Sri T.Kesava

1 O.S. NO. 221/2007

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.

PRESENT : Sri T.Keshav, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni 

F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATTIKONDA.

THURSDAY, THIS THE 7 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.221/2007

Between:

P.Sreenivasulu (died) by his L.Rs.

P.Mallamma… Plaintiff

and

Sugali Venkatesh Naik...Defendant.

This suit is coming before me on 27­12­2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.Gopal Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri A.Satyanarayana,

Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :

:: JUDGMENT ::

 1.Initially, the suit was filed by sole plaintiff by name P.Sreenivasulu against the defendant for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

 2.During the suit, the sole plaintiff died. Therefore, his wife by name Smt.

P.Mallamma is added as plaintiff No.2 being legal heir of deceased P.

Sreenivasulu as per the orders in I.A.NO.813/2017.

Page 1 2 O.S. NO. 221/2007

 3.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows : Originally, the suit schedule property is Government land and which is not cultivable land. The plaintiff with his hard work, converted the land into cultivable land and has been in possession and enjoyment of it since 20 years. The Revenue authorities on recognising his right and possession over the suit schedule property, they issued ryot pass book on 6­12­1986. At the request of the plaintiff,the then Mandal

Revenue Officer, Pattikonda issued D­Naumna patta on 6­3­2003. Later on revenue authorities also issued pattadar pass book and title deed on his name.

The plaintiff also mortgaged the suit schedule property with Andhra Pragathi

Grameena Bank, Pattikonda for crop loan. The defendant, who has no manner of right with an intention to grab the suit property, on 24­11­2007 at about 9 a.m., with the assistance of his friends tried to enter into the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff could resist his attempts. The defendant while leaving the property proclaimed that he would trespass into the suit schedule property. Therefore, having no option, he filed the suit. During the suit, sole plaintiff died.

Therefore, his wife P.Mallamma is added as legal heir as per the order in IA

NO.813/2017 dated 11­12­2017. 

 4. The averments of the written statement and additional written statement of the defendant in brief are as follows :­ The defendant admitted that the suit schedule property is assigned land and he denied remaining allegations in the plaint. He specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property was assigned to one Sugali Hebbe Naik S/o Amme Naik of J.M.Thanda,who is the father of the defendant herein. The name of Hebbe Naik is mutated in revenue records as pattadar and the same is subsisting till today. The revenue authorities issued 10­1 account in the name of Hebbe Naik on 12­2­2007, which provides that ROS

No.684/81 was issued by the revenue authorities on 22­5­73 in the name of

Page 2 3 O.S. NO. 221/2007 father of the defendant.Since the date of issuance of patta, Hebbe Naik has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death. 1­B Namuna issued by Tahsildar, Pattikonda dated 4­2­2008 further provides that after the death of

Hebbe Naik, the suit schedule property was succeeded by the defendant being the only son of the said Hebbe Naik. After due enquiry made by the defendant, he came to know that revenue authorities has not issued any D­form patta in the name of the plaintiff at any point of time and there is no such entry made in the assignment registers in the name of the plaintiff. The revenue authorities have no right to issue any patta in favour of the plaintiff, unless previous patta is cancelled. Therefore, the alleged patta filed by the plaintiff is created by forging the signatures of revenue authorities. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and there is no cause of action to file the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 5.In the additional written statement, the defendant specifically pleaded that the deceased Sreenivasulu has not married second wife and he has no son by name P.Krishna as adopted son. The plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence to show that P.Mallamma and P.Krishna are legal heirs of the deceased

P.Sreenivasulu. The plaintiff No.2 has no right and title over the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 6.Based on pleadings of the both parties, the following issues are framed for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on the date of the filing the suit ?

2) Whether the defendant interfered into the possession of the plaintiff as on 24­11­2007 ?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction ?

Page 3 4 O.S. NO. 221/2007

4) To what relief ?

 7.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the deceased plaintiff himself examined as PW.1,besides examining one Boya Rangaiah, Sugali Lakshmi Naik, Lokya Naik and second plaintiff as PW.2 to PW.5 respectively. The evidence of PW.2 was eschewed from the records, as he did not turn up for cross­examination. In support of case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9 .

 8.To prove the case of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as

DW.l besides examining one Rathana Naik, Kalu Naik @ Ramu Naik and Kodam

Nettekallu as DW.2 to DW.4 respectively. It is further relevant to mention here that DW.2 to DW.4 did not turn up for cross­examination. Therefore, their evidence was eschewed from records and available evidence on behalf of defendant is the evidence of DW.1 alone on record. To prove the case of the defendant, he got marked Ex.B.1 to B.10. 

 9.Heard both sides. Perused records.

ISSUES NO.1 to 3 :

 10.In view of the issues No.1 to 3 are inter­connected, all the issues are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition in appreciation of evidence.

 11.The admitted case of both the parties is that disputed property in

Sy.No.922/2 to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents with specific boundaries as shown in plaint schedule is Government land. Admittedly, both the parties are claiming the suit schedule property that it is an assigned land and the plaintiff has claimed that it is assigned to him under Ex.A.2 patta in the year 2003, whereas, the defendant claimed that it was assigned to his father under D­form patta in 1973.

Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the suit schedule property being the property belonging to Government. 

Page 4 5 O.S. NO. 221/2007

 12.It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff occupied the suit schedule property about 20 years back and it was not fit for cultivation and he converted the land into cultivable land and has been cultivating the same.

Recognising his possession and right, the revenue authorities issued ryot pass book in the year 1986 besides issuing pattadar pass book and title deed on his name. His name is also mutated in revenue records and he also availed crop loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Pattikonda by mortgaging the suit property. He pleaded that on 12­11­2017 at about 9 a.m, defendant and his men tried to interfere with the possession, but he resisted his attempts and as they proclaimed that they would dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property, which forced him to file the suit.

 13.Per contra, the defendant in his written statement categorically pleaded that originally the suit property was assigned to his father under issuing patta bearing No.ROS 6894/81 dated 22­5­1973. Since the date of issuing patta, his father Hebbe Naik had been in possession and enjoyment of it till his death. After his death, the defendant succeeded to the suit property, he has been cultivating the same with absolute right. He pleaded that alleged D­Namuna pata issued in the name of Plaintiff is forged document and against the provisions of

A.P.Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfer) Act 1977.Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit on forged and fabricated document and there is no cause of action to file the suit and suit is liable to be dismissed.

 14.In view of rival contentions of both the parties, it is manifest that the defendant denied the right and possession of the plaintiff for suit schedule property, claim that the suit property belongs to his father, who obtained patta in the year 1973 from the then Tahsildar, Pattikonda and he has been cultivating the same till his death. Thereafter, the defendant succeeded to the same and he is in

Page 5 6 O.S. NO. 221/2007 possession and enjoyment of it. Since the defendant died the right and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish that he is in possession of the property as on the date of filing the suit.

 15.In a suit for permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to establish his possession over the suit schedule property on the date of filing the suit. It is relevant to; refer a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P., reported in 2006 (6) ALT page 113 in a case Ramakanth ….. vs SriChota Rajan, wherein it was held that ina suit the only issue would rise to consideration as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as on the date of the filing the suit. If the answer is affirmative, grant of relief must be almost the matter of course.The same view has been reported in a case of Ramavath … vs Sambunath Bai reported in 2011 (2) ALD 350. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down in the above two cases, it is clear that in a suit for permanent injunction, the only issue to be considered is whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as on the date of the filing the suit and the facts and circumstances of the case. Now, it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is able to establish his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

 16.Upon perusal of the schedule appended to the plaint, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.922/2 of

Dudekonda village fields of Pattikonda Mandal with specific boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule. Admittedly, both the parties are claiming one and the same property .Therefore, there is no dispute regarding identity and location of the suit schedule property.

 17.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the deceased plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW.1, besides examining PW.2 to PW.5. PW.1 to PW.5 in their chief­

Page 6 7 O.S. NO. 221/2007 examination, they reiterated that the deceased plaintiff No.1 has been cultivating the said property and after him, it was succeeded by plaintiff No.2 and recognising his possession, revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed on his name besides issuing Ex.A.2 D­form patta. To prove the case of the defendant, the defendant himself examined as DW.1 besides examining DW.2 to

DW.4. DW.2 to DW.4 did not turn up for cross­examination. Therefore, their evidence was eschewed from the record and available evidence on behalf of defendant is the evidence of DW.1 alone .DW.1 in his evidence deposed that his father got the suit property under assignment patta and he has been in possession and enjoyment of it.

 18.To prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A.1 to A.9.

Admittedly, as per Ex.A.1 ryot pass book, the suit property to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents in Sy.No.922/2 is shown in possession and enjoyment of deceased plaintiff

No.1. In Ex.A.,2 description of the property is shown that he purchased the property under agreement of sale dated 11­2­1985. The said ryot pass bok was issued by the then Mandal Revenue Officer on 6­12­1986. Ex.A.3 and A.5 patadar pass book and title deeds which were assigned with ROS No. shows that plaintiff’s name is mutated in revenue records for suit schedule property. The learned

Advocate for the defendant drawn the attention of the Court that Ex.A.5 title deed book is not signed by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore,

Ex.A.5 is created document. He also drawn the attention of this Court regarding defects in Ex.A.2 D­form patta. He would contend that Ex.A.2 D­form patta does not contain previous number, datge on which it was issued nor it contains other particulars when it was issued to plaintiff. The plaintiff also filed No.3 Adangal for

Fasali 1417 which shows that the suit schedule property is in possession of plaintiff. Further, he also filed Adangal for fasali 1422 which is issued by the

Page 7 8 O.S. NO. 221/2007

Tahsildar, Pattikonda for the year 2013 and it provides that the suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, to prove the possession over the suit schedule property, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A.3 pattadar pass book,

Ex.A.5 title deed, D­form patta, Adangal and the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3.

