Sri T.kesava

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 1 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

APKD080002282015

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)::

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT : SRI T. KESAVA,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMPET.

MONDAY, THIS THE 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.

O.S.No. 157 OF 2015

1.Noorbasha Siddaiah, S/o.Chinna Khadervalli, aged about 38 years,

Dudekula, residing at 6/191, Mukundaragadda Street, Rajampet

Town and Mandal, Annamayya District. Represented by his General

Power of Attorney Holder,

Noorbasha Shabana W/o.Noorbasha Siddaiah, aged about 32 years,

Dudekula, residing at 6/191, Mukundaragadda Street, Rajampet town and mandal, Annamayya District.

.... PLAINTIFF

Vs.

1.Noorbasha Rashool died his Lrs., defendants no.5 to 8

2.Noorbasha Hussain Saheb S/o. Nabhee Saheb, aged about 48 years,

3.Noorbasha Hasinabi W/o.Khadervalli, aged about 43 years, D.No.6/191-C,

4.Noorbasha Peeramma W/o.Noorbasha Khadar Basha, aged about 43 years, D.No.6/191-B,

5. Noorbasha Bujjamma, W/o.Late Noorbasha Rasool, Housewife,

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 2 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

aged about 45 years,

6.Noorbasha Noor S/o.Late Noorbasha Rashool, aged about 30 years,

7.Noorbasha Mabjan, D/o.Noorbasha Rashool, aged about 29 years,

8.Noorbasha Mohammed S/o.Late Noorbasha Rashool, aged about 27 years,

All are Dudekula, residing at Mukundaragadda Street, Rajampet Town and

Mandal, Annamayya District.

(Defendants no.5 to 8 are added as per orders of this Court vide

I.A.No.115/2023 dated.21.12.2023) … DEFENDANTS No.1 TO 8.

This suit came up on 03.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Vallabha Rao, Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri K.Surendra

Babu, Advocate for defendants no.2, 3, 4, defendant no.1 died and the defendants no.5 to 8 remained exparte and upon perusing the material available on record and after 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. This suit is filed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.

2. Briefly, the averments of plaint are that :- The suit schedule property is ancestral property of the plaintiff. During lifetime of his father namelyChinna Khader Valli there was partition among the father of plaintiff and his brothers namely Noor Basha Khadar vali, Noor Basha Nabhee Saheb, and Noor Basha Dastagiri Saheb under a registered partition deed dated

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 3 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

20.06.1968. Under said partition the suit property was fallen to the share of the father of the plaintiff which is described as B-Schedule in the partition deed. The father of plaintiff died about 16 years back leaving the plaintiff and a daughter by name Ramija to succeed his estate. As the sister of the plaintiff married even during lifetime of her father and she has been living with her husband. After the death of his father the plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of it by paying necessary municipal taxes. The Municipality has been collecting taxes on suit schedule property still in the name of his father.

The defendants who are residing adjacent to the suit schedule house have been making hectic efforts to encroach into the vacant site of the plaintiff. The plaintiff resisted their attempts but the defendants threatened the plaintiff and his wife with dire consequences and attempted to block the passage ie.,

Municipal road by erecting a wall highhandedly across the passage. The plaintiff approached the police and requested them to come to his rescue but all his efforts in vain. The defendants are nothing to do with the suit property.

They are powerful and influential persons having support of politicians. If the defendants continue with their threat to dispossess the plaintiff, the plaintiff may not be in a position to protect his property. Hence, the suit for grant of permanent injunction.

3. The defendant No.2 filed his written statement and the same was

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 4 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

adopted by defendants No.3 and 4. During course of suit the defendant no.1 died. Therefore this legal representatives were brought on record as defendants no.5 to 8. The defendants no.5 to 8 remained exparte.

4. Briefly, the averments of written statement of Defendant No.2 are as follows :- The defendant No.1 denied all the allegations mentioned in the plaint and specifically pleaded that the the defendants no.1 and 2, one

Noor Basha Khadervalli and Noor Basha Khader Basha are the sons of Noor

Basha Nabi Saheb S/o.Noor Bahsa Buddu Saheb @ Buden Saheb.

The defendants no.3 and 4 are the wives of Noor Basha Khadervalli and Noor

Basha Khader Basha respectively.Noor Basha Nabi Saheb and his four sons had been in possession of said property. The property shown as ABCD in the written statement plan originally belonged to one Noor Basha Babu Saheb S/o.

Nabi Saheb who is none other than maternal grand father of defendant No.2’ father. The said Noor Basha Babu Saheb executed a gift deed dated 17.02.1961 in favour of defendant No.2’ father and one Noor Basha Hussain

Saheb. As a mistake was crept in the gift deed again Noor Basha Babu Saheb executed a gift deed on 05.12.1961 in favour of his two grand sons. Noor

Basha Hussain Saheb sold away his half share which he got from his grand father to the father of defendant No.2 under a registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971 along with other properties. Since then the father of defendant

No.2 became absolute owner of total extent of ABCD area shown in the sketch

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 5 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

filed by the defendants. The passage to the plaintiff property is on southern side of his property and in order to knock away the property of defendants now the plaintiff has been claiming the right of passage on the northern side and also claiming property of defendants on the western side of newly formed municipal road. The Municipality Rajampet formed a road in the defendants house site. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the vacant site of eastern and western side of municipal road which is exclusive property of defendants and their father. The plaintiff highhandedly closed the road on southern side by constructing two rooms encroaching the passage. The plaintiff has no right to claim the right of passage either on the eastern side or on the northern side of the plaintiff’s property. ABCD area shown in the written statement plain is the property of family of defendants, PQRS is the property of plaintiff, EFGH is the road laid by Municipality, Rajampet between the house site of defendants i.e., in the middle of ABCD property. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff i.e., partition deed dated 20.06.1968 has no legality. The alleged partition was not known to the defendants. Even the said partition does not disclose the source of title of father of plaintiff in respect of the property claimed by him. The plaintiff has no right to interfere with property of defendant which is described in the rough sketch filed along with written statement. The area covered in written statement shown as ABCD is with measurements East – West : 20 yards and North – South : 10 yards. A few years back the defendant no.2 and

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 6 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

his father laid foundation in ABCD house site up to the extent of ABGH. While so, Rajampet Gram Panchayath laid road shown as EFGH without knowledge and consent of the defendants and their father. In respect of the same the father of defendant no.2 got issued a legal notice to the Municipality, Rajampet for removal of the road or for the payment of compensation. The remaining extent shown as CDEF out of ABCD house on the western side of ABEF and it is exclusive vacant site of defendant and his father. Neither the plaintiff’s father nor his brothers got right to interfere with CDEF house site but now the plaintiff filed this suit to grab CDEF portion shown in written statement plan. In fact the plaintiff and his father got right of passage on the southern side of their house site but in order to get wrongful gain and to knock away the CDEF area they got constructed the two rooms with asbestos roofing on southern side of plaintiff’s property closing the road running East to West. The CDEF portion is exclusive property of defendants. The sketch and photos filed by the plaintiff are not correct and they do not reflect the true state of facts of the property.

The defendants also filed a caveat petition in C.O.P.No.26/2025 but the plaintiff intentionally suppressed the same without mentioning it in the plaint pleadings.

When the defendants objected the plaintiff, his sister Ramija, Ganga and husband of Ramija beat the wife of defendant no.2 with deadly weapons and caused injuries to them. Then on her complaint a case in Cr.No.99/2015 was registered by Rajampet Urban Police. As the elders chastised their high

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 7 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

handed acts they kept quiet for some time and then they filed this suit with false and untenable allegations. This suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action to file this suit, as such this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5.Based on pleadings of both parties, following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession suit property as on the date of filing this suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

6.To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined his wife Noor Basha

Shabana who is his GPA holder as PW1 besides examining one Pedda

Badulla, Noor Basha Balaji as PW2 and PW3 respectively. In support of his case, the plaintiff got marked Exs.A1 to A8.

7. To prove the case of the defendants, the defendant No.2 got himself examined as DW1 besides examining one Noor Basha Khadervalli,

Noor Basha Ammeenamma and Othuru Mallesh as DW2 to DW4 respectively.

In support of their case, the defendants got marked Exs.B1 to B8.

8. Heard both sides. Perused records.

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 8 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

9. Issue No.1 and 2 :-

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession suit property as on the date of filing this suit ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?

Since Issue No.1 and 2 are interconnected, for the sake of convenience they are taken up together for discussion.

10.In the schedule appended to the plaint the plaintiff has shown his house property bearing D.No.6/191 located at Mukundaragadda, Rajampet town as suit property. According to the plaint the suit property bounded on

East: house of Nabi Saheb i.e., defendants, West : House of Ameer Saheb,

North : Rastha and South: House of Konapurari Hussain Saheb. There is no dispute with regard to plaintiff owning and possessing plaint schedule house in as much as the defendants are also not claiming any right in suit schedule house. The plaintiff has shown measurements as East – West : 35 ½ muras and North – South : 43 Muras. The defendants filed their written statement plan showing the physical features of their property. As stated to supra, in the plaint schedule one of the boundary for plaintiff’s house is shown as the house of Nabi Saheb ie., the defendants house. According to the defendants, the house of plaintiff is located on the western side of their property.

11. The defendants in Ex.B1 written statement plan described their entire property as ABCD and out of ABCD they have shown ABGH as area in

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 9 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

which the defendants laid foundation. As per Ex.B1 on West of ABGH there is a road formed by Municipality which is described as GFEH. Further west of it there is open space described as FCDE i.e., on Eastern side of plaintiffs house. The defendants in their pleadings contended that this HGCD portion is part of their property but the municipal authorities without their consent and knowledge formed road shown as GFEH and the defendants got open space shown as FCDE on further west of the road. Therefore, the real dispute is with regard to road and site located on the western side of the site of the defendant and on the eastern side of the house of the plaintiff described as GCDH in the written statement plan.

12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that in the partition effected among his father Chinna Khadarvali and his paternal uncles under Ex.A2 on 20.06.1968 the suit schedule property shown in B-Schedule in Ex.A2 fallen to the share of father of plaintiff and he was in exclusive possession of it. After the death of his father the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of suit property with absolute rights. The defendants who are residing adjacent to the plaintiff’s house are making hectic efforts to grab the property shown as passage i.e., Municipal road and started obstructing the plaintiff from using the said passage by raising a wall across the road. Therefore, as the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from suit property it compelled the plaintiff to file the suit for grant of permanent injunction.

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 10 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

13. The defendants in their written statement categorically stated that originally the defendants no.1 and 2, one Noor Basha Khader Basha and Noor

Basha Khadervali are the sons of one Noor Basha Nabi Saheb and the said

Noor Basha Nabi Saheb is absolute owner of ABCD property shown in the written statement plan. Originally the ABCD property belonged to Noor Basha

Babu Saheb S/o.Nabi Saheb who is son none other than the maternal grand father of defendants father. He gifted the said property in favour of his grand sons namely Noor Basha Nabi Saheb i.e., father of defendant No1 and 2 and

Noor Basha Hussain Saheb under Ex.B2 registered gift settlement deed dated 17.02.1961. Thereafter as a mistake was crept in gift deed again he executed a registered rectification deed dated 05.12.1961 marked as Ex.B3. The half share holder Noor Basha Hussain Saheb sold his half share to the father of defendants under Ex.B4 registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971. The father of defendants became absolute owner of the total extent shown as ABCD in

Ex.B1 written statement plan. The total area covered under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 is East – West : 20 yards or 18.28 meters, North – South : 10 yards or 9.14 meters. The defendants raised foundation in portion shown as ABGH out of

ABCD site while Gram Panchayath laid road in the portion shown as GFEH without consent of the defendants and their father. The portion shown as

ECDE is situated on the further west of the road which is part and parcel of

ABCD site belong to the defendants. The plaintiff got right of rastha on

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 11 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

southern side of his house property which he blocked by constructing two zink sheet roofed sheds across the rastha leading East to West. The plaintiff now trying to encroach upon CDEF open space situated in front of his house and filed this suit to grab the suit property. Therefore, there are no merits in this suit as such this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

14.In view of rival contentions of both parties it is evident that the plaintiff sought for relief of permanent injunction in respect of her house property. Admittedly there is no dispute with regard to right and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, however, the dispute is with regard to open space situated in front of house of the plaintiff on the eastern side described as FCDE in written statement plan. The plaintiff’s case is that he is entitled to use open space and rastha situated in between the site of the defendants and the house of plaintiff. Since the plaintiff sought for relief of permanent the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff to establish that the open space situated in front of his house and eastern side is part of her house property and it is in his possession.

