 planned to commit theft of sheeps of Lws 1 to 4 and accordingly on 09.12.2014 they left from Vijayawada and reached sheepcote of Lws 1to 4 and on 10.12.2014 at 01.00 hrs with the

Bolero Vehicle bearing No. AP-07-TE-4370 committed theft of 22 sheeps worth of Rs.44,000/- and on 10.01.2015 at 01.00 hrs, A1 to A3 along with one

Pemmasani Narendra again went to the same sheepcote and committed theft of 30 numbers of sheep, which is the subject matter in Cr.No. 04/2015.

2CC 59 of 2015 3-On receiving the report, LW-11/K. Rajendra prasad, SI of police

Gangadhara has registered a case vide Cr.No. 193/2014 for the offences U/Sec.

379 of Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 5 and visited the scene of offence and prepared CDF. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC.

4-After careful consideration of the material preposition, this Court had taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3.

5-On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, copies of all the relevant documents were furnished to them as required U/Sec.207 of Criminal

Procedure Code (herein after called as Cr.P.C.) 6-The accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation leveled against them in the Charge Sheet in vernacular language and after understanding the same, they denied their involvement and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence a charge

U/Sec. 380 of IPC against accused No.1 to 3 are framed and they were tried by this court by issuing summons to the material witnesses.

7-In support of its case, the prosecution has examined Pws-1 to 3 and got marked Ex.P1 and P2 on its behalf.

8-After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same by stating them false. They reported no evidence on there behalf.

9-Heard both sides Arguments.

3CC 59 of 2015 10-Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable U/Sec.380 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

11-POINT:-

On behalf of the prosecution Pws 1 to 3 are examined. Pw-1, who is the informant and owner of the sheeps deposed that he knew all the accused who were present in the Court hall and he himself filed case against all the accused for committing theft of sheeps. His report was marked as Ex.P1. He was not subjected to cross examine.

12-Pw-2 who was the neighbor of sheepcote and circumstantial witness deposed that about two to three years ago some one committed theft of sheeps of Pw-1. Except that he did not know anything about this case.

13-Pw-3 was the panch for confession and recovery panchanama was declared hostile as he deposed that he knew all the accused and in the year, 2014 police obtained his signatures on some paper, except this he did not know anything about this case. In cross examination, the learned APP put the question that the police conducted confession and recovery panchanama at

Kurikyala junction in his presence and in the presence of Lw-10 and after reading out the confession and recovery panchanama he put his signature on it.

Now he is deposing false to help the accused, but the same was denied by the

Pw-3.

14-In this case Pw-1 deposed that he knew all the accused who committed the theft of sheeps, but after perusing Ex.P1 report and 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw-1 he deposed that he came to know through neighbors that some unknown persons committed theft of sheeps and he did not mentioned anything about the identity of the accused in his report or in his statement and he never stated that he can identify the theft or he had any chance of 4CC 59 of 2015 identifying the theft if shown to him. This case is pertaining to 2014 and after more than four years Pw-1 who is having 62 years of age identified the accused

before the Court without any base clearly shows that Pw-1 has been tutored by

the prosecution to identify all the accused before the Court.

15-Pw-2 did not depose anything about the identity of all the accused, but his evidence goes to show that some sheeps were stolen by some unknown offenders.

16-Pw-3 evidence is very important for the prosecution case, because the entire prosecution case is depend upon the confession and recovery of the sheeps from the accused in front of Pw-3, but Pw3 was declared hostile and did not depose that sheeps were recovered from the possession of the accused and in cross-examination also learned APP failed to disprove the evidence of Pw-3.

17-In this case the other witnesses were not examined by the prosecution as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and when the prosecution also failed to serve the summons on the remaining witnesses even though sufficient time was given to the prosecution to serve the summons, therefore, this Court has closed the evidence of remaining witnesses.

18-As the evidence of Pw1 is not trust worthy due to the reasons mentioned above and the other evidence are not against the accused, therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused were the persons who committed theft of sheeps from the shed of Pw-1, under such circumstances all the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

5CC 59 of 2015 19-In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 380 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) of

Cr.P.C. and there bail bonds shall be canceled after six months under

Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. Net cash of Rs.44,000/- which was deposited vide SI.No.25/2015, which was given to the Pulla Lachaiah for interim custody being the owner of the property shall be made absolute after expiry of the appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, after correction, pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13 th day of September, 2019.

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENSE: PW.1 – Pulla Lachaiah – complainant. – Nil – PW.2 – Amaragonda Komuraiah – circumstantial witness. PW.3 – Kothapalli Satyanarayana – panch for confession and recovery.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENSE:

Ex.P1: is the report marked by Pw-1. -Nil- Ex.P2: is the signature of Pw-3 marked on confession and recovery panchanama.

MOs. MARKED:- – Nil -

Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Vemulawada.