 19.The learned Advocate for the defendant would contend that originally suit schedule property was assigned to father of the defendant by name Hebbe Naik vide proceedings No.ROS 684/81 dated 22­5­1973 and till his death he was in possession of the property and after him, the defendant succeeded to the same.

He would contend that all the pattadar pass book and title deed are created documents. He drawn attention of this Court to certain discrepancies in the cross­ examination of PW.1. PW.1 in his cross­examination categorically deposed that he belongs to Boya caste and the suit schedule property is DKT land. He further deposed that Ex.A.2 was issued in the year 1986, whereas in the latter part of the cross­examination,he stated that Ex.A.2 was issued on 6­3­2003. He further went on deposing that the name of Hebbe Naik is shown in all revenue records as pattadar. He further deposed that the defendant made an application before

Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni questioning issuance of the pattadar pass book and Adangals. The Revenue authorities on due enquiry cancelled the pattadar pass book and patta allegedly issued in the name of the plaintiff. PW.1 further deposed that he appealed to the Joint Collector on the orders passed by Revenue

Divisional Officer,Adoni. He further deposed that Ex.A.5 does not contain the signature of Revenue Divisional Officer and shows that patta was given to him on 28­5­2002 itself. He further deposed that Ex.A.3 and A.5 are issued on the same day and he does not know whether the name of Hebbe Naik is mentioned in

Adangals. In the cross­examination dated 10­6­2013, he deposed that he filed an affidavit before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No.28876/12, wherein he

Page 8 9 O.S. NO. 221/2007 pleaded that he purchased suit property from 11­2­1985 from Muchala Naik by way of agreement of sale, who purchased the property from his brother Laxmi

Naik, who is father of the defendant. Therefore by taking this, learned Advocate for the defendant would contend that the plaintiff is not assignee of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff by creating false and forged document is claiming the suit schedule property belonging to the defendant.

 20.It is relevant to mention here that as admitted by both the parties,the defendant herein submitted an application to the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Adoni for cancellation of Ex.A.3 and A.5 pattadar pass book and title deed and

Ex.A.2 D­Namuna patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. On receipt of the report from the Tahsildar,Pattikonda dated 14­2­2008, the then Revenue Divisional

Officer, Adoni passed Ex.B.9 orders by cancelling Ex.A.2 D­form patta, pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of the plaintiff for Khata 1058. On these orders, the plaintiff preferred appeal before Joint Collector,Kurnool, who passed order on 21­7­2012. The Joint Collector,Kurnool confirmed the orders passed by

Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed and assigning patta given to the plaintiff. As per Ex.B.10 orders filed by the defendant, the defendant submitted an application to the Collector,Kurnool with a request to handover assigned land from plaintiff, who purchased the same illegally. As per the finding in Ex.B.10, it makes clear that land in Sy.No.922/2 to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents of JM Thanda Hamlet of Dudekonda village is classified as Assessed Waste and the same was originally issued to Hebbe Naik S/o Amre

Naik by the then Tahsildar, Pattikonda vide DKT Patta No.684/DR/81 dated 22­5­1973 and later, the said Hebbe Naik sold the same to one Sugali Machala

Naik, who in turn sold the same to the plaintiff herein under an agreement of sale

dated 11­2­1985. On 29­5­2002, the plaintiff obtained pattadar pass book and

Page 9 10 O.S. NO. 221/2007 title deed for Khata No.1058 from Tahsildar, Pattiionda. Again, the plaintiff obtained D­form patta on 6­3­2003 without getting original patta issued in the name of Hebbe Naik cancelled. Therefore, though the Joint Collector has confirmed the orders of Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni marked under Ex.B9. In the findings given by the Joint Collector, it is clear that though original assignee is

Hebbe Naik, the plaintiff purchased the suit property under an agreement of sale from Machala Naik on 11­2­1985. In pursuance of it, he obtained patadar pass book and title deed from the then Tahsildar, Pattikonda for Khata No.1058.

Therefore, the order passed by Joint Collector makes it clear that revenue authorities issued pattadar pass book and title deed on due recognition of right and possession of the plaintiff for the suit schedule property.

 21.On the orders passed by the Joint Collector, the plaintiff herein preferred appeal before Commissioner of Appeals, Office of the Chief­Administrative of

Land and Administration,A.P., Hyderabad against the orders passed by the

Commissioner,the plaintiff filed writ petition in WP No.20313/14 challenged orders passed by the Joint Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni.

The Hon’ble High Court on hearing both the parties gave a categorical finding set aside the orders passed by the then Revenue Divisional Officer and the Joint

Collector marked as Ex.B.9 and B.10. The Hon’ble High Court in para 3 of its judgment marked as Ex.A.8 categorically held that procedure adopted by the

Revenue Divisional Officer for cancellation of pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of the plaintiff and also patta is illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer in D.Dis.No.308/2008 dated 3­7­2008 and orders passed by the Joint Collector in R.Dis.No.(E2)2512/2008

dated 21­7­2012 are set aside with an observation that the defendant herein has

any grievance is at liberty to work out his grievance by filing an application under

Page 10 11 O.S. NO. 221/2007

Assigned lands (Prohibition and Transfer) Act,1977 to resume the land and respondent No.4 shall proceed with in accordance with law. Therefore, as per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court,it is clear that orders passed by the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Adoni and Joint Collector under Ex.B.9 and B.10 are set aside and they are no more in force.

 22.Thus, by relying upon Ex.B.9 and B.10, the defendant can not contend that orders issuing patta and pattadar pass book stands in the name of the plaintiff are cancelled. 

 23.It is admitted fact and evidence that the original assignee for the suit property is Hebbe Naik and the plaintiff came into suit schedule property by purchasing property from Machala Naik, who is brother of Hebbe Naik. It is already been held in preceding para that in a suit for permanent injunction, the issue of possession alone is relevant to either grant or reject the relief of permanent injunction. In the case on hand, there is serious dispute regarding validity of pattadar pass book and title deed and issuance of patta in the name of the plaintiff. It is relevant to mention here that whether pattadar pass book and title deed are issued by revenue authorities without considering the right and title of the plaintiff or whether D­from patta was forged document is to be decided by the revenue authorities, Rights of Pattadar pass books Act, 1975 and under

Assigned land Act, 1977. Therefore, it is not fit case to decide as to validity of pattadar pass book and title deed or D­form patta exhibited by the plaintiff as in the orders passed by the Joint Collector, it was observed that Tahsildar, Pattionda issued pattadar pass book and title deed in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is the revenue authorities to decide whether the pattadar pass book and title deed are liable to be cancelled or not. Thus, it is not desirable to give finding as to

Page 11 12 O.S. NO. 221/2007 validity of the pass book and title deed in the suit, which is filed on the cause of action about threat of dispossessing in the hands of defendant.

 24.Coming to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property,the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. From Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, it is shown that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the filing of the suit. Further, the old pass book clearly shows that plaintiff’s name is shown as enjoydar of suit schedule property. Further, in No.3 Adangal for Fasali 1417,i.e., corresponding to calender year 2007 shows that the plaintiff is shown as enjoydar. All the adangals, pattadar pass books are issued by the revenue authorities. The plaintiff also filed No.3 Adangal for fasali 1422 which is marked as Ex.A.7 which shows the name of the plaintiff as pattadar and enjoydar. The defendant did not file any document to show that the suit schedule property is in his possession and he succeeded the same from his father. Further, he did not file any document to show that he is son of Hebbe Naik. In Ex.B.1 No.3 Adangal it is shown that the property stands in the name of Vuche Naik, in Ex.B.2 No.3 adangals it is shown that suit schedule property for fasali 1400, 1407,1406,1404,the name of Vuche Naik, for fasali 1400 the name of enjoydar is shown as plaintiff. Even in Ex.B.2, the name of the father of the defendant is not shown as pattadar in Ex.B.3 Adangal also the name of the enjoydar and pattadar is shown as Vuche Naik for the land in Sy.No.922/2 to an extent of Ac.4.94 cents.

Therefore, except the oral evidence of defendant, there is no evidence on record to show that father of the defendant was in possession of the suit property after obtaining patta and he continued to be in possession of the property and after his death, the defendant has been cultivating the same.

 25.It is relevant to mention here that as per Ex.B.10 orders passed by the

JointCo;llector, Kurnool, it is shown that the defendant submitted an application

Page 12 13 O.S. NO. 221/2007 to the District Collector with a request to handover assigned land to; him from plaintiff, who purchased the property illegally,which shows that defendant is out of possession of the suit schedule property. Further, DW.2 in his cross­ examination categorically deposed that he did not file any document to show that the suit property is in his possession or in the possession of his father. He deposed that the name of his junior paternal uncle by name Vucche Naik is shown as pattadar in Ex.B.2. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it makes clear that defendant did not file any document nor adduced any evidence to show that the suit schedule property is in his possession. On the other hand, the plaintiff through his evidence and evidence of PW.2 to PW.4 who are residents of JM Thanda village where the suit property was situated categorically deposed that the suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff.