15. Directly coming to the documents filed relied upon by the plaintiff

Ex.A2 is certified copy of registered partition deed executed among the father of plaintiff and his brothers namely Chinna Khadervali, Noor Basha Khadervali,

Noor Basha Nanne Saheb and Noor Basha Dasthagiri Saheb. Perusal of

Ex.A2 it makes clear that B-Schedule property referred in the documents was

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 12 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

fallen to the share of father of plaintiff by name Chinna Khadervali. Out of B-

Schedule property referred in Ex.A2 he got house property located at

Mukundaragadda street, 6th ward, Rajampet town bearing D.No.105 with specific boundaries East : House of Nabi Saheb i.e., house of father of defendant no.2, West : House of Ameen Saheb, North : Rastha and South :

House of Hussain Saheb. As per recitals of Ex.A2 it is clear that the eastern boundary for the house property of the plaintiff under Ex.A2 is shown as house of Nabi Saheb i.e., father of defendant no.2. Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 are house tax receipts relating to the house property of plaintiff. Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are water tax receipts issued by Rajampet Municipality with regard to plaintiff’s house.

Ex.A2 makes it clear that the eastern boundary for the house of plaintiff is house of Nabi Saheb.

16. The defendants relied upon Ex.B2 a registered gift settlement deed dated 17.02.1961 executed by Noor Basha Babu Saheb in favour of his grand sons Noor Basha Nabi Saheb and Noor Basha Hussain Saheb. On perusal of the schedule appended to the document it is clear that the vendor under Ex.B2 gifted vacant site with specific boundaries East : land of Matam,

West : Noor Basha Siddu Saheb vacant site, North : House of Imam Saheb and South : House of Siddu Saheb. The measurements as shown as East –

West : 20 yards and North – South : 10 yards. It has been clearly recited that

East – West measurements 17 feet only excluding well got dug by Noor basha

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 13 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Siddu Saheb on westren side in an extent of 3 yards. As per the evidence of both parties the well was on the eastern side in the house of plaintiff and it is not in existence and it it was closed long back. As per Ex.A2 the donor while gifting the property to his grand sons excluded the well located in 3 yards only gifted the property with East – West Measurements as 17 feets. After executing Ex.B2 he again executed another gift deed on 05.12.1961 with total length as 20 feet including the well got dug by Noor Basha Siddu Saheb.

Admittedly neither Noor Basha Siddu Saheb nor his predecessor in title signed on Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. It is not explained as to what prompted the grand father of defendant No.2 to include the well got dug by Siddu Saheb also into their property. Under Ex.B4 half share holder Hussain Saheb sold his half share to Nabi Saheb i.e., father of defendant no.2. In this document East – West

Measurements are shown as 20 feet and it is not recited that there was a well on western side and it belong to the defendants alone.

17. In Ex.B2 a clear recital has been referred that the well got dug by

Noor Basha Siddu Saheb for a drinking water and excluding 3 yards covered by well only site East – West 17 feet alone was covered under Ex.B2. To the surprise without expressing anything as to how the said measurements were mistakenly mentioned in Ex.B2 a new gift deed has been executed instead of rectification deed under Ex.B3. It is the defendants to explain as to how they included the well also belonged to Noor Basha Siddu Saheb in Ex.B3. It came

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 14 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

in evidence of both parties that the area covered by well is the portion shown as FCDE in the plaint plan. Therefore, by virtue of Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 the defendants cannot claim portion shown as FCDE in the plaint plan in as much as they have not explained as to how their father acquired the same in as as per Ex.B2 it belonged to one Noor Basha Siddu Saheb.

18. Now coming to the oral evidence of both parties PW1 i.e., GPA holder of plaintiff in her oral evidence she is consistent that there is no dispute with regard to house property in which both plaintiff and PW1 are residing.

The dispute is with regard to the road portion and site located in front of the house of plaintiff. She categorically stated that the portion shown in front of her house is part and parcel of her house and she has right to have ingress and egress through the rastha. She categorically stated that the portion shown as

CDEF is part of her house property. PW1 is consistent that the vacant site shown in front of her house is shown as FCDE is part of her house property and she has been using it.

19. Coming to the evidence of defendants, the defendant no.2 as

DW1 in his cross examination with regard to title documents filed by him he pleaded ignorance that he does not know the contents of the documents filed by him. He further admitted that neither father of Noor Basha Siddaiah nor his grand father signed on Ex.B2 to Ex.B4. He further admitted that he is claiming right on the road situated in front of his house. He went on to speak in the

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 15 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

cross-examination pleading ignorance even on measurements shown in the documents filed by him. Except claiming that the portion shown as GCDH belonged to him he had pleaded ignorance as to the contents of the documents filed by him and other particulars. DW2 is brother of DW1 in his cross-examination he stated that his brother i.e. DW1 has been looking after the litigation and family affairs and he has not given any instructions for preparing written statement. He further stated that he was not present when

DW1 sent Ex.B5 notice to the Rajampet Municipality. He further went on to say that he has not filed any Caveat Petition before filing this suit. His evidence is also not helpful to the case of defendants in as much as he pleaded ignorance on several material aspects of the matter.

20.DW3 is the wife of defendant no.2 in her evidence also she stated that she does not know mistake crept in Ex.B2 but her father-in-law obtained

Ex.B3. Except hearing from her husband she does not know demarcation shown in Ex.B1. This clearly goes to show that this witness is not aware of

Ex.B2 and Ex.B3. DW4 is a third party to the suit. His evidence is also not helpful to the case of defendants in as much as he pleaded that he did not go through the documents filed by the defendants he confined his evidence to claiming that the Municipality laid road without permission of defendants.

Therefore the evidence of DW1 to DW4 does not provide anything to overcome the defect of including three yards well in the property of Nabi

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 16 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Saheb through Ex.B3. Admittedly as per Ex.B2 the well on the western side was dug by Noor Basha Siddu Saheb for drinking water. Under such circumstances it is the defendants to explain as to how they included the well in Ex.B3 though it was shown to be belonged to Noor Basha Siddu Saheb.

21.The plaintiff through Ex.A8 exhibited photographs. DW1 during cross-examination admitted those photographs. Perusal of Ex.B8 photographs it makes clear that a big building in front of which two motor cycles were parked is the house of defendants whereas the small house in front of which there is bush growth is the house of plaintiff. There is a small portion of open space in the front yard of the house of plaintiff. This small portion of open space which the defendants are claiming as FCDE. The perusal of photographs makes it clear that the front yard portion of the hose of plaintiff on the eastern side has been using by the plaintiff as a part of his property in as much as there is a water tap connection and also he has been using it for other house hold purposes. Evidence on record makes it clear that the said vacant portion situated in front of the house of the plaintiff is part and parcel of the house of plaintiff. The DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted about Ex.A8 photographs however he stated that the road and the vacant portion shown in front of the house of plaintiff is his property.

22.Taking the evidence of PW2 the advocate for defendants argued that PW2 admitted in his evidence that the well in the opposite to the house of

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 17 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

plaintiff belonged to the defendants and they have been using it and there is a road in between the properties of both the plaintiff and the defendants which is also part of property of defendants. This court perused the evidence of PW2 but a stray admission crept in the evidence of PW2 cannot be taken as a proof in as much as in Ex.B2 it clearly provides that the donor gifted the site excluding the well to the donees. Therefore, admission in the evidence of PW2 cannot confer title on the defendants on the disputed site. Since Ex.B2 clearly excludes the well portion being gifted to father of defendants the oral evidence of PW2 is not helpful to prove their contention.

23.Admittedly, there is a rastha on the further east of vacant space which was formed by the Rajampet Municipality. The house of the plaintiff and the house of defendants are situated on the same line towards road formed by municipality ie., GFEH portion shown in Ex.B1. Further the vacant space is being in front of the house of the plaintiff. The house of plaintiff is located some what deep from the road leaving some space in front of the house.

Whereas the house of defendants is just touching to the cement road laid by the Municipality. The defendants contended that the Municipality has laid the road without their consent and to that effect they issued notice to the

Municipality. Admittedly, the defendants have not summoned any Municipality authorities to prove that the road was laid without consent and knowledge of defendants. On the other hand the photographs filed by the plaintiff marked as

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 18 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Ex.A8 clearly provides that the general public of the locality have been using the cement road laid in front of the house of plaintiff on eastern site and on the western side of the defendants site leading North – South connecting the cement road on the further East of the property. According to the evidence of

PW2 the road was laid about 20 years back. Since the road was formed about several years back and there is evidence on record to show that the local public have been using the same, now the defendants cannot claim the said road as belonged to them and they cannot prevent the plaintiff from using the road.

24.It is the specific case of the defendants that there is a passage on the southern side of the plaintiff’s house and he closed the same by raising two zink sheet roofed sheds and now claiming disputed rastha. It is relevant to mention here that as per Ex.A2 document the southern boundary is shown as house of Hussain Saheb and not road. It appears that the zink sheet roofed shedsraised by the plaintiff is in his site only in as much as Ex.A2 does not disclose existence of any such rastha on the southern side of house of plaintiff.

Even the boundaries of the plaint schedule does not disclose existence of any such rastha on southern side.

25.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds and concludes that the plaintiff proved that he has been in possession of suit schedule property besides he has been using the rastha situated in the

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 19 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

eastern side of her property to ingress and egress into her property from the main road situated on the further east of the both properties of plaintiff and defendants. The evidence on record clearly established that the defendants have been attempting to disturb the possession of the plaintiff and also her right of the enjoyment over the suit schedule property as such the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, Issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

26. Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, this suit is to be decreed with costs.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over suit schedule property by means of permanent injunction.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Principal Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

P.W.1: Noor Basha Shabana

P.W.2: Pedda Badulla

P.W.3: Noor Basha Balaji

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 20 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-

D.W.1: Noor Basha Hussain Saheb

D.W.2: Noor Basha Khader valli

D.W.3: Noor basha Ammeenamma

D.W.4: Othuru Mallesh

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Original General Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of PW1 dated 31.05.2017.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Registered partition deed dated 20.06.1968

Ex.A3: Tax receipts (4 in number)

Ex.A4: House tax demand receipt issued by Rajampet Municipality

dated 13.02.2023 for the period from 2021 to 2023.

Ex.A5: House tax demand receipt issued by Rajampet Municipality

dated 09.01.2024 for the period from 2023 to 2024.

Ex.A6: Water Charge receipt issued by Rajampet Municipality dated 13.02.2023 for the period from 2021 to 2023.

Ex.A7: Water charge receipt issued by Rajampet Municipality dated 09.01.2024 for the period from 2023 to 2024.

Ex.A8: Photographs (4 in number) with pendrive and certificate u/sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Written statement plan.

Ex.B2: Original registered gift deed dated 17.02.1961 executed by grandfather of defendant no.2’s father in favour of father of defendant no.2 and another.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of registered rectification deed dated 05.12.1961 executed by grandfather of defendant no.2’s father in favour of father of defendant no.2 and another.

Ex.B4: Original registered sale deed dated 23.07.1971 executed by Noorbasha Husain Saheb in favour of father of defendant no.2.

O.S.No.157/2015, Dt.16.02.2026 21 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Ex.B5: Office copy of legal notice got issued by father of defendant no.2 dated 25.06.2015 to the Commissioner, Municipality, Rajampet.

Ex.B6: Postal receipt and served acknowledgment

Ex.B7: Office copy of Caveat Petition in C.O.P.No.26/2015 dated 15.06.2015 on the file of this Court.

Ex.B8: Served acknowledgments (4 in number) dated 16.06.2015.

Sd/- T. Kesava

P.C.J(SD).,

RJPT.

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 1 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

APKD080001142023

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAMPET.

PRESENT: SRI T.KESAVA,

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJAMPET.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 143 OF 2023

The State, represented by

Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penagalur Police Station ... COMPLAINANT

- Versus -

Kavali Mahesh @ Anoku, aged about 22 years, S/o.Kavali Penchalaiah,

ST Yanadi, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Konduru ST Colony, Penagalur Mandal.

… ACCUSED

This case came up on 06.02.2026, for final hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri

P.N.Sreenivasulu, Advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material papers on record, after hearing on both sides, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The sub Inspector of police Penagalur PS., filed charge sheet against the accused for offence under Sec.498-A, 307, 326 of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC) in Cr.No.48/2022 of Penagalur Police Station.

2. Briefly, the case prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 2 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

follows : The accused is resident of ST Colony, Konduru Village of Penagalur

Mandal. The injured/PW5 i.e., Kavali Dhanamma is wife of accused and she also resident of same village. The LW1 namely Indla Sreenu and PW1 Indla

Malleswari are the parents of the injured. They are living on doing coolie works. PW5/Dhanamma is their elder daughter and she was given in marriage to the accused about 3 years prior to this incident. The accused and PW5 lead happy marital life for few years. Since one year the accused addicted to consuming alcohol and has been harassing PW1 both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity. PW5 informed about cruel behavior of the accused to her parents but they advised her to adjust herself taking her future into account. Unable to tolerate harassment of the accused PW5 left him and joined in her parents house about 20 days back. Though PW5 was staying in her parents house the accused was visiting her when she was alone in the house and he used harass, demanding her to reunite with him and also provide money to consume alcohol. While so on 19.05.2022 at about 5.45 pm., when PW5 alone was in her house the accused armed with pestle, trespassed into the house and threatened PW5 to join with him or else he would kill her. As PW5 refused to join with him the accused grew wild and abused her in filthy language and shouted saying “Nenu Ramante Rava….E roju Ninnu Champithe Neeku Dikku Evaru” and so saying he beat PW5 with pestle on her head as a result she sustained severe head injury on right

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 3 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

side. Anticipating danger from the accused Pw5 shouted loudly, on hearing the same the neighbours i.e., PW2 to PW4 and PW10 rushed to the spot and on timely intervention they rescued PW5. On seeing the PW2 to PW4 and

PW10 the accused fled away from the scene of offence with pestle.

Subsequently PW2 and PW3 made a phone call to parents of PW5 and informed them about the incident. They rushed to the house and then they shifted the injured to Government hospital, Rajampet. Thereafter on the advise of the doctors PW5 was shifted to SVIMS hospital, Tirupati for better medical treatment. As condition of PW5 was precarious the investigating officer recorded the statement of LW1 on 19.05.2022 at Government Hospital,

Rajampet and forwarded the same to SHO., Penagalur PS on point of jurisdiction. On 19.05.2022 at about 10.30 pm., PW11 received the statement of LW1 recorded by PW9 and based on the same he registered a case in

Cr.No.48/2022 for offence under Sec.498-A IPC and Sec.307 IPC and investigated into the matter. During course of his investigation on 20.05.2022 he visited ST Colony, Kondur Village of Penagalur mandal and secured the presence of LW1 to LW6 and examined them and recorded their statements.

He also inspected the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 24.05.2022 he examined the victim and recorded her statements. On 23.05.2022 at about 11.00 am., PW11 arrested the accused in front of his house at ST Colony, Kondur Village of Penagalur Mandal and seized the crime weapon under cover of panchanama in the presence of

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 4 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

panchaytdars. Then he forwarded the accused to Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur for remand. The Medical Officer who treated the injured issued wound certificate opining that the injuries found on PW5 are grievious in nature. Then on the strength of the wound certificate issued by

Medical Officer the Investigating Officer added the Sec.326 IPC. The material collected during investigation clearly provided that the accused committed the offence punishable under Sec.498-A, 307 and 326 of IPC. Hence the charge.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandalur took the cognizance of offences under Sections.498A, 307 and 326 IPC and numbered a case as PRC.01/2023 and committed the matter to Hon’ble Principal District

Court, Kadapa. The Hon’ble Principal District Court, Kadapa numbered the same as S.C.No.143/2023 and made over same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opened case of prosecution. After hearing both parties, on perusal of material on record, it was found that, there is material to frame charges against the accused. Hence, the charges against accused were framed for the offence under sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. The charges framed against the accused were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

5.To prove it’s case, the prosecution examined as many as 11

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 5 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

witnesses besides marking Exs.P1 to P6 and M.O.1.

6.After Closure of prosecution evidence the accused was examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating evidence appearing in evidence of prosecution witnesses. For which the Accused denied truth of evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both parties. Perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused

beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under

sections 498-A and 307 of IPC ?” Point :-

9.As per the case of prosecution the criminal law was set into motion on the statement of LW1 namely Indla Sreenu recorded by PW9 who is out post incharge of Government Hospital, Rajampet. As per the statement of LW1, he has a son and 2 daughters out of them his elder daughter

Dhanamma(PW5) was given in marriage to the accused about three years back. Out of the wedlock they blessed with a son. The accused addicted to consuming alcohol and developed suspecting fidelity of PW5. About 20 days prior to this incident PW5 returned to the house of her parents. The accused used to beat PW5 for money for his bad habits. On 19.05.2022 when PW1 and

LW1 went for coolie works PW5 alone was in her house the accused consuming liquor entered into his house and attacked her saying that “Nenu

Ramante Rava….E roju Ninnu Champithe Neeku Dikku Evaru” with a

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 6 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

pestle available in the house and beat her on right side of her head. When she shouted loudly PW2 and PW3 rushed to the spot and tried to caught the accused but he fled away from the scene of offence. On that PW2 made a phone call to LW1 and informed him about the incident. Around 6.45 pm., LW1 returned to the house and found that his daughter was with head injury. Then he took her to Government Hospital, Rajampet for treatment. Therefore, he sought for taking action against the accused.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor taking the evidence of

PW1 to PW11 argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly the injured witness is trustworthy and it is specifically proved the overt acts committed by the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further argued that the evidence on record is unerringly point out the guilt of the accused. Therefore he has to be convicted and sentenced appropriately.

11.The learned advocate for accused vehemently argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is quite contrary to one another which renders that their evidence is not believable to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He further argued that the discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly suggest that as the PW5 intended to marry some other person taking the advantage of injuries sustained elsewhere she foisted a false case against the accused. During his arguments he brought to the notice of the Court that immediately after the

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 7 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

arrest of the accused PW5 contacted 2nd marriage with one Siva. This shows that the PW5 lodged this report only to get rid of the accused to contact the 2nd marriage. Further the prosecution has not filed the X-Ray report to prove that the injuries sustained by the injured. Therefore, taking the evidence of prosecution witnesses into account cumulatively it renders that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts as such the accused in entitled for acquittal.

12. The un-controverted case of both prosecution and the accused is that the accused by name Kavali Mahesh @ Anoku is none other than son of brother of PW1. PW1 namely Endla Malliswari and LW1 Endla Sreenu are wife and husband residents of ST Colony, Kondur village of Penagalur mandal.

They have a son and two daughters and among them PW5 who is their elder daughter was given in marriage to the accused about three years prior to alleged incident. It is further undisputed fact that the accused and PW5 lead happy marital life for about two years and out of the wed lock they blessed with a son. Therefore, there is no dispute as to the accused being the husband of

PW5 and they having a male child out of the wedlock.

13. It is the specific case of the prosecution that two years after the marriage the accused addicted to bad vices such as consuming alcohol and used to subject the PW5 to cruelty and harassment both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity. In that connection as PW5 could not bear the harassment in the hands of accused she used to come to her parents house

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 8 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

now and then. Similarly about 20 days prior to this incident the PW5 returned to her parents house and had been staying there. The primary allegation of the prosecution is that the accused addicted to consuming liquor and started harassing PW5 suspecting her fidelity and as she could not bear the harassment she joined with her parents house.

14. To prove the harassment meted out on the PW5 the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW10. Ex.P5 is the report lodged by father of PW5, in his report he stated that after the marriage the accused addicted to consuming liquor and starting harassing PW5 suspecting her fidelity. The allegations mentioned in Ex.P5 are in the nature of general allegations no specific overt act has been mentioned in Ex.P5. Even in 161 Cr.P.C., statements of prosecution witnesses they gave generalized statements that the accused addicted to consuming liquor used to harass the

PW5 suspecting her fidelity.

15. Now coming to the evidence of PW1 who is mother of the injured in her chief examination she testified that the accused addicted to consuming liquor and started harassing her daughter and as PW5 could not bear the harassment she used to come to her house. PW2 and PW3 who are cousins of PW5 in their evidence they have not spoken anything about the accused consuming liquor and suspecting the fidelity of PW5 and thereby harassing her. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 is not helpful to the case of

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 9 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

prosecution with regard to alleged harassment. PW4 is said to be neighbour of PW5 in her evidence she did not speak anything as to harassment by accused suspecting fidelity of PW5. PW10 is the relative of PW5 in his evidence he stated that he did not see PW5 and the accused altercating with each other. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

Thus, the only evidence available on record is the evidence of Pw5 to prove the harassment and cruelty subjected upon her by the accused. PW5 in her chief examination she testified that the accused looked after her for some days and thereafter he used to pick up galata with her in drunken stating that she should not talk to her parents and she should be cordial with her in laws. She added that the accused also suspected her fidelity. The primary allegation of the PW5 in her evidence is that the accused used to demand her not to speak to her parents and be cordial with her in laws. Except making generalized statements PW5 also did not give any specific instances of the alleged cruelty prior the incident. On the other hand as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses after registering this FIR the PW5 contacted another marriage with one Ummadi Siva Sankar and out of said wedlock she blessed with a daughter. It also came on evidence that the said Ummadi Siva Sankar was working as Assistant under the accused. It is also admitted fact that PW1 and the accused has not obtained divorce from competent court. PW5 stated that in her community there is no practice of obtaining divorce through court of law.

As the evidence on record shows that immediately after registering the FIR the

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 10 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

accused left the village PW5 married one Ummadi Siva Sankar without obtaining divorce from the Court of law, it suggest that there were disputes between PW5 and the accused in connection with the parents of PW5 making plans to perform another marriage to PW5. In this regard there appears to be some galata between the couple. The same cannot be taken as harassment or cruelty within the meaning of Sec.498-A IPC in as much as it was pland to perform 2nd marriage to PW5 with one U.Siva Sankar while her first marriage in force there appears to be galata between PW5 and the accused.

16. Now coming to the incident dated 19.05.2022 the PW5 in her 161

Cr.P.C., statement she categorically stated that on 19.05.2022 the accused entered into her parents house with pestle around 5.45 pm., and demanded her to come with him to lead marital life as PW5 refused to accompany with him he beat her with pestle on the right side of her head on back side stating that he would see if anybody come to her rescue as he was going to kill her.

Then she shouted loudly, on that the neighbours rushed to the spot and on seeing them the accused fled away from the scene of offence with pestle. On that PW1 was shifted to the Government hospital, Rajampet, from there is

SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati. To prove said incident the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and PW10.

17. PW1 is the mother of PW5 in her evidence she stated that on 19.05.2022 she went for coolie works and her daughter was in her house. On

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 11 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

that day she received phone call from PW2 that the accused came to her house demanded money for consuming alcohol and when she refused to give money he took MO1 and beat her on the right side of her head. Then Pw1 rushed to the spot and shifted her daughter to the hospital. PW1 categorically stated that she did not witness the incident and her husband informed her about the incident. The evidence of PW1 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove that she saw the accused beating PW5 as she is not eyewitness to the incident.

18. The prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW2 and

PW3 who are relatives of PW5 stating that they are eyewitness to the incident.

PW2 and PW3 in their evidence they stated that on 19.05.2022 at about 5.45 pm., the accused entered into the house of PW5 with a pestle and demanding money for consuming liquor and also for not joining him to lead marital life.

The accused beat PW1 with pestle on right side of the head and thereby she sustained severe injury. Then he rushed to the spot on seeing him the accused fled away from the scene of offence. Then PW2 made a phone call to LW1 and PW2 and on their arrival the injured was shifted to Government Hospital,

Rajampet. The learned Advocate for accused seriously disputed the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the spot stating that their houses are not located near to the scene of offence. PW2 and PW3 in their 161 Cr.P.C., statements on 19.05.2022 while they were watching from their house they saw the accused entering into the house of PW5 with a pestle and attacked her. The

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 12 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

investigation officer who visited the scene of offence prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence wherein the house of PW2 and PW3 is not shown to be located near scene of offence. Therefore it is for prosecution to explain as to how the presence of PW2 and PW3 is established that at the time of incident. Even PW2 and PW3 did not try to stop the accused when he allegedly entered into the house with a pestle. The presence of PW2 and

PW3 is highly doubtful in as much as had really they were present at the spot they would prevent the incident and would have shifted the injured immediately to the hospital without waiting for arrival of PW1 and LW1. The evidence of

PW2 and PW3 goes to show that though they are close relatives of PW5 they waited till arrival of LW1 and PW1 to shift the injured to the hospital. This raised serious doubt on the presence of PW2 and PW3 at the spot.

19. Now coming to the evidence of PW4. She stated that she was examined by the police and she stated to the police that she does not know anything about his case. Therefore it appears that she is not eyewitness to the incident and she saw only the injured with bleeding injury. Similarly PW10 also stated that he did not witness the incident. Therefore both evidence of PW4 and PW10 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the incident.

20. Now, the available evidence on record is the evidence of PW5 alone. PW5 in her chief examination she testified that on 19.05.2022 at about 5.30 pm., while she was in her house the accused entered into her house in

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 13 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

drunken state and beat her indiscriminately with pestle and in the said incident she sustained severe head injury. On seeing the incident PW2 and PW3 made a phone call to her parents and on that her father came to the spot and shifted her to the hospital. In the cross-examination she categorically stated that after she received injury she shouted loudly then only the neighbours rushed to the spot. On perusal of her statements recorded under Sec.161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that she did not name any person who came to her rescue but she simply stated that on raising cries the neighbours came to the spot and on seeing them the accused fled away from the scene of offence with pestle.