 26.It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the defendant that the suit property and surrounding properties are assigned to Schedule Tribes Community people, but whereas, the plaintiff belongs to Boya community. It is not in dispute that surrounding lands of the suit property are assigned to Schedule Tribe community people. As the suit is for permanent injunction, it is not fit case to give any finding as to suit property is assigned to Schedule Tribe community people alone and it would not be allotted to other caste people. To prove his contentions, the defendant did not examine any revenue authorities except filing

Ex.B.9 and B.10 orders passed by Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni and Joint

Collector, Kurnool,which were subsequently set aside by the Hon’ble High Court. 

 27.Before parting with the judgment, it is relevant to mention here that this

Court is not expressing any opinion as to validity and genuineness of the pattadar pass book, title deed and patta issued in the name of the plaintiff and this Court is only concerned with the material as to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the

Page 13 14 O.S. NO. 221/2007 property as on the date of the filing the suit, material on record manifestly prove that the plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and his possession is to be protected from the dispossession without following due process of law. Therefore, the defendant has any grievance, he could approach the concerned authority to get the assignment patta cancelled and to initiate proceedings under A.P.Assigned Land (Transfer and Prohibition) Act, 1977 to recover the suit schedule property. Till such time, the possession of the plaintiff is to be protected by means of permanent injunction.

 28.Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion, the plaintiff proved that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and besides threat of dispossession in the hands of the defendant. As such, he is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. 

 29. Accordingly, the issue No.1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

ISSUE NO.4 :

 30.In view of issues No.1 to 3 answered in favour of plaintiff,the suit is to be decreed with costs as prayed for. 

 31.IN THE RESULT, Suit is decreed with costs,restraining the defendant, his men and agents from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, by means of permanent injunction.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court, this the 7 th day of February, 2019.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni,

F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PATTIKONDA. 

Page 14 15 O.S. NO. 221/2007

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANTS: PW.1 : P. Sreenivasulu DW.1 : Sugali Venkatesh Naik PW.2 : Boya Rangaiah(eschewed)DW.2 : Rathana Naik PW.3: Sugali lakshmi NaikDW.3 : Kalu Naik PW.4: Lokya NaikDW.4 : Kodam Nettekallu. PW.4: Smt.P.Mallamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A.1 : Ryot Patta pass book 

Ex.A.2 : D­form patta

Ex.A.3 : Pattadar pass book

Ex.A.4 : True copy of 10(3) Adnagal

Ex.A.5 : Title deed

Ex.A.6 : Statusquo orders passed by Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

 Ex.A.7: Adangal dated 27­2­2013

Ex.A.8 : Certified copy of orders in W.P.No.20313/2014 

Ex.A.9 : Certificate issued by Agricultural Officer.

FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.B.1 : 10(1) Account issued by Tahsildar, Pattikonda dated 12­2­2007 

Ex.B.2 : No.2 Adangal

Ex.B.3 : 1(3) Naumna dated 14­2­2008

Ex.B.4 : Postal receipt dated 13­3­2008

Ex.B.5 : Postal acknowledgment dated 17­3­2008

Ex.B.6 : Office copy of legal notice

Ex.B.7 : Postal order

Ex.B.8 : Certificate issued by Tahsildar dated 8­4­2008

Ex.B.9 : Orders issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni dated 3­7­2008.

Ex.B.10:Orders issued by Joint Collector, Kurnool dated 21­7­2012.

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni,

F.A.C.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PATTIKONDA. 

Page 15

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

Present: Sri T.Kesava,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the Thirtyath [30th] day of September, 2021.

SESSIONS CASE No.112 OF 2021

The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town P.S.. … COMPLAINANT.

- Versus -

1. Neeli Shikari Shiva, aged 22 years, S/o.Neeli Shikari Raana, R/o.H.No.40/76, First line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

2. Neelishikari Gundu @ Chamli, aged 22 years, S/o.Neelishikari Dastri, 2nd line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

3. Neeli Shikari Shankar, aged 20 years, S/o.Neelishikari Ganapathi, R/o.H.No.40-76, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

4. Neelishikar Mahesh, aged 21 years, S/o.Neeli Shikari Shekar, R/o.H.No.40/76/10, 1st line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

5. Neelishikari Roop Singh, aged 21 years, S/o.Ramesh, R/o.1st line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town. 6.Neelishikari Ramu, aged 22 years, S/o.Shekar, R/o.1st line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.… ACCUSED.

* * * * * *

This Case, coming on 27-09-2021, for hearing before me in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, and of Sri D.Kumara Swamy, Advocate for Accused No.1 to 5 and

Sri S.Daniel, Advocate for accused No.6 and after hearing both sides, and upon having perused the material available on record, 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 Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV Town Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 395 I.P.C. in Cr.No.220/2016.

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

2. Briefly stated the case of prosecution as shown in the charge sheet, is as follows:- On 01-06-2016 at about 9-00 p.m. in the premises of Srinivasa Theater, Opposite to Old Edgah, Kurnool Town, the defacto-complainant S.Shanthi Lal Mukesh Jain booked a call girl for

Rs.1200/-. While accused No.5, who was observing the defacto- complainant and P.W.2 carrying cash bags went to them and asked P.W.1 about money demanded by said woman. He incited him that he would arrange a good looking girl for Rs. 300/- only and took them towards

Kallur road. When they reached a dark place, accused No.1 to 4 and 6 attacked them and demanded to give Rs.1,00,000/- else they would kill them. Due to fear of the accused, the defacto-complainant gave

Rs.75,000/- and P.W.2 gave Rs.16,000/-. The accused also robbed one

Gionee cellphone from P.W.1 and went away. Then on the complaint of defacto-complainant a case in Cr. No.125/2016 was registered by SHO of

Kurnool II Town P.S. on 02-06-2016 and subsequently on point of jurisdiction as per proceedings of DSP, Kurnool, the case was transferred to Kurnool IV Town P.S. for investigation. The case was re-registered as

Cr. No.220/2016 on 14-06-2016. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 arrested accused No.1 to 4 under construction area, near Old Srinivasa

Theater, Kallur Road, Kurnool Town in the presence of P.W.3 and one

J.Sunkanna. Accused No.1 to 4 confessed the offence that they committed the offence along with two more accused namely Neelishikari

Roop Singh and Neelishikari Ramu. He seized gold ornaments purchased by the accused from the money robbed from complainant in

Cr. No.191/2016. He also seized cash of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.2 and one Gionee cellphone with black colour from accused No.4 in connection with this case. In due course of further investigation, he arrested accused No.5 and 6 on 23-06-2016 at 9-00 a.m. at Bangarupeta,

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

backside of Anand Theater and recorded their confessional statement.

Accused No.5 and 6 confessed the offence and produced cash of

Rs.2,000/- in connection with this case and Rs.19,000/- in connection with Cr. No. 191/2016. He got prepared panchanama and on observing on all procedural formalities he forwarded the accused to the judicial remand. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 got conducted Test

Identification Parade through Hon’ble Special Judicial Magistrate for

Mobile Court, Kurnool. On concluding investigation he filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 6 for offence U/S.395 I.CP..

3. The Honorable Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool took the cognizance of offence and numbered a case as PRC.1/2018 and committed the matter to Honourable Prl. District Court, Kurnool.

Honourable Prl. District Court numbered the same as SC.No.112/2021

and made over same to this court for disposal in accordance with law.

4.After taking the cognizance by Hon’ble Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Kurnool, the accused No.6 was jumped on bail. Therefore,

on execution of NBW pending against him, he was produced before

Hon’ble Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Prohibition and

Excise Court, Kurnool on 02-11-2019 and since then the accused No.6 has been in judicial custody and his custody has been extended from time to time.

5. 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 a material to frame charge against the accused No.1 to 6. Hence, charge against accused No.1 to 6 are framed for offence under section 395 I.P.C. The charge framed against them was read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

6.To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses besides marking Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.1 and 2.

7. The accused No.1 to 6 were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, all the accused denied and stated as false. They stated that they have no complicity with the crime and reported no defence evidence

8. Heard both parties. perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution

has proved the guilt of accused No.1 to 6 for the offence u/sec.

395 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?”

Point :

10. As per the case of prosecution, initially P.W.1 lodged complaint

before SHO, II Town P.S. on 02-06-2016 which was registered as Cr.

No.125/2016. According to Ex.P1, the defacto-complainant belonged to

Rajasthan State and he migrated to Kurnool and settled here since nine years. He has been working in TR Textiles and on 01-06-2016 at about 9-30 a.m. for collection he went to Gadwal. After completing work there he returned to Kurnool in a passenger train and reached here by 9-00 p.m.. He boarded into an auto to go to his house at old bus stand and boarded into an auto. In the mean time two other persons also boarded into the auto. The auto was driven towards New Bus-stand, for which, the defacto-complainant informed him that, he intended to go to Old

Bus-stand. When auto was proceeding near MRB Trade Center, the two inmates, who boarded in the middle of the road threatened P.W.1 to hand over the cash to them. Then auto was driven to Edgah there they forcibly got alighted the P.W.1 from the auto and took him to dark area and robbed collection amount of Rs.75,000/- besides Gionee cellphone. Then

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

on 02-06-2016 he lodged complaint before the Police. According to first report given by him, while he was going in an auto to his house at old bus stand two persons boarded into an auto and auto was taken to Old

Edgah, there he was forcibly got down from the auto and assailants robbed Rs.75,000/- from him.

11.As per material on record after recording the statement of

P.W.2 a new story was emerged as on 01-06-2016 both P.Ws.1 and 2 went for collection. P.W.2 went to Shanthinagar whereas P.w.1 went to Gadwal.

After completing the collection, P.W.2 came to Kurnool and informed

PW1 that, he was in New RTC Bus-stand. On that, P.W.1 came to him and lured him that he intended to satisfy his lust engaging a call girl.