21.As per the evidence of prosecution witnesses initially the injured was shifted to Government hospital, Rajampet, from there to SVIMS Hospital,

Tirupati for better treatment. The medical officer who treated PW1 at

Government Hospital, Rajampet found a laceration on ocuiput and bleeding through right ear and left nostril. He stated that the parties went to SVIMS hospital, Tirupati and CT Scan revealed that Hemmorhagic contusion in right parieto temporal lobes, left anterior temporal lobe, Subdural hemorrhage and fracture squomous part of temporal bone, right parietal bone with extent as described. He stated that the injury no.1 is grievious in nature caused with blunt object whereas injury no.2 is simple in nature. In his evidence he categorically stated that based on the Radiology report he gave opinion as to injury no.1 being grievious in nature. As per the evidence of PW8 he treated the patient on 19.05.2022 then he referred the parties to SVRRGG hospital,

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 14 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

Tirupati for better medical treatment but patient went to SVIMS Hospital,

Tirupati. Admittedly, the investigating officer has not filed CT Scan report issued by Radiologist based on which opinion formed for giving Ex.P3 wound certificate. Further it appears that PW8 gave only First aid to the injured then he referred the patient to better institution for treatment. The injured was taken treatment at SVIMS hospital, Tiruapti and she was discharged from there.

According to the prosecution, CT scan was taken at SVIMS hospital, Tirupati itself. When such is the case the better medical officer who is competent to give evidence as to the nature of injuries sustained by PW5 is the doctor who treated her at SVIMS hospital, Tirupati and Radiologist who gave report regarding nature of the injuries. Admittedly neither Radiology report has been filed into the court nor the doctor who has treated the injured at SVIMS hospital, Tirupati and the Radiologist who gave report have been examined

before the Court to prove the injuries sustained by PW5. In the absence of

evidence from the doctor who treated her at the SVIMS hospital, Tirupati and the Radiologist who gave report the evidence of PW8 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the injuries present on the body of PW5. Therefore, the evidence of PW8 is not helpful to the case of prosecution to prove the charges framed against the accused.

22.As per the case of prosecution the accused along with him brought the pestle and attacked PW1. Some of the witnesses particularly PW2

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 15 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

and PW3 in their evidence they stated that the accused took the pestle from the house of PW1 and beat her. Similarly PW5 in her evidence did not state that the accused brought the pestle with him.

23.Coming to recovery of pestle the prosecution pleaded that on receiving credible information on 23.05.2022 PW11 arrested the accused in front of his house at Kondur ST Colony and seized M.O.1 pestle used for commission of offence under cover of Ex.P8 panchanama. This Court perused the Ex.P8 panchanama, it does not disclose that inconsequence of information given by the accused the weapon was recovered. On the other hand it shows that the accused himself brought the weapon from the bushes beside his house which amounts to conduct of accused admissible under Sec.8 of Indian

Evidence Act. The conduct is the weak piece of evidence, the same cannot be taken as sufficient to prove recovery of MO1. The panchayatdars who are examined as PW6 and PW7 did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile. Therefore as the panchayatdars turned hostile it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of M.O.1 as stated in Ex.P8.

24. It came on evidence that immediately after registering this case the accused left the village and went to Kavali and has been staying there and on that immediately PW5 contacted marriage with one U.Siva Sankar and out of the wedlock she blessed with a male child. She further admitted that she did not obtained any divorce through process of court from the accused. She

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 16 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

stated that there is no practice of obtaining divorce from the Court in her caste.

The circumstance that PW5 married U.Siva Sankar after the accused left the village after registering the FIR renders an inference that there were disputes between the couples with regard to proposal of PW5 marrying again one

Ummadi Siva Sankar who was working as Assistant under the accused and it raises serious doubt on trustworthiness of evidence of PW5.

25. Taking the evidence of prosecution witnesses into account it is evident that the prosecution failed to prove the injuries present on the body of

PW5 as it failed to examine the doctor who examined the PW5 at SVIMS

Hospital, Tirupati and the Radiologist who gave Radiology report. Further the seizure of crime weapon has not been established.

26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds and concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offencesunder Sections 498-A and Sec.307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

27.In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offence under

Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1)

Cr.P.C for all the charges levelled against him. The bail bonds of the accused along with his solvencies shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as required U/Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. The M.O.1 Pestle in

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 17 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

C.P.R.No.16/2025 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him corrected

and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-

P.W.1 : Endla Malliswari

P.W.2 : Gali Rajkumar

P.W.3 : Gali Ravindra

P.W.4 : Mallika Narasamma

P.W.5 : Kavali Dhanamma

P.W.6 : Ganjikunta Venkatesh

P.W.7 : Yeturu Narasaiah

P.W.8 : Dr. C.Anil Kumar

P.W.9 : A.M. Krishna

P.W.10 : Mallika Rajaiah

P.W.11 : Y. Chennakesavulu

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: Nil

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW6 on the arrest and seizure mahazar dated 23.05.2022.

Ex.P.2: Signature of PW7 on the arrest and seizure mahazar dated 23.05.2022.

Ex.P.3: Wound certificate of PW5/Kavali Dhanamma

Ex.P.4: Hospital Intimation dated 19.05.2022

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 18 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

Ex.P.5: Statement of Lw1 Endla Seenu dated 19.05.2022

Ex.P.6: Original FIR In Cr.NO.48/2022 of Penagalur PS.

Ex.P.7: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.8: Arrest, confession and seizure panchanama dated 23.05.2022.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-

M.O.1: Pestle.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Rajampet.

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 19 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF CRL.RULES OF PRACTICE IN

THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

Present: Sri T.Kesava,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Rajampet.

Friday, this the 20th day of February, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 143 OF 2023

1Name of the P.S & Cr.No.:Penagaluru P.S. & Cr.No.48 of 2022. 2Sessions Case No.:143 of 2023 3Section of law:498-A and 307 of IPC.

4Name of the accused:Kavali Mahesh @ Anoku, aged about 22 years, S/o.Kavali Penchalaiah, ST Yanadi, Occ:Coolie, R/o.Konduru ST Colony, Penagalur Mandal. 5Date of occurrence of offence:Prior to 19.05.2022 6Date of complaint :19.05.2022 7Date of apprehension of :23.05.2022 accused 8Date of release of accused:20.06.2022 9Date of commitment of case:24.03.2023 10Date of commencement of trial:22.08.2025 11Date of close of trial:28.11.2025 12Date of sentence or order:20.02.2026 13(a)Explanation for delay :--

(b) In the trial Court:- The record in P.R.C.No.01/2023 of Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Nandaluru was submitted to the Court of Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Kadapa on 10.04.2023 and the same was numbered as Sessions Case No.143 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Kadapa for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC and Sec.326 IPC and made over the same to this

Court for disposal according to law. The accused made his appearance before this

Court on 17.08.2023 and charges were framed. On 22.08.2025, P.Ws.1 and 2, on 12.09.2025 P.W.3 and PW4, on 19.09.2025 P.W.5 to P.W.7, on 26.09.2025 P.W.8

S.C.No. 143 of 2023 20 P.A.S.J.Court, Rajampet.

and P.W.9, on 17.10.2025 P.W.10 and on 21.11.2025 PW11 were examined and prosecution evidence closed. 06.02.2026 heard arguments. On 20.02.2026

Judgment pronounced.

Sd/- T. Kesava

PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RAJAMPET.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi through the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Kadapa. Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Kadapa.

COPY TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, NANDALUR

1

APKD170000412022

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri T. Kesava,

Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa.

Wednesday this the 30th day of April, 2026

S.C.POCSO Case No.146 of 2022

Name of the complainant:State: Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapuram PS.

1. Name of the accused:1)Kadapa Gopala Krishnaiah S/o K. Nagamallaiah, aged 42 years, Buddayapalli

(v), Chennur Mandal, Kadapa District working as Forest Beat Officer, Prorumamilla Range, Mallepalli Section, Itukalapadu Beat. 2)Kadapa Krishnaiah S/o K. Nagamallaiah, aged 58 years, native of Buddayapalli (v), Chennur Mandal, Kadapa, working as Jail Warder at Kamalapuram Sub Jail, resident of D.No.13/14, Sankarapuram Street, Kadapa. 3)Annem Krishnamma W/o Subbaiah, aged 49 years, Cherlopalli village, Kahjipet Mandal, Kadapa District.

2. Charges framed:Under Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) of IPC, and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and U/Sec.7 r/w.8 of POCSO Act against A.1 and charge under Sections 498 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., against A.2 and A.3.

3. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

IN THE RESULT, the A.1 is found not guilty

4. Finding of the Judge: for the offence under Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) of IPC, and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act and U/Sec.7 r/w.8 of POCSO Act and A.2 and A.3 2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A.1 to A.3 along with their sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment as required u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

5. Sentence or order: --

6. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Kommineni Venu Gopal, Special Public Prosecutor for Spl. Court for trail of POCSO Court, Kadapa.

7. Name of the Advocate for :Sri G. Sai Vamsee Krishna, Advocate for the accused 1 to 3. Accused.

8. Crime number and name of :Cr.No.57 of 2017 of Kamalapuram PS. the Police Station.

9. Committed by: ---

This Sessions Case came before this court on 23.04.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G. Sai Vamsee Krishna, Advocate for the accused 1 to 3, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

Initially Sub Inspector of Police, Kamalapuram P.S., filed charge sheet against the A.1 alone namely Kadapa Gopala Krishnaiah for offences punishable under Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) of Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec.8 of

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after 3 referred to as POCSO) in Cr.No.57 of 2017 of Kamalapuram P.S. As material collected during the investigation could not reveal involment of

A.2 and A.3 namely Kadapa Krishnaiah and Annem Krishnamma their were not charge sheeted.

2.B riefly, stated the case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:- (a) The A.1 is resident of Buddayapalli village of Chennur Mandal.

A.2 is his elder brother, where as A.3 is his sister. About 13 years prior to lodging report, the marriage of P.W.1 was performed with A.1. Out of wedlock, they blessed with two daughters ie., victim girls 1 and 2. A.1 has been working as Forest Beat Officer in Forest Department at

Porumamilla Range, Mallepalli Section, Itukalapadu Beat. They lead happy marital life for some days. After P.W.1 gave birth to elder daughter, A.1 started subjecting the P.W.1 to cruelty both physically and mentally suspecting her fidelity for demanding additional dowry. The parents P.W.1 presented 16 tulas of gold and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- to the A.1 towards dowry. To extract additional dowry, A.1 invented story of extra matrimonial relationshipand used to abuse his two daughters calling them as “Chinna lanja, Pedda Lanja”. He used to rub his legs on the breast and behaved indecent manner. The elder daughter was aged about 11 years, where as younger daughter was aged about 9 years.

They were residing at Badvel town. P.W.2 to P.W.4 witnessed the cruelty subject upon the P.W.1 and victims. A.1 used to abuse his two daughters saying that they were not born through him and used to tell them to go and die. Some time, elders intervened and held mediation for reunion but A.1 continued to harass P.W.1. A1 attempted to hang

PW1 to ceiling fan to kill her but luckily she could escape. A.1 while his daughters were bathing he used to rub their thighs and ears and also 4 caught the breast of his younger daughter and sucked the breast with sexual intention. The parents of P.W.1 gave an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to her which she gave to the A.1. The A.1 gave said money to one bullion merchant for interest and took the promissory notes forcibly executed by the said merchant. As she could not bears the harassment she lodged a report before the Station House Officer, Kamalapuram P.S.

Based on the same, a case in Cr.No.57 of 2017 was registered for offences under Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., and Sec.3 and 4 of DP Act and Sec.8 of POCSO Act.

(b) P.W.11 the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statement of

P.W.1 and then he got recorded the statements of the victims through

Women Sub Inspector, Kadapa. He examined the witnesses and visited the scene of offence and prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence. He also got recorded the statements of the victims. As per the material collected during the investigation, no case was made out against the A.2 and A.3 and they were residing separately from A.1 nor visited Badvel town. Therefore, they are not charged for any of the offences. Further the material provides that A.1 suspecting fidelity of

P.W.1 subjected her to cruelty both physically and mentally and also demanded additional dowry. Further he committed sexual harassment on the victims. As such the A.1 is liable to be punished for offences under sections 498 (A), 354 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act and Sec.8 of POCSO Act.

3. Before proceedings further, it is relevant to mention here that as police filed charge sheet deleting names of A.2 and A.3 notice was given to the defacto complainant on the deletion. On receipt of notice,

PW1 filed protest petition and on that the sworn statements of P.W.1 and her elder daughter were recorded and based on material collected 5 by the police during the investigation and based on the sworn statements recorded by the Court, the cognizance of offences 498 (A), 354 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., and Sec.3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and

Sec.8 of POCSO Act was taken against A.1 to A.3.

4. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3, they were furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Later, the accused No. 1 to 3 were examined u/s.228 of Cr.P.C., and charges under Section 498 (A), 354 (A) of IPC., and Sec.3 and 4 of DP

Act and Sec.7 r/w.8 of POCSO Act were framed against A.1 and charge under Sections 498 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., against A.2 and A.3, read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which the accused No. 1 to 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12.

6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused No. 1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

7. Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel of the accused.Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the A.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) of IPC., and

Sec.3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and Sec.7 r/w.8 of POCSO Act and A.2 and A.3 for the offences punishable under Section 498 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., beyond all reasonable doubt?” 6

9. P O I N T:-

As can be seen from the record, it is evident that A.1 is the husband of P.W.1/Kadapa Radha and their marriage was solemnize about 13 years prior to lodging Ex.P.1 report. It is further undisputed fact that A.2 / Kadapa Krishnaiah is elder brother of A.1 who was working as

Jail Warder at Kamalapuram Sub Jail and A.3 / Annem Krishnamma is elder sister of A.1 who was married and residing at Cherlopalli village,

Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa away from Badvel where both A.1 and P.W.1 along with their children stayed together. It is further undisputed fact that out of the wedlock, P.W.1 and A.1 blessed with two daughters, out of them elder daughter was aged about 11 years and younger daughter was aged about 9 years on the date of lodging report. The victims 1 and 2 ie., daughters of P.W.1 and A.1 were examined P.W.7 and P.W.9.

P.W.7 is the younger daughter and P.W.9 is elder daughter of P.W.1 and

A.1. It is further undisputed fact that on the date of marriage, A.1 was working as Forest Guard in the Forest Department. On the date of lodging Ex.P.1, A.1 was working as Forest Beat Officer, Porumamilla

Range, Mallepalli Section Itukalapadu Beat. By virtue of employment,

P.W.1 and A.1 were staying at Badvel and finally P.W.1 left the company of A.1 on 22.03.2017 when both were staying at Badvel and she returned to her parents house at Dadireddypalli village of Kamalapuram.

It is further undisputed fact that A.2 who is elder brother of A.1 who is also a Government employee in prison department. He worked at

Allagadda and other different place and on the date of lodging report, he was working at Sub Jail, Kamalapuram as Jail warden. A.3 who is elder sister of A.1 and was married has been staying in-law’s house of

Cherlopalli of Khajipet Mandal. There is no dispute as to fact referred supra and also relationship as stated above.

7 10. Ex.P.1 is report lodged by P.W.1 based on which, criminal law was set into motion by registering Ex.P.10 First Information Report. As

First Information Report arise out of matrimonial dispute, for better appreciation of material on record, it is just and necessary to have brief reference to contents of Ex.P.1.

11. Ex.P.1 provides that the marriage of P.W.1 was performed about 13 years prior to lodging of Ex.P.1 with A.1 and out of the wed lock they blessed with two daughters. A.1 has been working as Forest

Guard in Forest Department. They lead happy marital life for some days, but after the birth of elder daughter, A.1 started subjecting the

P.W.1 to cruelty both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and suspecting her fidelity. During the time of marriage, the parents of P.W.1 presented 16 tulas of gold ornaments and cash of

Rs.1,50,000/- towards dowry. For extracting illegal additional dowry, A.1 leveled serious allegations of illegal intimacy and abused his daughters calling them as “Chinna lanja, Pedda Lanja”. He also rubbed his leg on the breast of the victims and behaved indecently. At the instigation of

A.2 and A.3, A.1 subjected P.W.1 and victims to cruelty and behaved indecently in the presence of the victims. He also abused the victim saying that they were not born to him and asked them to go and die. He also stated that he would lead marital life only if his elder brother commands him to do so. Some times elders intervened and conducted mediation for reunion, but those were went in vain. Some times, A.1 tried to hang P.W.1 to the ceiling fan to kill her, but she could escape from her husband. During time of her daughters bathing, A.1 used to rub their thighs and ears and on one occasion he caught breast of her younger daughter and sucked breast with his mouth. The parents of

P.W.1 gave Rs.5,00,000/- to her which the A.1 lent to bullion merchant 8 and kept the promissory notes executed by him with him. He also took away the Aadhar card of complainant and victims and their birth certificates.

12. The Women Sub Inspector of Police of Mahila P.S., Kadapa recorded the statements of both victims on 20.04.2017 and those statements are referred as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9. In Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 the victims stated that P.W.7 was studying 4th Class and the A.1 used to call the victims as “Chinna lanja and Pedda Lanja” stating that they were not born through him. He used to beat the victims and also used to press their breast, he used to threaten the younger daughter from disclosing the harassment to others. During Dasara vacation he also did same thing and threatened them that he would kill them. As they could not bear the harassment, they returned Dedireddipalli village which is native village of P.W.1.

13. Perusal of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9, it is clear that P.W.1 and victims made allegations of sexual harassment and cruelty against A.1 and they have not made any allegations against A.2 and A.3. In Ex.P.1 report, P.W.1 madebald statement that at the instigation of A.2 and A.3,

A.1 used to harass the P.W.1 suspecting her fidelity. Except the said allegation she has not made any specific overt acts allegedly committed by A.2 and A.3 either against P.W.1 or against the victims. After police filed charge sheet deleting their names P.W.1 field protest petition consequently the statements of elder daughter and P.W.1 were recorded. It is relevant to mention here that in the evidence of victims they categorically stated that the Women Sub Inspector of Mahila P.S.,

Kadapa recorded their statements. Which means, Women Sub

Inspector of Police, Mahila Police Station, Kadapa recorded Ex.P.7 and

Ex.P.9 statements of the victims. Surprisingly without there being any 9 averments in Ex.P.1, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9 during recording of sworn statements, P.W.1 and PW9 stated that A.2 and A.3 abused minor daughters stating that they should lead life indulging in prostitution. A.2 used to show absence films to the victims. They alleged that A.3 also subjected them to cruelty. As stated supra, the allegations with regard to

A.2 and A.3 subjecting the victims to cruelty and sexual harassment is highly doubtful in as much as none of the statements recorded by the police during the investigation or in Ex.P.1, it is stated that A.2 and A.3 subjected the victims to sexual harassment nor instigated the A.1 to subject P.W.1 and her daughters to cruelty and harassment. It appears that only after filing charge sheet a new story has been developed as if the A.2 and A.3 subjected P.W.1 and victims to cruelty and also harassed them sexually.

14. Now coming to the alleged harassment and cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 (A) of IPC,P.W.1 testified that at the time of marriage 16 tulas of gold ornaments and cash of Rs.1,50,000/- were presented to the A.1 towards dowry and after the marriage they both set up family at Buddayapalli village and by virtue of employment of her husband they resided at Badvel and Porumamilla. In her evidence she stated that A.1 to A.3 subjected her to cruelty suspecting her fidelity to get additional dowry. She further went on to say that A.3 used to speak out that the victims are not born through A.1. PW1 further stated that while watching TV, A.1 used to touch the legs of the victims and while the victims were taking bath, he used to touch thighs and ears of victims. She also stated that A.1 used to make comments on seeing his daughter challenging their paternity. He also misbehaved with his daughter. She further stated that A1 also threatened the victims not to 10 disclose the same to others. This story stated in the chief examination is contradictory to the story narrated in Ex.P.1.

15. Evidencing the same P.W.1 in her cross examination categorically stated that she did not specifically state in Ex.P.1 that the

A.3 used to say that her daughters were not born through A.1. She also stated that she did not specifically state in Ex.P.1 that while her daughters were watching TV, A.1 used to touch their feet with sexual intent. She further stated that she did not state in Ex.P.1 that while she was washing cloths, A.1 used to misbehave with his daughters. She further stated that she did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.1 used to take out them to have panipuri and used to tell them that if they disclose anything he would kill them. She further admitted that she did not disclose all these things to the police when they examined her. She also stated that she did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.2 used to show absence films to her children. She further admitted that she did not state in

Ex.P.1 that her parents gave Rs.5,00,000/- to P.W.1. Even she stated that she did not state in Ex.P.1 that A.2 made a comment referring to moles on the body of her children that no body else in their family has such moles, and challenged the paternity of her children. Further in her chief examination she did not state that A.1 attempt take away to here life by hanging her to ceiling fan.

16. When we peruse Ex.P.1 and chief examination of P.W.1 in juxtaposition, it makes clear that PW1 has completely given go by to the contents of Ex.P.1 and she gave new version incorporating new set of things which are not stated at any time before police or in sworn statements. This clearly goes to show that P.W.1 improved her case with serious allegations to make the Court to believe that the A.1 committed heinous offence. Further, except referring bald allegations in 11 the evidence and also in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has not given any dates or specific events on which those incidents were happened. No material is placed with regard to presenting dowery or additional dowery to the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable with regard to alleged harassment, taking dowry and demand of additional dowry.

17. Now coming to the evidence of victims with regard to sexual harassment on them in the chief examination of P.W.7 ie., younger daughter she stated that A.1 used to call them as “Pedda lanja and chinna lanja” and he has not shown any love and affection towards

P.W.1 and her daughters. She further testified that during Sankranthi festival in the year 2014, A.1 came to her and sucked her nipples to drink milk. A.1 also used to enter wash room while they were taking bath and tried to touch her body. Taking advantage of washing of utensils, A.1 used to enter into the bath room and used to do illegal acts. On one day when A.1 came out from washing room, the victim also came out from same room which P.W.1 noticed for which P.W.1 reprimanded her husband. A.1 used to have sex with P.W.1 in the presence of his daughters. While they were studying, A.1 used to beat them stating that there was no need to study. When P.W.7 asked for purchase of bicycle, A.1 abused her in filthy language. The evidence of

P.W.7 goes to show that she narrated alleged sexual harassment against her father and she did not speak against A.2 and A.3.

18. When it comes to her cross examination she categorically stated that her mother gave a report within two days after reaching to her parents house. She further testified that she studied Intermediate in

Sri Hari Junior College, Kadapa. She also stated that her father paid school fee for her studies from 5th Class to 8th Class. She further stated 12 that she does not know her father deposited amount for maintenance

before Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamalapuram.

19. Similarly, when we read the evidence of P.W.7 in juxtaposition, with contents of Ex.P.7 it makes it clear that P.W.7 has given go by to the statement given to the police and she developed a new story and makes serious allegations against her father with regard to sexual harassment. The victim admitted that her father paid school fees for her studies and she pleaded ignorance as to deposit of money for maintenance before Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamalapuram. It appears that as there are serious matrimonial disputes between A.1 and

P.W.1 using her daughters P.W.1 leveling serious allegations of sexual assault against her husband cannot be ruled out. This observation has been recorded in view of the fact that when such serious sexual harassment allegedly happened, on no occasion P.W.1 has taken to

P.W.7 to the hospital for medical examination which would offer some evidence with regard to sexual assault. If we read the evidence of P.W.7 in juxtaposition with content of Ex.P.7, it clearly goes to show that P.W.7 also gave improved version with most severe allegations and sexual harassment which is not reflected in Ex.P.7. Therefore, the evidence of

P.W.7 is also not believable to arrive any finding.

20. Coming to the evidence of P.W.9 she stated that since the time she was studying 4th Class, A.1 used to beat her stating that they were not born through him and A.2 used to ask her to sleep with his sons. She also stated that A.2 used to beat and used to kick her all over her body stating that she was not born through A1. During holidays, A.2 used to take them to the houses of A.2 and A.3 there they used to beat and threatened them with dire-consequences. In their absence, A.1 used to beat P.W.1.

13 21. If we read the evidence of P.W.9 in juxtaposition with Ex.P.9 statement, it also clearly goes to show that she gave improved version and the material allegations in the chief examination of P.W.1 are not reflecting in Ex.P.9 statement. She has not stated anything against A.2 and A.3 in Ex.P.9. Coming to her evidence, she went on to say that A.2 asked her to sleep with his sons. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 if read together, it is clear that due to matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and

A.1, P.W.1 got his daughter to depose against their father, paternal uncle and aunt leveling serious allegations of sexual harassment against them. There are several contradictions which go to the root of the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

22. As per copies of birth certificates filed by the prosecution, the victim No.1 was born on 05.07.2006, where as victim No.2 was born on 13.06.2008. Therefore, on the date of lodging report they were below the age of 18 years within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) of POCSO Act.

23. P.W.2 to P.W.5 are said to be eye witnesses to cruelty and sexual harassment, but they did not support the case of the prosecution on any material particulars and they turned hostile. Similarly, P.W.6 and

L.W.8 / D. Subbarayudu who said to be panchayatdars for amicable settlement between P.W.1 and A.1 they did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

24. The investigating officer during his evidence categorically stated that the present litigation arise out of matrimonial disputes between P.W.1 and A.1. He categorically stated that alleged sexual harassment was not taken place with in the jurisdiction fo

Kamalapuram. Further as per the admissions given by P.W.1, P.W.7 and

P.W.9, A.1 did not commit any act of harassment or sexual harassment 14 at Dadireddipalli. They further admitted that A.1 filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and it was allowed. As P.W.1 did not join with A.1, he filed a petition for grant of Divorce at Proddatur. He also admitted P.W.1 filed D.V.C. case against A.1 and also maintenance case before Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kamalapuram. She categorically admitted that A.1 has not taken any plea challenging the paternity of his daughter in any proceedings pending before Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kamalapuram or in divorce petition pending

before Proddatur Court. As A1 did not take any pleading disputing

peternity of victims, as he obtained orders for restitution of conjugal rights against PW1 it can be concluded that there is no substance in the argument of prosesuction as to accused No.1 suspecting fedility of PW1 and diputing peternity of victims. This makes clear that the ground of A.1 suspecting the fidelity of P.W.1 harassing her the victims are born not through him is not believable.

25. With regard to panchayat, before filing report and after filing report several panchayat were conducted in the presence of one Rami

Reddy and Hanumanthu Reddy for reunion at the instance of A.1.

Those panchayats were proved in vain. The admission given by P.W.1 and also victims during their cross examination makes it clear that even after lodging report, A.1 tried for settlement and for reunion and got convened several panchayats which shows that A1 made serious effort for reunion but those efforts were in vein. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly provide that due to long standing matrimonial disputes between A.1 and P.W.1 it lead the P.W.1 to file this report implicating the A.1 and his siblings even for PCOSO offences to compel them for settlement in matrimonial disputes. Therefore, it can be held 15 that the prosecution failed to prove any of the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3.

26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds and concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused

No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubts for any of the offences charged against them. As such the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

27. In the result, the A.1 is found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 498 (A), 354 (A) of IPC, and Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act and U/Sec.7 r/w.8 of POCSO Act and A.2 and A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498 (A) r/w.34 of IPC., and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, they are acquitted u/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for all the charges leveled against the accused No.1 to 3.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 along with their sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment as required u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Judge, Special Court for trial of

Offences under the POCSO Act, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1K. Radha.

16

P.W.2S. Padmavathi. P.W.3K. Sama Siva Reddy.

P.W.4P. Venkata Reddy.

P.W.5D. Subbarayudu.

P.W.6S. Chandra Sekhar.

P.W.7Victim.

P.W.8B. Vijayamma.

P.W.9Victim.

P.W.10I.M.S. Pankajakshi, Retd.WSI.

P.W.11G. Mohammad Rafi, SI of Police.

Witnesses examined for defence

- Nil -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.6161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.7Statement of victim No.2 recorded by WSI, dt.20.04.2017.

Ex.P.8161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P.9Statement of victim No.2, dt.20.04.2017.

Ex.P.10First Information Report.

Ex.P.11Birth certificate of P.W.7.

Ex.P.12Birth certificate of P.W.8.

17

Exhibits marked for defence

- Nil -

Material objects marked for

- Nil -

Sd/- T. Kesava

Judge, POCSO Court,

Kadapa.

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 1 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

APKD080000052018

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)::

RAJAMPET.

PRESENT : SRI T. KESAVA,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

RAJAMPET.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026.

O.S.No. 14 OF 2018

1.Smt. Nallam Swarnalatha W/o.Nallam Jaganmohan D/o. Late Bodanapu

Subbarayudu and Venkata Subbamma, Hindu, aged about 25 years,

Housewife, residing at D.No.1/118, Gopavaram, Proddatur Mandal,

Kadapa District.

2.Nallam Jagan Mohan, S/o. Nallam Nagaraju, Hindu, aged about 28 years, Job Holder, residing at D.No.1/118, Gopavaram, Proddatur

Mandal, Kadapa District.

.... Plaintiffs No.1 & 2

Vs.

1.Bodanapu Subramanyam S/o. Bodanapu Subbaiah, aged about 47 years, Hindu, Business, residing at D.No.6/1025-1-D, Noonevaripalli,

Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

2.Pigileti Vijaya Lakshmi W/o.Hari Prasad, D/o.Bodanapu Subbarayudu, aged about 34 years, Hindu, Housewife, residing at D.No.6/1025-G- 25(A), Hyder Nagar, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

3.Idimadakala Jyothi W/o. Sai Pratap, D/o.Bodanapu Subbarayudu, aged about 30 years, Hindu, house wife, residing at D.No.6/1025-S-G, Hyder

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 2 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Nagar, Rajampet Town and Mandal, Kadapa District.

(Defendants No.2 and 3 are added as per orders in I.A.No.306/2024

dated 06.08.2024)

… Defendants No.1 to 3

This suit came up on 03.02.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.V.Subramanyam, Advocate for plaintiffs and of Sri P.Vallabha

Rao, Advocate for defendant No.1 and Sri V.Gurupratap Kumar Reddy,

Advocate for defendants No.2 and 3 and upon perusing the material available on record and after 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

This suit is filed for partition of suit schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs and remaining share to the defendant No.1, for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant

No.1 from alienating the suit property to third parties and for costs of the suit.

2.Briefly the averments of plaint are as follows:- The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are wife and and husband whereas the defendant No.1 is none other than paternal uncle of plaintiff No.1. One Bodanapu Subbaiah had four sons namely Bodanapu Subbarayudu, Bodanapu Subramanyam (Defendant No.1),

Nagaraju and Munaiah. His elder son namely Bodanapu Subbarayudu married one Venkata Subbamma who is mother of plaintiff No.1. During lifetime of

Bodanapu Subbaiah, he executed a gift settlement deed on 23.09.2004 in favour of mother of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 giving equal shares

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 3 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

in the said property. The suit property is self acquired property of Bodanapu

Subbaiah and it was a vacant site. The mother of plaintiff No.1 went to abroad for employment. She sent money to the defendant No.1 for construction of a house on condition that the defendant No.1 shall pay his half share in the expenditure incured for construction of the house. The name of mother of plaintiff No.1 was mutated in municipal records and the house tax is being collected on her name. After construction the defendant No.1 failed to pay any amount to Venkata subbamma or to the plaintiff No.1. Due to ill health

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma leased out the suit property to the tenants and was living with the plaintiff No.1 at Proddatur. Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma died on 30.07.2016. During her lifetime on 24.06.2016 in sound disposing state of mind she executed a registered will bequeathing her half share in suit property in favour of plaintiffs. Thus, the suit property is joint property of both the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and it is in joint possession of both of them. The defendant No.1 taking advantage of death of mother of plaintiff No.1 went to the suit schedule house and threatened the tenants and evicted them forcibly and thereby occupies the same. Immediately the tenants approached the plaintiff No.1 and explained true facts. On that the plaintiff No.1 approached the defendant No.1 and questioned his illegal activity but he paid deaf ear. Under such circumstances as it is not safe to keep the suit property in joint possession it compelled the plaintiffs to file this suit for partition of suit

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 4 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs and another share to the defendants.

3.The defendants No.2 and 3 namely Pigileti Vijaya Lakshmi and

Idimadakala Jyothi are the sisters of plaintiff No.1 and they came on record as per orders in I.A.No.306/2024 dated 06.08.2024. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement whereas the defendants No.2 and 3 adopted the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1.

4.Briefly, stated the averments of written statement of defendant

No.1 are as follows:- The defendant No.1 admitted that Bodanapu Subbaiah gifted the suit property jointly to Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma and the defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed dated 23.09.2004. On the date of gift it was vacant site. He further admitted that the name of Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma was mutated in panchayat records for house taxe and water tax.

He denied remaining allegations mentioned in the plaint. The defendant No.1 specifically pleaded that the defendant No.1 has been enjoying the property from the date of construction of house being a co-owner along with mother of plaintiff No.1. During lifetime of Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma she used to take money from the defendant No.1 for her medical necessities. There is no any understanding with regard to rent or lease either with the plaintiff No.1 or with Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma. Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma died leaving three daughters i.e., the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants No.2 and 3.

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 5 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

The defendants No.2 and 3 are also necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiff suppressed material facts and filed this suit with false allegations. The execution of will dated 24.06.2016 in favour of plaintiffs by Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma bequeathing her half share is denied by the defendants No.1 and the said will is created to grab the share of daughters of Venakta Subbamma.

The sisters of plaintiff No.1 namely Vijaya Lakshmi and Jyothi after receiving sale consideration from defendant No.1 agreed to convey their 1/3rd share in favor of the defendant No.1. There is no cause of action to file this suit as such this suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Based on pleadings of both parties, following issues were settled for trial:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit property as prayed for ?

2. To what relief ?

6. As an issue with regard to permanent injunction could not be framed following additional issue has been framed.

Whether the plaintiff is entitle for permanent injunction as prayed for?

7.To prove the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 got himself examined as PW1 besides examined one B.Sreenivasulu and Nanubala

Pitchaiah who are attestors of registered will dated 24.06.2016 as PW2 and

PW3 respectively. In support of their case the plaintiffs got marked Exs.A1 to

A9.

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 6 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

8. To prove the case of defendants, the defendants No.1 and 2 got themselves examined as DW1 and DW2 besides examining one Korlakunta

Chengamma as DW3. In support of their case the defendants they got marked

Exs.B1 and B2.

9. Heard both sides. Perused records.

10.Issue No.1 :- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit property as prayed for ?

11.The un-controverted relation among the parties to the suit is that

Bodanapu Subbaiah S/o.Munaiah resident of Vathaluru village of Pullampet mandal is common ancestor for both the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Bodanapu Subbaiah has four sons namely Bodanapu Subbarayudu,

Bodanapu Subramanyam (defendant No.1), Nagaraju and Munaiah. The defendant No.1 is one of the sons of Bodanapu Subabiah. The elder son of

Bodanapu Subbaiah namely Bodanapu Subbarayudu married one Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma. Out of wedlock Bodanapu Subbarayudu and Venkata

Subbamma got three female children namely Nallam Swarnalatha, Pigileti

Vijayalakshmi and Idimadakala Jyothi i.e., the plaintiff No.1 and defendants

No.2 and 3 respectively. The plaintiff No.1 was given in marriage to the plaintiff No.2/Nallam Jagan Mohan and both the plaintiffs have been residing at

Gopavaram village of Proddatur mandal. The other two sisters of plaintiff No.1 i.e., defendants No.2 and 3 have been staying at Rajampet town in their

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 7 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

matrimonial houses. Initially the plaintiff No.1 i.e., one of the daughters of

Bodanapu Subbarayudu and Venkata Subbamma and her husband filed this suit initially against the paternal uncle of plaintiff No.1 alone for partition of suit schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to them.

During course of suit the sisters of plaintiff No.1 came on record as the defendants No.2 and 3 claiming claiming their respective shares in the suit property.

12. The admitted case with regard to suit schedule property is that the vacant site covered by suit schedule house is self acquired property of

Bodanapu Subbaiah S/o.B.Munaiah having purchased the same under Ex.A1 registered sale deed dated 29.11.2000 from one K.Sankaraiah. Further it is undisputed fact that Bodanapu Subbaiah executed a gift settlement deed in favour of Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma and the defendant No.1 gifting the vacant site covered by suit schedule property in their favour in equal shares under Ex.A2 on 23.09.2004. After executing the Ex.A2 a building was constructed as shown in the suit schedule. Both parties admitted that the suit schedule property, in municipal records of Rajampet, stands in the name of

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma and the tax is being collected on her name. It is undisputed fact that the father of plaintiff No.1 Bodanapu Subbarayudu died on 12.10.1997 in an accident in Kuwait. Then the daughters of Bodanapu

Subbarayudu were under care and custody of his father Bodanapu Subbaiah

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 8 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

and he brought up them. Therefore, the admitted case of both parties makes it clear that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Bodanapu

Subbaiah who in turn gifted the same to Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma and the defendant No.1 in equal shares under Ex.A2. Thus, there is no dispute as to the defendant No.1 is having half share in the suit schedule property.

13.It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule house was constructed with the money sent by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma from

Kuwait, the defendant No.1 though agreed to contribute for construction of building he did not contribute anything. Therefore the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma in Municipal records. The plaintiffs further pleaded that Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma suffered cancer then she was brought to Proddatur and she was staying in the house of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs bore all the medical expenses for treatment of

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma. During her lifetime while in sound disposing state of mind on 24.06.2016 she executed Ex.A3 will bequeathing her half share in suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. Finally she died on 30.07.2016 leaving the plaintiff No.1 and 2 as her legal representatives. The defendant

No.1 taking advantage of the death of mother of plaintiff No.1 got vacated the tenants and occupied the suit property. He threatened the plaintiffs with dire consequences and warned them that if they come to subject house he would kill the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs felt that it is not safe to keep the suit

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 9 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

property joint and filed the suit for partition.