Though P.W.2 was reluctant, P.W.1 informed him that, he would bear the expenses and they bargained with a lady standing in the bus-stand. In the mean time one person came to him and asked him about charges of that girl, for which, P.W.1 informed that, she was charging Rs.1200/-.

Then the new assailant informed him that, he would arrange new good looking girl for Rs.300/-. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed said person and he took them to a dark place near Edgah on Kallur road. P.W.2 was holding cash of both himself and P.W.1 and he was there at the road. As

P.W.1 did not return, P.W.2 also went inside and there some unknown persons attacked them and took away cash of Rs.75,000/- belong to P.W.1 and Rs.16,000/- belong to P.W.2. Then they made a phone call to their owners and lodged complaint before II Town Police. The statement of

P.W.2 gives entirely different picture which is quite contrary to the Ex.P1 lodged by defacto-compalinant.

12.Defacto-complainant in the statement recorded by P.W.7 after

FIR was re-registered he changed his entire version and gave statement corroborating the version given by P.W.2. Thus, in view of the

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

contradictory versions given by P.Ws.1 and 2, now it is to be seen whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence U/S.395 I.P.C..

13.To prove its case, the prosecution mainly relied upon evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 in his chief-examination categorically deposed that, on 01-06-2016 he went to Gadwal for collection. After completing collection he returned to Kurnool in a passenger train at 9-00 p.m. He took an auto and went to New APSRTC Bus-stand where he met

P.W.2. There he noticed a woman in the bus-stand and enquired her as to whether she was ready to satisfy his lust and bargained with her. As she was charging heavy, P.W.1 was reluctant to go with her and in the mean time one boy came to him and lured him that, he would arrange a good looking girl for Rs.300/-. On that, P.Ws.1 and 2 followed the said boy and he took them to back side of Edgah on the way to Kallur. P.W.1 handed over the cash to Champalal asked him to wait at the road till he returned. He went deep inside but in the mean time P.W.2 also followed him. All of a sudden some persons attacked them and robbed Rs.75,000/- and one Gionee cellphone from him. He further deposed that, he identified M.O.1-mobile phone as robbed from him. In the chief- examination he did not identify the person, who took him to backside of the Edgah Maszid nor any other assailant allegedly attacked him.

14.P.W.2 though he deposed on the same lines, in the chief- examination he identified the accused No.5 as the person, who took

P.Ws.1 and 2 to backside of Edgah Darga. During the cross-examination he stated that, he is not sure about accused No.5 taking them to backside of Edgah Darga but he is suspecting that, he may be the person, who took them to the backside of Edgah Darga. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is taken into consideration cumulatively,

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

admittedly none of the witnesses identified accused No.1 to 6 as perpetrated the incident. Though P.W.2 in the chief-examination identified accused No.5 but in the cross-examination he stated that, he is not sure about the accused No.5 being taken them to back side of Edgah

Darga. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence as to identity of accused No.1 to 4 and 6 on record by P.Ws.1 and 2 in the Court Hall.

Though the accused No.5 was identified by P.W.2, his statement is not trustworthy as he has given contradictory versions in the evidence stating that, he is not sure about participation of accused No.5 in the incident.

15.So far as, happening of incident is concerned as stated supra in Ex.P1-complaint, P.W.1 gave a story that while he was returning to his home from railway station in an auto two persons boarded into the auto and while auto was proceeding MRB Trade Center, they threatened him and took him towards Edgah Darga and robbed Rs.75,000/- and Gionee cellphone from him. There is no whisper about even presence of P.W.2 in

Ex.P1-report. In the statement recorded by Inspector of Police of II Town

P.S., he also gave same version before the Police. After P.W.2 gave different statement that, they went for searching a call girl and then one assailant took advantage of the same and took them to back side of

Edgah Darga and robbed them, P.W.1 gave another statement before

Inspector of Police, IV town P.S. stating that, he went to Edgah Darga in searching of a call girl to satisfy his lust. This explanation is not find place even in the statement recorded by P.W.5. The statement recorded by P.W.5 simply narrated the statement of P.W.2 which was recorded by

Inspector of Police, II Town P.S.. Therefore, it raises serious doubt on the trustworthiness of evidence of P.W.2. As there is no proper explanation from P.W.1 as to lodging of Ex.P1 with a false statement, it

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

cannot be said that, his evidence is trustworthy. Further, he is reluctant to identify the person with whom he had a chat for call girl and accompanied him to Edgah Darga. This raises serious doubts as to trustworthiness of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the story put up by them in the form of their statements.

16.The prosecution further relied upon the evidence of P.W.3, who stood as panchayathdar for arrest of accused No.1 to 6 under

Exs.P2 and P3. In his chief-examination he deposed that, on 15-06-2016 at about 8-00 a.m. he accompanied P.W.5 to backside of APSRTC Bus- stand there they arrested accused No.1 to 4 and from them a sum of

Rs.2,000/- and one Gionee cellphone were seized in connection with this case under cover of Ex.A2. He further deposed that, on 23-06-2016 he accompanied P.W.5 and in his presence he arrested accused No.5 and 6 and seized cash of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.5 in connection with this case under cover of Ex.A6 apart from seizing other property in connection with Cr. No.191/2016. He further deposed that, the accused

No.1to 6 confessed the offence. Admittedly, the confession made to a police officer during the police custody is not admissible in evidence.

The admissible material from the evidence of P.W.3 is only seizure of

Gionee cellphone, cash of Rs.2,000/- from accused No.4 and Rs.2,000/- from accused No.5 under cover of Exs.P2 and P3. In the preceding paras it has been held that, in view of different stories put up by the P.Ws.1 and 2, this Court doubted on the even happening of the incident as alleged in Ex.P1. Further, the Investigating Officer has not seized the total amount of cash from the accused but he seized only marginal amount of Rs.4,000/- and one Gionee cellphone. According to the

Investigating Officer, the accused spent the amount for their personal use. Admittedly, except the confessional statement there is no material

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

extracted that, the accused used the robbed amount for their personal use.

17.The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that, Exs.P2 and P3 are prepared subsequently and had they were prepared at the spot definitely the names of panch witnesses would have been incorporated in the panchanama. Perusal of Exs.P2 and P3, it is evident that, nowhere in the body of Exs.P2 and P3 the names of panchayathdars are referred to except obtaining their signatures in the last page of panchanamas. Further, in the cross-examination of P.W.3 he gave different versions regarding preparation of Exs.P2 and P3 at the spot. Therefore, this raises a serious doubt rendering that had really

P.W.3 was present at the time of preparation of Ex.P3, his name would have been referred to in Exs.P2 and P3 instead of obtaining their signatures only on the last pages. In view of the fact that, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not identify the accused and their evidence is not trustworthy and in view of the defect in Exs.P2 and P3 that, the names of panchayathdars are not referred to in Exs.P2 and P3, it can raise a reasonable doubt that the presence of P.W.3 at the time of alleged seizure under Exs.P2 and P3 is highly doubtful.

18.The prosecution mainly relied upon a evidence of P.W.4 i.e.

Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Kurnool worked from December, 2015 to May, 2018, who conducted Test

Identification Parade on Accused No.1 to 6. As per the evidence of P.W.4 and Test Identification Proceedings, accused No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were identified by P.Ws.1 and 2, during the proceedings whereas accused

No.4 was not identified by P.W.2. The learned counsel for accused vehemently contended that, P.W.4 did not follow the procedure as contemplated under Criminal Rules of Practice for conducting Test

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

Identification Parade. Upon perusal of Test Identification Proceedings, it makes clear that, indeed the P.W.4 has not mentioned the even approximate height, complexion, identification marks of the suspects and non-suspects. Even he did not mention the description of wearing apparels of suspects and non-suspects. Test Identification Proceedings rules prescribed in Criminal Rules of Practice mandates securing of non- suspects of similar height, complexion and other features except in the report mentioning that, non-suspects of similar age, height and complexion were secured, there is no reference as to the height, the complexion and other wearing apparels of non-suspects and suspects at the time of Parade so as to ascertain that, he has taken precaution that, the suspect was not in conspicuous with other non-suspects put for Test

Identification. Therefore, in the absence of any corroboration from evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the Test Identification Parade with aforesaid defects cannot be taken as basis to convict the accused for the offence referred above.

19.The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case of State of

Andhra Pradesh Vs. Venkata Reddy and another would contend that, the identification before Magistrate is sufficient to base the conviction against the accused. This Court perused the judgment referred to supra but it does not provide that, based on Test

Identification Report a conviction can be sustained. In a case of

Sampath Tatyada Shindey Vs. State of Maharastra AIR 1974 (SC)

791 Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, Test Identification Parade report is not substantive piece of evidence. The witness must again identify the accused in Open Court. The evidence of Test Identification Parade is admissible under Section 9 and it can be used only to corroborate the

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

substantive evidence given by the witness in the Court regarding identity of accused. Earlier identification made by the witnesses at the

Test Identification Parade by itself has no independent value. Thus, in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court mandating for identification of accused in the Open Court itself and taking Test Identification Report as corroborative evidence, the report of P.W.5 alone is not a substantive piece of evidence to say regarding identity of assailants.

20.Now coming to the evidence of P.W.5, in his chief- examination he deposed as to procedural aspects of investigation such as regarding registration of Ex.P11-second FIR on receiving case records from Kurnool II Town P.S. and conducting further investigation.