14. The defendants No.2 and 3 who are daughters of Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. In the written statement of Defendant No.1 he categorically stated that he alone got constructed the suit schedule house with his own earnings and as Venkata

Subbamma was elder member in the family the suit property was kept in her name in Municipal records. He further pleaded that during lifetime of

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma she used to borrow money from the defendants for her medical necessities. She died leaving the plaintiff No.1, the defendants No.2 and 3 as her legal heirs. The defendants No.2 and 3 agreed to convey their 1/3rd share in favour of defendant No.1 in suit schedule property. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file this suit and he sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.

15.Taking the rival contentions of both parties into account it is clear that the plaintiffs sought for partition of suit schedule property claiming under a will executed by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma whereas the defendants No.2 and 3 disputed the will allegedly executed by their mother. The defendant No.1 pleaded that the defendants No.2 and 3 agreed to convey their share in the suit property to him on receiving sale consideration. Under such circumstances as the plaintiffs sought for partition of suit schedule property claiming under a will allegedly executed by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma the burden of proof

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 10 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

is on the plaintiffs to establish execution of will by Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma in sound disposing state of mind bequeathing her half share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, now it is to be seen whether the plaintiffs could discharge the burden of proof placed on them.

16.Uponperusal of schedule appended to the plaint it is manifest that the plaintiffs sought for partition of suit schedule property bearing

D.No.6/1025-1-D situated at Noonevaripalli village, Rajampet mandal with specific boundaries and measurements as shown in the plaint schedule. There is no dispute as to identity and location of suit property in as much as both parties are claiming their share in the same property.

17.It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that initially a vacant site was gifted to the mother of plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 under Ex.A2 by

Bodanapu Subbaiah and then the mother of plaintiff No.1 sent money to her father-in-law with the said amount he got constructed the suit schedule building. In this regard PW1 ie., the husband of plaintiff No.1 reiterated what all he pleaded in the plaint. The DW2 who is the defendant No.2 herein in her chief-examination she stated that with the money sent by her mother suit schedule building was constructed. The defendant No.1 on the other hand denied in his evidence as to construction of house with the money sent by the mother of plaintiff No.1. In his evidence he categorically stated that both himself and Bodanapu Venkata Subamma contributed for construction of

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 11 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

house, however, as Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma was elder in the family her name was mutated in the Grampanchayath records. Admittedly nothing was extracted either in the cross-examination of DW1 or in the evidence of PW1 that the suit schedule house was constructed solely on the earnings of

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma or with the earnings of defendant No.1. It is further relevant to mention here that merely because the approved plan, property tax receipts and water tax receipts stand in the name of Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma do not infer that the suit schedule building was constructed solely on the contribution made by Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma.

18.As stated to supra, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma while she was in sound disposing state of mind she executed Ex.A3 will on 24.06.2016 bequeathing her half share in the suit property in favour of plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendants pleaded that the will was brought into existence to defeat their legitimate share. Ex.A3 is the original will which is said to have been executed by Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma at Sub Registrar Office, Proddatur. Perusal of contents of Ex.A3 it makes clear that being absolute owner with regard to half share in suit schedule house she executed a registered will in favour of her second daughter i.e., plaintiff No.1 and her son-in-law i.e., plaintiff No.2. The contents of Ex.A3 further provide that as she was suffering from cancer since 2014 she

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 12 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

indebted to several persons for her medical treatment and the plaintiff No.2 discharged those debts. As her health condition was not good she has been staying with the plaintiffs at Proddatur and the plaintiffs were providing medical treatment to her. Therefore, out of love and affection she bequeathed suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs who are her second daughter and her son-in-law. Contents of Ex.A3 makes it clear that as Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma was suffering from ill health i.e., suffered cancer, for her medical treatment she borrowed money from others and the plaintiff No.2 discharged those debts and in her last days she was staying with her second daughter at

Proddatur and the plaintiffs took her to several hospitals for medical treatment and they were looking after her. Then out of love and affection, Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma executed Ex.A3 will in favour of plaintiffs bequeathing her half share in suit property.

19.Before proceeding further it is relevant to mention here that the plaintiffs being propounder of will they must prove due execution of will in accordance with Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act and also they shall remove all the suspicious circumstances surrounding in due execution of will. To prove the execution of will the plaintiffs examined two attestors of Ex.A3 as PW2 and

PW3.

20.PW2 in his chief-examination categorically stated that on 24.06.2016 in a sound disposing state of mind Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 13 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

executed Ex.A3 will in favour of plaintiffs at Sub Registrar Office, Proddatur.

He categorically stated that himself and PW3 signed on Ex.A3 as attestors.

During his cross-examination he is consistent that Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma herself informed him that she was going to execute a will in favour of plaintiffs and asked him to attest the documents and on that he went to Sub

Registrar Office, Proddatur, there he attested the document. During cross- examination of PW2 nothing could be extracted to discard his evidence.

21.PW3 who is another attestor in his evidence he deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW2. In his cross-examination nothing could be extracted to discard his evidence. Even the defendants No.2 and 3 reported no cross-examination. Reporting no cross-examination of PW3 by the defendant No. 2 and 3 makes it clear that they admitted that PW3 is the attestor of Ex.A3 and Ex. A3 was duly executed by Bodanapu Venkata subbamma in sound disposing state of mind. Even no suggestion was put to

PW2 and PW3 that they have not attested Ex.A3. The evidence of PW2 and

PW3 manifestly proved that they attested Ex.A3 at Sub Registrar Office,

Proddatur on execution of Ex.A3 by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma on 24.06.2016.

22.Now coming to implied admissions in the line of cross- examination of PW1, the defendants set up a case in the cross examination of

PW1 that Ex.A3 was obtained taking advantage of ill health of Bodanapu

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 14 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

Venkata Subbamma. The defendants in the cross-examination of PW1 admitted about execution of Ex.A3 by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma, however, their case is that it was obtained taking advantage of ill health of

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma. Now coming to the admissions in the evidence of DW1 to DW3, DW1 in his cross-examination categorically admitted that his sister-in-law Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma executed a registered will in favour of plaintiffs on 24.06.2016. He further stated in his cross-examination that he is entitled half share in the suit schedule property and he is no way concerned with remaining half share. The evidence of DW1 is clear that he admitted execution of Ex.A3 by Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma. DW2 who is the defendant No.2 herein also in her cross- examination categorically admitted that she came to know about execution of

Ex.A3 by her mother by 15th August, 2016. This is clear that all the daughter os

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma got knowledge about Ex.A3 registered will.

23.It is the specific argument of the defendants that Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma was suffering from Cancer and taking advantage of her ill health Ex.A3 was obtained excluding other two daughters, therefore, it is one of the strong circumstance to disbelieve the will. In this regard it is relevant to mention here that when decease Cancer was detected Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma was in Kuwait and she was taken directly to the Basavatharakam

Hospital, Hyderabad by the plaintiff No.2. DW1 and DW2 in their cross-

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 15 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

examination categorically admitted that the plaintiff No.2 took the deceased

Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma to Basavatharakam Hospital, Hyderabad for medical treatment. It is also admitted by DW2 and DW3 that after medical treatment she was staying with plaintiffs at Proddatur. It makes clear that the plaintiffs alone were looking after the deceased Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma in her last days. DW2 has not filed any documentary proof nor adduced any evidence to show that she looked after Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma during her last days. On the other hand, the medical record marked as Ex.A7 filed by plaintiffs makes it clear that it is the plaintiffs who looked after Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma during her last days. Further there is no evidence on record to show that Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma was not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Ex.A3.

The evidence of attestors and the evidence of PW1 makes it clear that the deceased Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma in sound disposing state of mind executed Ex.A3. Subsequently she died on 30.07.2016 and consequently

Ex.A3 came into force.

24.Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds and concludes that the plaintiffs proved that the deceased Bodanapu Venkata

Subbamma in sound disposing state of mind executed Ex.A3 bequeathing her half share in suit schedule property in their favour.

25.Now, coming to the aspect of plaintiffs entitling a share in the suit

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 16 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

schedule property it came on record that initially the suit property was leased out to tenants by Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma, after her death the defendant No.1 got vacated the tenants and entered into suit schedule property. Since the plaintiffs are proved to be entitled for half share by virtue of

Ex.A3 and the remaining half share being the share of defendant No.1 this

Court is opinion that the plaintiff are entitled half share in the suit property. In view of will executed by deceased Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma bequeathing her half share in he suit schedule property infavour of the plaintiffs, they are entitled for partition of suit schedule property as prayed for.

26. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion this Court holds and concludes that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to them. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

27. Additional Issue : Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

In the preceding issue categorical findings have been recorded to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule property into two equal shares and to allot one such share to them. As the contents of the written statement provide that the defendant No.1 claiming share of Bodanapu

Venkata Subbamma also under the guise that the defendant No.2 and 3 agreed to sell the same to him this Court is opinion that to protect the interest

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 17 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

of the plaintiffs it is just and necessary to grant injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from alienating the share of plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, this additional issue is answered in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants.

28. Issue No.2: To what relief ?

In view of issue No.1 and additional issue are answered in favour of the plaintiffs, this suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for.

In the result, this suit is decreed with costs passing preliminary decree for division of suit schedule property into two equal shares by meets and bounds and to allot one such share together to the plaintiffs and remaining one share to the defendant No.1. Further the defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from alienating the suit schedule property to the extent of half share of plaintiffs by means of permanent injunction.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed and typed by him, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18 th day of February, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Principal Civil Judge

(Senior Division), Rajampet.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

P.W.1: Nallam Jagan Mohan

P.W.2: B. Sreenivasulu

P.W.3: N. Pitchaiah

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:-

O.S.No.14/2018, Dt.18.02.2026 18 Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Rajampet.

D.W.1: Bodanapu Subramanyam

D.W.2: Pigileti Vijaya Lakshmi

D.W.3: Korlakunta Chengamma

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:-

Ex.A1: Registration copy of sale deed executed by K.Sankaraiah in favour of B.Subbaiah bearing Doc.No.1426/2000 dated 29.11.2000.

Ex.A2: Registration copy of gift settlement deed executed by B.Subbaiah in favour of B.Venkata Subbamma and another bearing Doc.No.1837/2004 dated 29.03.2004.

Ex.A3: Registered original will dated 24.06.2016 bearing No.64/2016 executed by B.Venkata Subbamma in favour of plaintiffs.

Ex.A4: Water tax demand notices (2 in number).

Ex.A5: Property tax demand notices (3 in number).

Ex.A6: Approved plan issued by Panchayath Secretary, Rajampet in the name of deceased B.Venkata Subbamma and the defendant

dated 13.07.2005

Ex.A7: Discharge summary of late B.Venkata Subbamma issued by Basava Tharakam Indo American Cancer Hospital and Research Institute, Hyderabad.

Ex.A8: Valuation certificate issued by SRO., Rajampet.

Ex.A9: Death Certificate of Late B. Venkata Subbamma issued by Panchayath Secretary, Gopavarm Gram panchayath, Proddatur Mandal, Dated 28.12.2017.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

Ex.B1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 29.11.2000 executed by Katta Eswaraiah in favour of Bodanapu Subbaiah.

Ex.B2: Certified copy of gift deed dated 23.09.2004 executed by Bodanapu Subbaiah in favour of Bodanapu Venkata Subbamma and another.

Sd/- T. Kesava

P.C.J(SD).,

RJPT.

1

APKD170000332023

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM

SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, KADAPA.

Present:- Sri T. Kesava,

Judge, Special Court for Trial of Offences under Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, Kadapa.

Friday this the 24th day of April, 2026

S.C.POCSO Case No.50 of 2023

Name of the complainant:State: Represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rayachoty.

1. Name of the accused:Palakunta Harendra S/o Surendra, aged 29 years, Madiga, Auto Driver, Gounipalli, Sambepalli Mandal.

2. Charges framed:Under Sections 376 (2) (i) of IPC, and U/Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act.

3. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not

4. Finding of the Judge: guilty for the offence under Sections 376 (2)

(i) of IPC, and U/Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused along with their sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment as required u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

5. Sentence or order: --

6. Prosecution conducted by:Sri Kommineni Venu Gopal, Special Public Prosecutor for Spl. Court for trail of POCSO Court, Kadapa.

7. Name of the Advocate for :Sri G.V. Kalyan Reddy, Accused.Advocate for the accused.

2

8. Crime number and name of :Cr.No.170 of 2022 of Sambepalli PS. the Police Station.

9. Committed by: ---

This Sessions Case came before this court on 22.04.2026 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of learned Special Public

Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V. Kalyan Reddy, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rayachoty filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2)

(i) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (herein after referred to as

POCSO) in Cr.No.170 of 2022 of Sambepalli P.S.

2.B riefly, stated the case of prosecution as set out in the charge sheet is as follows:- (a) The accused is resident of Gounipalli H.Wada of Sambepalli,

Annamayya District. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are wife and husband. P.W.1 is the second wife of P.W.2. First wife of P.W.2 has two sons and two daughters and she got separated from P.W.2 and living separately at

Masapet, Rayachoty town. P.W.1 is the second wife of P.W.2 and they blessed with two daughters and between them the victim is the eldest daughter aged about 15 years. She studied upto 5th Class in a

Government School in her village and thereafter she stopped her 3 studies. She used to attend agricultural cooly works with P.W.1. She used to sleep in the house of P.W.3. For the past two years the victim used to move closely with the accused who is none other than P.W.2’s elder brother’s son and thereby he is brother of the victim by relation,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not suspect them. The victim was not getting menstrual periods for the last five months, as such on 30.07.2022 P.W.1 took the victim to L.W.8/Dr. K. Nazmee for treatment. There the Doctor after scanning found that the victim was carrying 18 weeks 4 days pregnancy. On that P.W.1 questioned the victim for which she replied that the accused lured her with deceitful words on the pretext of marriage and since two yeas he committed penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on her in the house of P.W.3. Keeping their reputation in the society, P.W.1 hesitated to lodge a report but when the Doctor declared that the victim was pregnant, P.W.1 suffered lot and to teach a lesson to the accused, she lodged complaint before Station House Officer,

Sambepalli. Then the victim gave birth to a male child on 09.12.2022 at

CHC, Rayachoty and the DNA profile test particulars that the accused is biological father of male child of victim. Based on the report of P.W.1, the Station House Officer, Sambepalli PS., registered a case in

Cr.No.170 of 2022 under Sections 376 (2) (i) of IPC., and Sec.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act, since the offence under POCSO Act is grave in nature the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Rayachoty took up the investigation and forwarded the victim girl to Government Hospital for medical examination.

(b) During the course of investigation, Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Rayachoty examined L.W.1 to L.W.6 and L.W.8 and recorded their statements. He also got recorded the statement of the victim through Women Sub Inspector of Police, Disha PS., under video 4 coverage. The Head Master in which the victim studied issued study certificate containing the date of birth of victim as 01.06.2005 which means the victim was aged about 17 years at the time of commission of offence. During the course of investigation the Sub Divisional Police officer arrested the accused on 10.08.2022 in the presence of panchayatdars and recorded his confession statement. The Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Rayachoty recorded the statement of victim under

Sections 164 of Cr.P.C. The Assistant Professor, GMC, Kadapa conducted ultra sonography – ante-natal test against the victim and issued report stating that the age of fetus was 20 weeks with good cardiac activity. The CMO, GGH, Kadapa examined the accused and collected semen, pubic hair and nail clippings of the accused and forwarded the same to RFSL for analysis. The Assistant Director,

Forensic Science Laboratory, Government Medical College, Kadapa conducted potency test on the accused and issued certificate opinion that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual act. The Assistant Director, APFSL, Mangalagiri conducted DNA test against the accused, the victim and victim male child and issued report opining that the Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that Palakunta Harendra ie., accused is biological father of male child of Palakunta Maha Lakshmi and whose biological mother is Palakunta Mahalakshmi which proved that the accused is father of victim’s son. The material collected during the investigation including DNA test conclusively proved that the accused lured the victim girl and committed penetrative sexual assault on her repeatedly and made her pregnant who gave birth to male child. As such the accused is liable for punishment for offences under sections 376 (2) (i) of IPC., and

Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act. Hence the charge sheet.

5 3. Upon perusal of the entire material on record, this Court has taken the cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under

Sections 376 (2) (i) of IPC., and Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act.

4. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later, the accused were examined u/s.228 of Cr.P.C., and charges under Section 376 (2) (i) of IPC., and Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act were framed against him, read over and explained to them in Telugu. For which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22.

6. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating material found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

7. Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the counsel of the accused.Perused the record.

8. Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i) of IPC., and

Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9. P O I N T:-

As per the case of the prosecution, the criminal law was set into motion based on Ex.P.9 report allegedly lodged by P.W.1. As per Ex.P.1,

P.W.1 is the second wife of P.W.2. The first wife of P.W.2 has two sons and two daughters and they are living separately at Masapet,

Rayachoty. P.W.2 through PW1 got two daughters, among them, the 6 victim is the eldest daughter who was aged about 15 years on the date of alleged report. The victim studied upto 5th Class in school at her native village and her date of birth is 01.06.2005 and thereafter she stopped her studies and she was attending for cooly work. She used to sleep in the house of P.W.3. Since two years, the accused and the victim were moving closely, as the accused is none other than the son of P.W.2’s elder brother and they both being brother and sister, PW1 did not suspect them. On 30.07.2022 as the victim was not getting menstrual periods for the last five months, she took the victim to Ameen

Nursing Home, Rayachoty. There L.W.8 / Dr. Kotnur Nazmee examined the victim and found that the victim was carrying 18 weeks pregnancy and on that when she questioned the victim, the victim revealed that the accused with his deceitful words on the pretext of marriage for the last two years committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault repeatedly on her which caused pregnancy. Then the mother of the victim went to

Police Station and lodged Ex.P.9 report. During the course of investigation the victim gave a birth to male child on 09.12.2022 at

CJHC, Rayachoty, then both victim, the victim’s male child and the accused were subjected to DNA examination at APFSL, Mangalagiri.

The DNA examination revealed that the accused is biological father of victim’s male child. Therefore, it is proved that the accused committed penetrative sexual assault on the victim who is minor aged about 17 years. As such, he is liable to be convicted.

10. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7.

11. To prove the offence under POCSO Act, it must be proved that the victim must be child within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) of POCSO

Act, which means that the victim must be below the age of 18 years. As 7 per the case of the prosecution, the investigating officer collected study certificate of the victim from Head Master of the school, where the victim studied and got it marked as Ex.P.12 through his evidence. Though the

Head Master of the school was cited as witness in the list of witnesses, the prosecution did not choose to examine him to prove the age of the victim. Under such circumstances, without examine the school Head

Master who issued Ex.P.12 and without offering the Head Master for cross examination to the accused, the certificate issued by him cannot be taken as basis to determine the age of the victim on the date of alleged sexual assault. Therefore, it can be concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim is child within the meaning of

Sec.2 (d) of POCSO Act as on the date of the alleged sexual assault.

12. Now coming to the commission of rape and penetrative sexual assault on the victim, P.W.1 who is the mother of the victim in her evidence, she stated that she does not know anything about the case, but about three years back her daughter went her house in that connection she went to Police Station and there police obtained her signature on some written papers, which she did not aware of. She further stated that her daughter returned to home, but she does not know what had happened to her daughter. Therefore, this witness did not support the case of the prosecution on any material particulars. She has not deposed anything against sexual assault on her daughter and her daughter became pregnant through the accused.

13. P.W.2 is the father of the victim. In his evidence he categorically stated that he does not know anything about this case and police did not examine him. But he did not support the case of the prosecution on any material particulars.

8 14. P.W.3 and P.W.4 who are said to be the relative of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and witnesses for sexual assault on the victim testified that they do not know anything about the case and they have not witnessed any incident. This clearly goes to show that P.W.3 and P.W.4 also turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution.

15. Now coming to the evidence of victim ie., P.W.5 in her chief examination she stated that the accused has not committed any sexual assault on her, but about three years back on one day, the police came to her house and obtained her signature on some written papers. The contents of which she is not aware of. With retard to her statement recorded under sections 164 of Cr.P.C., statement she testified that at the instance of police and village elders she stated before Magistrate as tutored by them and in fact the accused has not committed any sexual assault on her. This victim girl did not depose anything against the accused and on the other hand she specifically stated that the accused has not committed any sexual assault on her.

16. P.W.6 and P.W.7 are the investigating officer they spoke on procedural aspects of the investigation with regard to registration of

First Information Report and getting the victim examined through

Women Assistant Sub Inspector and sending the victim to hospital for medical examination, arrest the accused and then sending the victim and accused for DNA examination after birth of male child to the victim.

Through P.W.7 the DNA report issued by APFSL, Mangalagiri was marked as Ex.P.22.

17. Taking the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7, it is clear that

P.W.1 to P.W.5 did not support the case of the prosecution on any material particulars and on the other hand the victim exonerated the accused saying that the accused has not committed any sexual assault 9 on her. Under such circumstances in the form of oral evidence, absolutely there is no evidence to show that the accused committed sexual assault on the victim.

18. As per the case of the prosecution both victim, her male child who was born on 09.12.2022 and the accused were subjected to DNA test at APFSL, Mangalagiri. The Assistant Director, APFSL issued DNA report opining that autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that

Palakunta Harendra (accused) is the biological father of male child of victim whose biological mother is the victim. By taking this, the learned

Special Public Prosecutor argued that the DNA analysis report is sufficient to prove that there was sexual assault on the victim and the accused is responsible for the birth of male child to the victim who was child within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) of POCSo Act. As stated supra, the prosecution failed to establish that the victim was child within the meaning of Sec.2 (d) of POCSO Act.

19. In the preceding paras categorically findings have been recorded to the effect that the victim turned hostile and categorically stated that the accused has not committed any sexual assault on her and she gave statement before the police and before the Magistrate on the tutoring given by the police and village elders. The victim completely exonerated the accused as to committing any sexual assault on her.

Under such circumstances, now a question arises whether the DNA report alone is sufficient to connect the accused for the offence of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act.

20. In this regard, as per the said facts in the case of State of

Karnataka v. Nagesh 1 the Hon’ble High Court of Karnata at Dharwad

Bench relying upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in similar set

Crl. Appeal No.100570 0f 2022 (A), dt.10.07.2025 1 10 of facts categorically held that “Hon’ble Apex Court and the Co-ordinate

Bench stated supra and circumstances of the cases, except the DNA report, absolutely no other corroborative piece of evidence is available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The victim herself firmly stated that the accused did not have any sexual intercourse with her and she is not aware who the father of the child is.

Even her parents and relatives also deposed similarly. In such circumstances, the DNA report cannot be solely relied to convict the accused since as per the survey and study of National Forensic Science

Laboratory (NFSL) in India and as per the report of International Journal of Indian Science and Research published in JLFJ Volume:1, Issue:1,

July 2022, the legal stands on DNA profiling considered, STR testing is highly reliable method for human identification in Forensic Science and it is not strictly 100% accurate in India or globally.” 21. In the above case also it was alleged that the victim became pregnant through the accused and gave birth to a child. When she came to witness box she completely turned hostile and stated that the accused did not committed any sexual assault on her.

22. Taking ratio laid down in afore said judgment and applying the same to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that except

DNA analysis report, there is no evidence on record to prove that the accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim and he is responsible for the birth of male child to the victim. On the other hand the victim and her witnesses completely exonerated the accused saying that the accused has not committed any sexual assault much less aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. Under such circumstances, it is not safe to convict the accused solely based on 11

DNA report. During the arguments it was canvassed that both are married and they leading happy matrimonial life.

23. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court holds and concludes that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for any of the offences charged against him. As such the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, the accused isfound not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 376 (2) (i)of IPC., and Sec.6 r/w.5 (j) (ii) (l) of

POCSO Act and accordingly, he is acquitted u/sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C for all the charges leveled against him.

The bail bonds of the accused along with their sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment as required u/s.437-A of Cr.P.C.

The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- T. Kesava

Judge, Special Court for trial of

Offences under the POCSO Act, Kadapa.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

P.W.1P. Chinna Alivelu. P.W.2P. Sahadeva. P.W.3P. Malliswari.

P.W.4P. Rama Chandra.

P.W.5Victim girl.

12

P.W.6S.Md. Shareef, SI of Police.

P.W.7P. Sreedhar, DSP.

Witnesses examined for defence

- Nil -

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P.1 Signature of P.W.1 on the report.

Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.6Signature of P.W.5 on the statement dt.06.08.2023.

Ex.P.7Signature of the victim u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.8161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.9Report dt.05.08.2022.

Ex.P.10First Information Report.

Ex.P.11Rough sketch.

Ex.P.12Study certificate of the victim.

Ex.P.13Statement of the victim recorded u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.14Requisition recorded for recording u/s.164 of Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.15Wound certificate of victim.

Ex.P.16Final opinion.

Ex.P.17Potency test.

Ex.P.18Police proceedings, dt.06.08.2022.

Ex.P.19RFSL report.

Ex.P.20Letter of advice dt.27.08.2022.

13

Ex.P.21FSL report dt.27.12.2022.

Ex.P.22DNA report dt.28.03.2023.

Exhibits marked for defence

- Nil -

Material objects marked for

- Nil -

Sd/- T. Kesava

Judge, POCSO Court,

Kadapa.