According to his evidence, he arrested accused No.1 to 4 under cover of

Ex.P2 and accused No.5 and 6 under cover of Ex.P3. As stated supra, the confession made before Investigating Officer is not admissible in evidence. Further, the evidence of P.W.5 does not disclose as to from whom they recovered the amount robbed from each P.Ws.1 and 2. In view of the fact that, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not identify the accused No.1 to 6 as they are assailants. The confession made to P.W.1 is inadmissible in evidence and total alleged robbed cash was not seized and the Test

Identification Proceedings cannot be sole basis for conviction renders that the evidence of P.W.5 does not assist to the case of prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused for the offence U/S.395 I.P.C..

21.Before parting with this judgment, it is further relevant to mention here that, P.Ws.1 and 2 were working in a Textile Shop and

Ready-made Cloth Shop as referred to in their statements. Admittedly, the owners of the said two shops under whom P.Ws.1 and 2 working are not examined so as to prove the factum that, they sent P.Ws.1 and 2 for collection to Shanthinagar and Gadwal. The non-examination of

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

employers of P.Ws.1 and 2 is fatal to the case of prosecution. In view of the fact that, P.W.1 gave dubious statements before the police in two different occasions.

22.The Investigating Officer did not satisfy the seized amount belong the parties i.e. whether it belong to P.W.1 or P.W.2. There is no dispute regarding Gionee cellphone marked as M.O.1 being the property of P.W.1. Since, there is no evidence on record as to whom seized cash belong to this Court is of consider opinion that, it is fit case to confiscate the seized cash property to the state and to return M.O.1 to P.W.1.

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

No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence U/S.395 I.P.C.. As such, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused and against the prosecution.

24. In the result, the accused No.1 to 6 are not found

guilty for the offence under Section 395 IPC and they are

acquitted u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C for the charge levelled against

them. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 6 along with their

sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this

judgment as required u/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Accused No.6,who is in

judicial custody shall set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required

in any other case. M.O.1-Gionee Cellphone shall be returned to

P.W.1 after appeal time is over and M.O.2-cash of Rs.5,019/- in the

form of FD bearing account No.36342559156 in CPR No.9/2021

and accrued interest thereon shall be confiscated to the State

after appeal time is over. The office is hereby directed to return

M.Os.1 and 2 to Hon’ble I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kurnool for disposal of the case property as ordered supra after

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

appeal time is over.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 30 th day of September, 2021.

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

P.W.1: S.Shanthi Lal Mukesh Jain P.W.2: Purohith Champalal P.W.3: Syed Khadar Basha P.W.4: M.Babu P.W.5: G.V.Nagaraja Rao

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

None.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Report dt.02-06-2016. Ex.P2: Certified copy of Arrest and Seizure Panchanama dt.15-06-2016. Ex.P3: Certified copy of Arrest and Seizure Panchanama dt.23-06-2016. Ex.P4: Proceedings of hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurnool dt.15- 07-2016. Ex.P5: Requisition filed by Inspector of Police, Kurnool IV town P.S. dt.15-07-2016. Ex.P6: Special Report with served summons of witness No.1 and 2. Ex.P7: Test identification proceedings dt.16-07-2016. Ex.P8: Proceedings of D.S.P., Kurnool in C. No.275/SDPO-K/2006. Ex.P9: FIR dt.02-06-2016. Ex.P10: Rough sketch prepared by L.W.6-K.Mulakanna dt. 02-06-2016. Ex.P11: Second FIR dt.14-06-2016 in Cr. No.220/2016. Ex.P12: Rough sketch dt.15-06-2016 in Cr. No.220/2016.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE

NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION

M.O.1: Gionee black colour mobile phone. M.O.2: Fixed Deposit bearing No.36342559156 issued by State Bank of India.

AASJ,KNL.

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 67 OF CRL.RULES OF PRACTICE

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

Present: Sri T.Kesava,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the Thirtyath [30th] day of September, 2021.

SESSIONS CASE NO.112 OF 2021

1Name of the P.S & Cr.No.:Cr.No.220/2016 of Kurnool IV Town Police Station. 2Sessions Case No.:112/2021 3Section of law:Under Section 395 of I.P.C. 4Name of the accused:1. Neeli Shikari Shiva, aged 22 years,S/o.NeeliShikariRaana, R/o.H.No.40/76,Firstline, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

2. Neelishikari Gundu @ Chamli, aged22years,S/o.Neelishikari Dastri, 2ndline, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

3. Neeli Shikari Shankar, aged 20 years,S/o.NeelishikariGanapathi, R/o.H.No.40-76,Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

4. Neelishikar Mahesh, aged 21 years,S/o.NeeliShikariShekar, R/o.H.No.40/76/10,1stline, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town.

5. Neelishikari Roop Singh, aged 21 years,S/o.Ramesh,R/o.1stline, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town. 6.Neelishikari Ramu, aged 22 years, S/o.Shekar,R/o.1st line, Bangarupeta, Kurnool Town. 5Date of occurrence of offence:01-06-2016 6Date of complaint :02-06-2016/14-06-2016 7Date of apprehension of :15-06-2016(A1 to A4) accused23-06-2016(A5 & A6) 8Date of release of accused:21-07-2016(A1 to A6) A6 is in judicial custody 9Date of commitment of case:19-11-2019 10Date of commencement of :23-08-2021 trial 11Date of close of trial:24-08-2021 12Date of sentence or order:30-09-2021 13(a)Explanation for delay : –

S.C.No.112 OF 2021 A.A.S.J. Court, Kurnool.

(b) In the trial Court:- The record in PRC.No.1/2018 of Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Kurnool was submitted to the Court of Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Judge, Kurnool on 09-07-2021 and the same was numbered as Sessions Case

No.112/2021 by the Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool for the offences punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C. and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law. The accused No.1 to 5 made their appearance

before this Court on 27-07-2021 and on the same day accused No.6 is

produced from District Jail, Kurnool and on 10-08-2021 charges were framed.

On 23-08-2021 P.Ws.1 to 3, on 24-08-2021 P.Ws. 4 and 5 were examined and prosecution evidence closed. On 01-09-2021 the accused were examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. and heard arguments on 21-09-2021. On 30-09-2021

Judgment pronounced.

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi through the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

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, Kurnool.

COPY TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KURNOOL.

1/16C.C.No.481 of 2014

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, ADONI

C.C.NO.481/2014

1Date of offence18.06.2014 2Date of complaint18.06.2014 3Date of apprehension of A1 to A4 and A6 to A1426.06.2014 Date of apprehension of A508.07.2014 4Date of release on bail of A1 to A4 and A6 to A14 26.06.2014 Date of release on bail of accused No.508.07.2014 5Date of commencement of trial04.01.2019 6Date of close of trial29.07.2019 7Date of Judgment 19.09.2019 ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Adoni Taluk Police Station.

Accused1. Boya Ranganna, S/o Thippanna, age 50 years.

2. Boya Talari narasanna, S/o Late Eranna, age 55 years.

3. Boya Talari Ramanna, S/o Eranna, age 40 years.

4. Boya Pedda Eranna, S/o Karrenna, age 50 years.

5. Boya Narasimhulu, S/o Talari Eranna, age 25 years.

6. Boya Talari Eranna, S/o Ramanna, age 20 years.

7. Boya Nagesh, S/o Devanna, age 32 years.

8. Boya Narasimhulu, S/o Pedda Eranna, age 20 years.

9. Boya Nadipi Ranganna, S/o Late Thippanna, age 50 years.

10. Boya Chinna Eranna, S/o Late Thippanna, age 41 years.

11. Boya Govindamma, W/o Ranganna, age 40 years.

12. Boya Sudamma, W/o Ranganna,age 30 years.

13. Boya Malleshamma, W/o Pedda Eranna, age 30 years.

14. Boya Padmavathi, W/o Chinna Eranna, age 30 years. All are of Peddapendekal village, Adoni mandal. OffenceRioting Rioting armed with a deadly weapon Voluntarily caused hurt. Section of LawU/S 147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC FindingAccused No.1 to 14 are found not guilty. Sentence or In the result, accused No.1 to 14 are found not guilty for the orderoffence under Secs.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/secs.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 14 shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ADONI. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kurnool.

2/16C.C.No.481 of 2014

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

Present:-Sri T.Keshava,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Thursday the 19th (Nineteenth) day of September, 2019.

C.C. No. 481 of 2014

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Adoni Taluk Police Station.

...Complainant

Vs

1. Boya Ranganna, S/o Thippanna, age 50 years.

2. Boya Talari narasanna, S/o Late Eranna, age 55 years.

3. Boya Talari Ramanna, S/o Eranna, age 40 years.

4. Boya Pedda Eranna, S/o Karrenna, age 50 years.

5. Boya Narasimhulu, S/o Talari Eranna, age 25 years.

6. Boya Talari Eranna, S/o Ramanna, age 20 years.

7. Boya Nagesh, S/o Devanna, age 32 years.

8. Boya Narasimhulu, S/o Pedda Eranna, age 20 years.

9. Boya Nadipi Ranganna, S/o Late Thippanna, age 50 years.

10. Boya Chinna Eranna, S/o Late Thippanna, age 41 years.

11. Boya Govindamma, W/o Ranganna, age 40 years.

12. Boya Sudamma, W/o Ranganna, age 30 years.

13. Boya Malleshamma, W/o Pedda Eranna, age 30 years.

14. Boya Padmavathi, W/o Chinna Eranna, age 30 years.

All are of Peddapendekal village, Adoni mandal.

...Accused

This case is coming on 11/09/2019 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and 3/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri S.Basheer, Advocate for accused No.1 to 14 and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Adoni Taluk Police Station filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 14 in Cr.No.73/2014 for the offences punishable under Sec.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ’IPC’).

2.The case of prosecution as set out in charge- sheet in brief is as follows:- The accused No.1 to 14 are related to one another. Pw.1 to Pw.6 are family members. The lands of accused No.1 and Pw.1 by name Boya Krishna Murthy are situated side by side. There are ill-feelings in between accused

No.1 family and Pw.1 family in connection with digging of bore well in their fields. On 18.6.2014 at about 4.30 PM son-in-law of accused No.1 by name A.Nagesh i.e., accused No.7 cut the branches of a tree in the land of Pw.1's brother by name Pedda

Hussaini and in that matter about 5.00 PM Pw.5 by name Boya

Aakash chastised accused No.1 for cutting branchs of a tree in the site of Hussaini. Over the said issue there was an altercation between A1 and Pw.5 on knowing the same Pws.1 to 4 went there and when they enquired about accused No.1 quarreling with Pw.5 all the accused No.1 to 14 formed into unlawful assembly armed with iron rods, sticks, metal stones and attacked Pws.1 to 4 with intent to cause harm to them. Accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with iron 4/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 blade i.e., Guntepalugu on his head and caused bleeding injury.

Accused No.2 and 3 beat Pw.1 with sticks over his hand and caused dumb injury. Accused No.4 beat Pw.1 with iron rod below left elbow and caused injury, accused No.5 and 7 beat Pw.2 with sticks on his back and caused dumb injury. Accused No.4 beat

Pw.3 with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury, accused No.7 beat Pw.3 with a stick on his right knee and caused bleeding injury, accused No.7 to 10 beat Pw.4 with a stick and caused bleeding injuries. Accused No.11 to 14 pelted stones on

Pws.1 to 4 resulting dumb injuries. Lws.5 to 10 witnessed the incident. On the complaint of Pw.1, Pw.11 registered the F.I.R.

and investigated into the matter. He examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 26.06.2014 Pw.12 arrested accused No.1 to 4 and 6 to 10 and forwarded them to this Court for judicial remand. On 08.07.2014 he arrested the accused No.5 and sent him this Court for judicial remand. On concluding investigation and on receiving wound certificates he filed charge- sheet against the accused No.1 to 14.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under

Sec.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 14.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 14 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, they denied 5/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 the same and hence charge under Sec. 147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were got marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused

No.1 to 14 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated in a false case. Accused No.1 to 14 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 14.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether prosecution brought home the guilt

of accused No.1 to 8 beyond reasonable doubt

for the offences under Secs.147, 148, 324 r/w

149 IPC” ?

9.POINT: The case of prosecution as set out in Ex.P-1 statement of Pw.1 it makes clear that, the prosecution party and accused party are residents of Pedda Pendekal village, Adoni mandal. Pw.1 has Ac.3.00 of agricultural land and abutting to it the accused No.1 also got land. On 18.6.2014 at about 5.00 PM 6/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 accused No.7 who is son-in-law of accused No.1 cut branches of a tree in the land of elder brother of Pw.1 by name Pedda Hussaini.

Pw.5 who is the youngest brother of Pw.1 went to the house of accused No.1 to question him as to why accused No.7 cut the branches of a tree in the land of Hussaini. At that time on hearing the sounds of galata Pws.1 to 4 rushed there. All the accused No.1 to 14 formed into unlawful assembly armed with sticks, iron rods and gravel stones and beat Pws.1 to 4 indiscriminately. Among them accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with

Guntapalugu on his head, accused No.2 and 3 beat him with sticks on his hand and caused bleeding injury. In the said incident, Pws.2 to 4 also sustained injuries to them, while he was in the hospital the police came to him and recorded his statement. Therefore, from the case of prosecution as set out in

Ex.P-1 it makes clear that, when Pw.5 who is the youngest brother of Pw.1 went to the house of accused No.1 to question him as to cutting of branches of a tree in the land of his brother Pedda

Hussaini there ensured an altercation and on hearing the sounds of galata Pws.1 to 4 rushed there and in the said incident the accused beat Pws.1 to 4 and caused injuries to them. Therefore, from the case of prosecution it makes clear that, the incident took place in respect of an incident in which accused No.7 allegedly cut the branches of a tree in the land of Hussaini who is brother of Pw.1.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor while submitting her arguments, she would contend that, the evidence 7/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 of Pws.1 to 6, the Medical Officer and Investigating Officer manifestly proved that the accused No.1 to 14 forming an unlawful assembly attacked Pws.1 to 4 armed with iron rods, sticks and stones and caused bleeding injuries. Therefore, the unchallenged evidence of Pws.1 to 4 and other eye witnesses proved that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted.

11. Per contra, the learned advocate for the accused has drawn the attention of this Court to certain discrepancies crept in the cross-examination of Pws.1 to 6 which throws serious doubt on the trustworthiness of Pws.1 to 6. He argued that there are several contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 regarding the manner in which they sustained injuries and whose hands they sustained injuries. Further, there is also serious dispute regarding the scene of offence wherein the

Investigating Officer deposed that the incident took place in the house of accused No.1, whereas the prosecution witnesses stated that the incident took place away from the house of Pw.2. Further, on the complaint of accused No.1 a case in Cr.No.72/2014 was registered against Pws.1 to 6 and others for the offences

U/sec.307, 147, 148, 352, 324 r/w 149 IPC in which, the prosecution party attempted to take away the life of Pw.1.

Further, he argued that, the Investigating Officer admitted in his evidence that, the prosecution party trespassed into the house of accused No.1 and attacked Pw.1. Therefore, in connection with this incident the prosecution party taking advantage of injuries 8/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 sustained by them when they attacked accused No.1 to 14 they lodged this complaint to compel the accused for compromise in

Cr.No.72/2014. He further argued that, except the evidence of relatives the other alleged independent eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, therefore the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that, the prosecution alleged that, on 18.06.2014 at about 5.00 PM Pw.5 went to the house of accused No.1 to question him as to cutting of branches of a tree in the land of Pedda Hussaini who is brother of Pw.1 and at that time there was an altercation, then Pws.1 to 4 rushed there and that all the accused attacked them and caused injuries. Thus, in view of the above, now it is to be seen whether on 18.06.2014 at about 5.00 PM the accused

No.1 to 14 attacked Pws.1 to 4 and caused injuries to them as referred in Ex.P-1 complaint.

13. To prove the case of prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 6 and Pws.10 to 12. Pw.7 to 9 said to be independent eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosecuting on any material particulars.

Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

14. Pw.1 in his chief-examination categorically deposed that, he got Ac.3.00 of land besides agricultural land of accused

No.1 there are disputes himself and accused No.1 in connection with digging of bore well in the land of accused. He also deposed 9/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 that, about 4 years back one day the son-in-law of accused No.1 by name Nagesh cut down a tree in the land of his elder brother

Hussaini in that connection Pw.5 went to accused No.1 and questioned him regarding cutting of tree in the land of his elder brother. On that the accused No.1 picked up galata with Pw.5 on hearing shouting of galata himself and Pws.2 to 4 rushed to the house of accused No.1 and enquired about the matter. In the meantime the accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with iron blade (Guntepalugu) on his head and caused bleeding injury. Accused

No.2 and 3 beat him with sticks on his back and accused No.4 picked up an iron rod and beat him on his elbow. Accused No.3, 5 and 7 beat Pw.2 with a stick and caused injury on his head.

Accused No.3 to 5 beat Pw.3 with sticks and caused injuries to him. Accused No.5 and 8 beat Pw.4 with sticks and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.11 to 14 pelted stones due to which they sustained injuries.

15. Pw.2 though he deposed that, he accompanied Pw.1 to the place of incident, in his chief-examination he deposed that, accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with Guntepalugu on his head and caused bleeding injury. Accused No.4 beat Pw.1 with rod on his left elbow. Accused No.4 beat Pw.2 with iron rod on his head and caused bleeding injury. The other accused beat with sticks and accused No.11 to 14 pelted stones. Accused No.2 beat Pw.3 with sticks and caused bleeding injury on his head. The other accused surrounded and beat Pws.1 to 4. Pw.3 who is sister of Pws.1 and 2 in her evidence, she deposed that, accused No.1 beat Pw.1 with 10/16C.C.No.481 of 2014

Guntepalugu on his head and caused bleeding injury and he also beat on his elbow and caused injury. Accused No.4 beat Pw.2 with Iron rod and caused bleeding injury on his head. Accused

No.1 beat Pw.3 on his head with a stick and caused bleeding injury. Lw.8 to 10 and one Ranga Swamy rescued them.

16. Pw.4 who is another injured also deposed that, accused No.4 beat him with Iron rod and caused bleeding injury.

Accused No.7 and 11 to 14 beat Pw.3 by pelting stones and caused bleeding injury. Lws.8 to 10 rescued them, they were shifted to hospital.

17. Pw.5 another eye witness to the incident, he deposed that, he did not receive any injuries, but accused No.1 beat Pw.1 and women folk pelted stones on Pw.3. Pw.6 who is mother of

Pw.1 is not an eye witness to the incident.

18. The learned advocate for the accused has drawn the attention of this Court regarding the discrepancies crept in the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 with that of their statements recorded by the police. In the evidence of Pw.1, he categorically deposed that, accused No.1 beat him with guntapalugu on his head and caused bleeding injury. He also deposed that, accused No.4 picked up a rod and beat him and caused injuries on left elbow, whereas, in 161 Cr.P.C. statement he categorically deposed that, accused No.2 and 3 beat him with sticks and accused No.4 beat him with an Iron rod on his elbow. Pw.2 in his statement gave different version stating that, accused No.1 alone beat Pw.1. Pw.3 11/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 who is also another injured deposed that, accused No.1 alone beat Pw.1. Pw.4 also deposed on the same lines stating that, accused No.1 alone beat Pw.1, whereas, in their evidence they deposed that, apart from accused No.1, 2 and 3 also beat Pw.1 and accused No.4 beat Pw.1 with iron rod on his elbow and caused injury.

19. Coming to the injuries sustained by Pw.2 is concerned,

Pw.1 in his evidence stated that, accused No.3, 5 and 7 beat Pw.2 with sticks on his head and caused injuries. Whereas, in his statement he stated that, accused No.2, 3 and 7 beat Pw.2 and caused injuries. He did not speak that, accused No.1 beat him with iron rod on his head caused injuries. Pw.2 stated that, accused No.4 alone beat him and he did not speak that he was beaten up by accused No.3, 5 and 7. Pw.3 in her statement stated that, accused No.4 beat Pw.2. Pw.4 who is sister of Pw.1 deposed that, all the accused beat Pw.2 with sticks, in their evidence also they gave different versions stating that, accused

No.4 beat Pws.1 and 2 with iron rod. Pw.3 deposed that, accused

No.4 beat Pw.2 with iron rod. Pw.4 deposed that, accused No.4 beat Pw.2 with iron rod. It is not the statement of Pw.2 that, he was beaten up by accused No.4. Therefore, the evidence of witnesses showing that accused No.4 beat Pw.2 is not supported by their oral evidence.

20. Pw.1 in his evidence deposed that, accused No.3 to 5 beat Pw.4 by name Boya Brahmaiah, whereas in his statement he did not speak anything who beat him. Pw.2 also deposed in the 12/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 evidence that, accused No.2 beat Pw.4 with stick. Whereas, in his statement he deposed that, Boya Talari Narayanamma beat Pw.2.

Similarly, there are also several discrepancies regarding who beat whom in the evidence of Pws.1 to 4 with the statements recorded by the Investigating during investigation.

21. Coming to the evidence of Medical Officer all are sustained head injuries. In Ex.P-5 to P-8 it is shown that, they sustained bleeding injuries on their head. In the cross- examination of Medical Officer, it is shown that, he did not mention the object with which the above injuries are caused.

22. Admittedly, in the evidence of Pws.1 to 5 they categorically deposed that, all the accused armed with sticks, rods and stones and after the incident they left the weapons at the scene of offence and fled away. Inspite of visit of the police they did not seize any sticks and iron rods from the scene of offence. Further, the case of prosecution is that, the incident took place in the house of Pw.1, whereas, Pws.1 to 5 in their evidence they deposed that, the incident took place at a distance of 50 feet away from the house of accused No.1. The

Investigating Officer in his evidence categorically deposed that, the scene of offence is situated in the house of accused No.1 and for this case and the case in Cr.No.72/2014 the scene of offence is one and the same. He categorically admitted that, he did not seize any sticks and stones from the scene of offence and it is situated within the compound wall of the accused No.1.

Therefore, the contention of the Pws.1 to 5 that the scene of 13/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 offence is situated away from the house of accused No.1 is devoid of merits.

23. It is the specific case of the accused that, on 18.06.2014 Pws.1 to 7 and others criminally trespassed into the house of accused No.1 and attacked accused No.1 tried to kill him. In that connection a crime was registered for the offence

Usecs.307, 147, 148, 452 r/w 149 IPC and the same is pending

before the Hon'ble Assistant Sessions Court, Adoni. In view of

the fact that, the scene of offence situated inside the house of accused No.1, now a serious doubt arises as the accused attacked Pws.1 to 4 and they are being the perpetrators of the incident. Without Pws.1 to 7 trespassing into the house of accused No.1 there would not be any incident and it appears that,

Pws.1 to 7 and others themselves criminally trespassed into the house of accused No.1 to 14 and tried to assault them in connection with cutting of tree in the land of one Hussaini. It has already referred above in the presiding paras that, there were prior disputes in between the parties in connection with digging of bore wells in both the lands and due to digging of bore well by the accused No.1 bore well of Pw.1 dried up and in that connection there were disputes between the parties. Therefore, it appears that tense situation was prevailing in between both the parties and in view of the allegations that, the accused No.7 cut the branches of a tree in the land of Hussaini who is brother of

Pw.1, Pw.5 went to the house of accused No.1 and questioned him and he appears to have went to his house to picked up galata 14/16C.C.No.481 of 2014 with him. Admittedly, as per the case of both the parties, firstly

Pw.5 went to the house of accused No.1 and there was an altercation between Pw.5 and accused No.1. Surprisingly, he did not sustain any injuries. It appears that, in a scuffle between the prosecution party and accused party Pws.1 to 4 sustaining injuries cannot be ruled out, as the police did not seize any weapons nor the Medical Officer gave evidence to show the nature of the weapon with which the injuries present on the body of Pws.1 to 4 were caused.

24. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that, the alleged incident took place in the house of accused

No.1, wherein the accused No.1 also sustained serious injuries and the crime was registered against prosecution party for the offence U/sec.307 IPC and the prosecution party did not explain those injuries. As the incident took place inside the house of accused No.1, the prosecution party is to be blamed more, as the circumstances suggest that, the accused party is not perpetrators of the incident. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that, the Investigating Officer by projecting the case in the point of Pws.1 to 5 did not explain the injuries sustained by accused party in the same incident. Therefore, cause giving explanation as the injuries sustained by accused No.1 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

25. In view of aforesaid discussion, as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused No.1 to 14 are the real perpetrators of the incident. The contention of the accused that, 15/16C.C.No.481 of 2014

Pws.1 to 4 sustained injuries in the process when they attacked accused No.1 cannot be ruled out. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 14 beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 14 and against the prosecution.

26. In the result, accused No.1 to 14 are found not guilty for the offence under Secs.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/secs.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 14 shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of

September, 2019.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None.

P.W.1 : Boya Krishna Murthy

P.W.2 : Boya Venkappa

P.W.3 : Boya Chittemma

P.W.4 : Boya Brahmaiah

P.W.5 : B.ya Aakash

P.W.6 : Boya Narasamma

P.W.7: Ramachandra

P.W.8: Salam

P.W.9: Jagannatha Reddy 16/16C.C.No.481 of 2014

P.W.10:Dr.M.Rajappa, Doctor.

P.W.11:N.Thimmappa, ASI

P.W.12:G.Nagendra Prasad, S.I. of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: complaint of Pw.1.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.9.

Ex.P5: Wound certificate of Pw.1 by Pw.10.

Ex.P6: Wound certificate of Pw.2 by Pw.10.

Ex.P7: Wound certificate of Pw.4by Pw.10.

Ex.P8: Wound certificate of Pw.3 by Pw.10.

Ex.P9: F.I.R.

Ex.P10: Rough sketch.

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

P.J.C.J., FAC/IAJMFC, ADONI.

1/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, ADONI

C.C.NO.43/2013

1Date of offence23.3.2011 2Date of complaint30-07-2012 3Date of apprehension of accused No.1- Date of apprehension of accused No.2.23.12.2014 4Date of release on bail of A.1- Date of release on bail of accused No.3.28.11.2015 5Date of commencement of trial23.11.2017 6Date of close of trial20.09.2018 7Date of Judgment 16.04.2019

ComplainantTropical Agrosystem (INDIA) PVT.LTD Chennai represented by its Board of Directors, through authorized signatory R.Sundara Rajan, Commercial Officer of complainant Company, Chennai. Accused1. T.K.Prakash, S/o T.K.Rajagopal Setty, C/o Nanne Sab, S/o Chinna Hussein Sab, 17-364/1, Kallubavi, Adoni.

2. Dudekula Nanne Sab, S/o Chinna Hussein Sab, 17-364/1, Kallubavi, Adoni.

3. K.Thikkanna, S/o K.Pakkirappa, 21-4/33, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Adoni.

(The case against A1 was withdrawn as whereabouts of A1 not known) Offence Forgery

Section of U/Sec.465 r/w 34 IPC law FindingAccused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty Sentence or In the result, the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty order for the offence punishable U/sec.464 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C.. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as required U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADONI

FAC/I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ADONI. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kurnool.

2/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

Present:-Sri T.Keshava,

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Wednesday the 16th (Sixteenth) day of April 2019.

C.C. No.43 of 2013

Tropical Agrosystem (INDIA) PVT.LTD Chennai represented by its Board of Directors, through authorized signatory R.Sundara Rajan, Commercial Officer of complainant Company, Chennai.

...Complainant

Vs

1. T.K.Prakash, S/o T.K.Rajagopal Setty, C/o Nanne Sab, S/o Chinna Hussein Sab, 17-364/1, Kallubavi, Adoni.

2. Dudekula Nanne Sab, S/o Chinna Hussein Sab, 17-364/1, Kallubavi, Adoni.

3. K.Thikkanna, S/o K.Pakkirappa, 21-4/33, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Adoni.

(The case against A1 was withdrawn as whereabouts of A1 not known)

...Accused

This case is coming on 13/03/2019 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri G.V.Desai, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri K.H.N.Guruvageesha Murthy, advocate for accused No.2and 3 and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This complaint is filed U/sec.200 Cr.P.C. by Tropical

Agrosystem Private Limited Company represented by its authorized signatory against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/secs.363, 364 and 365 IPC. After 3/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 cognizance of offence was taken summons were issued to accused, but the summons could not be served on accused No.1 as whereabouts of him not known, therefore, the complainant had withdrawn the case against accused No.1, as such, the case against accused No.1 was dismissed as with drawn.

2. The case of the complainant as set out in complaint in brief is as follows: The complainant is absolute owner of vacant site described in schedule annexed to complaint.

The complainant purchased the same under a registered sale deed Dt:27.3.1991 from its lawful owner Sri Venkatkeswara

Estate Traders and since the date of purchase it has been in possession and enjoyment of it with absolute rights. Taking advantage of absence of complainant the accused fraudulently and dishonestly entered into a conspiracy to grab said property and on 23.3.2011 one of the accused styling himself as representative of complainant executed 8 registered sale deeds at the office of Sub Registrar, Adoni bearing documents No.2650 to 2657 of 2011 in favour of accused No.2 and 3. Though sale deeds are void and the accused is no way concerned with complainant company. Accused are not even fully aware of correct name of the complainant. The name of complainant was changed to Tropical Agrosystem private Limited and a certificate of incorporation was issued on 27.3.2009. Previously it was

Tropical Agrosystem Limited. The accused by mentioning the old name of complainant company obtained sale deeds just by copying it from the sale deed Dt:27.3.1991. A person authorized 4/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 by Board of Directors of the company can sell the properties of the company. Since the accused No.1 is utter stranger he has no right to sell properties of complainant. Very recently the complainant came to know about the conspiracy about the accused and rushed to Adoni and obtained certified copies of documents brought into existence by the accused. They are also trying to interfere with possession and enjoyment of complainant over disputed property. Though a lawyer notice Dt:3.7.2012 was issued to the accused calling upon them to execute registered cancellation deeds within 15 days, but they did not turn up and further they were called upon to pay damages of Rs.50,000/-. As the offence is non-cognizable one it compelled to file this complaint.

2.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under

Sec.465 IPC and issued summons to accused No.2 and 3.

3.On appearance of accused No.2 and 3 before this court, copies of document furnished and when they were examined under Sec.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.P.C’) about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, accused No.2 and 3 denied the same and hence a charge under Sec.465 r/w 34 was framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.On behalf of complainant, the complainant himself examined as Pw.1 and Exs.P1 to Ex.P18 were got marked.

5/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

5.After the closure of complainant evidence, accused

No.2 and 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.PC. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of complainants, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated in a false case. Accused No.2 and 3 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

6.Heard arguments of learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3.

7.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether the complainant has proved the

guilt of accused No.2 and 3 beyond reasonable

doubt for the offence under Sec.465 r/w 34

IPC”?

8.POINT: It is the specific case of the complainant that, the complainant company is registered under companies Act under name and style as Tropical Agrosystem India Limited and later on, it changed his name Tropical Agrosystem India

Private limited company. It purchased plot No.9 to 16 in

L.P.No.62/89 in Sy.No.478 of Sadapuram Gram Panchayath

Mandagiri village limits of Adoni Mandal from Venkateswara

Estate Traders under Ex.P-4 sale deed on 27.3.1991. Since then it has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later on, taking advantage of absence of the complainant in Adoni the accused No.1 to 3 fraudulently conspired together and in 6/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 furtherance of their common intention on 23.3.2011 one of the accused styling himself as representative of complainant executed 8 registered sale deeds bearing documents No.2650 to 2657/2011 and got registered the same at Sub Registrar Office,

Adoni. The accused are not fully aware of correct name of complainant company and they copied the name of complainant company from the sale deed and created authorization in the name of accused No.1 and got created Exs.P-5 to P-12. The complainant did not sell any of its plots to anybody. Recently the complainant learnt about conspiracy of accused and issued legal notice on 3.7.2012 to cancel those documents. As the accused did not evince any interest, it compelled the complainant to file this complaint.

9.While submitting his arguments the learned advocate

for complainant would contend that, the accused No.1 to 3 to

grab the property of complainant created Exs.P-5 to P-12 in which the accused No.1 himself styled as representative of complainant company and the accused No.2 and 3 are purchasers of plots

Nos.9 to 16. By the date of alleged sale deed the complainant company was converted into private limited company under name as M/s Tropical Agrosystems India Private Limited having register office at Madras. Even in the authorization letters annexed to this sale deeds are in erstwhile the name of complainant company. Therefore, this suffice to say that, the accused forged the signatures of authorities of complainant company and created Exs.P-5 to P-12. Recently on knowing the 7/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

Exs.P-5 to Ex.P-12 complainant got issued a legal notice but the accused without choosing to cancel sale deeds proceeded with civil suit. Hence, this complaint.

10. The learned advocate for complainant would contend that executant of Ex.P-5 to P-12 by name T.K.Prakash is not agent of complainant company and the signatures of T.K.Prakash in

Ex.P-17 are not tallying with the alleged agent of complainant company in Exs.P-5 to P-12. Therefore, the complainant sought for convicting the accused No.2 and 3 for the offence U/sec.465

IPC. He further would contend that, as whereabouts of accused

No.1 is not known the case against the accused No.1 was with drawn, as such, the complaint against him was dismissed as withdrawn.

11. The learned advocate for the accused No.2 and 3 while submitting his arguments, he would contend that, there is no evidence on record to show that, Tropical Agrosystems Limited

Company converted as private Limited company as Tropical

Agrosystems India Private Limited Company. Further, there is no evidence on record, to show that, Pw.1 who launched the prosecution is still working in complainant company. Further the complainant did not file any resolution copy which authorizes him to file complaint and the complainant filed to sent Exs.P-5 to P-12 to the handwriting expert for comparison of disputed signatures in Ex.P-1 to P-5 with their agent by name T.K.Prakash. Except self serving testimony of Pw.1 there is no material on record as such, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

8/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

12. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant company i.e., M/s Tropical Agrosystem Limited company purchased plot

Nos.9 to 16 in Sy.No.478 in LP. No.62/89 of Mandagiri Panchayath from Venkateswara Estate Traders represented by its partners under Ex.P-4. There is no dispute regarding complainant company purchasing above referred plots from Venkateswara Traders,

Adoni under Ex.P4. Further the memorandum and articles of association filed by Pw.1 i.e., Ex.P-2 and P-3 makes it clear that, previously the complainant company was a public limited company under name as Tropical Agrosystem Limited and later on, 27.3.2009 it was converted as private limited company under name as M/s Tropical Agrosystem India private Limited company.

Therefore, there is no dispute regarding disputed property being absolute property of complainant company.

13. It is further contended by the learned advocate for the defence that Pw.1 is not authorized to file this complaint and to give evidence and he did not file any resolution or duly attested by company secretary authorizing the Pw.1 to prosecute the matter. Ex.P-1 is authorization issued by one of the director of complainant company which provides that the complainant company authorized Pw.1 to file the complaint and prosecute the matter on behalf of the company. Further, the recitals of Ex.P-1 provides that, on passing resolution at meeting of board of directors of complainant company authorization was issued to

Pw.1 to file the complaint and prosecute the matter. It is further relevant to mention here that all the resolutions need not be 9/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 attested by company secretary and they can be attested by the

Director of company. Admittedly, as per the evidence of Pw.1 one

Vasanth Kumar, Oman Kutti and another are the Directors of complainant company. Ex.P-1 was issued by one of the Director of the complainant company. Ex.P-1 proved that Pw.1 was duly authorized to prosecute the matter and he is competent to give evidence in this case. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel

for the accused that, the complainant is not authorized to

prosecute the matter is devoid of merits.

14. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention here that, Accused No.2 and 3 are charged for offence U/sec.465

R/W 34 IPC. Sec.465 IPC provides punishment for forgery.

According to definition of forgery as defined under Sec.463 IPC whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of record or electronic document with intent to cause damage or injury to public or any person or to support any claim or title or to cause any person to part with property or to enter into any express or implied contract or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed commits forgery. Sec.464 defines false document. Sec.465 provides punishment for forgery.

Therefore, from the language employed under Sec.463 IPC whoever makes any false document or electronic record to cause damage or injury to any public or any persons or to cause any person to part with any property or to enter into express or implied contract amounts to forgery. In the case on hand, it is the specific case of prosecution that, accused No.1 styling himself as 10/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 representative of complainant company conspired with accused

No.2 and 3 and created Exs.P-5 to P-12 in favour of accused No.2 and 3.

15. To prove the case of complainant, the complainant relied upon the evidence of Pw.1 alone. As referred to in presiding paras it is undisputed fact that, the complainant company purchased disputed property under Ex.P-4 in the year 1991 from Sri Venkateswara Estate Traders. Further Exs.P-2 and

P-3 provides that at the time of purchasing property the name of company was Tropical Agrosystem India Limited and later on, the company was converted into private Limited company and name was changed as M/s Tropical Agrosystem India Private Limited.

16. It is the specific case of the complainant that, accused

No.1 to 3 conspired together and accused No.1 style himself as agent of complainant company and created Exs.P-5 to P-12. Upon perusal of Exs.P-4 it makes clear that, at the time of purchasing of property by the complainant company one T.R.Prakash, S/o

T.K.Rajagopal Setty, Regional Manager, Bellary, Resident of T.G.S.

complex Bellary road, Bellary negotiated the transaction and he acted as agent of complainant. He entered transaction with

Venkateswara Estates on behalf of complainant company under

Ex.P4. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding then regional manager of complainant company at Bellary entering sale transaction with its vendor under Ex.P-4.

11/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

17. Exs.P-5 to P-8 stand in the name of accused No.2, said to have been executed by M/s Tropical Agrosystem Limited company registered under companies Act having head office at 118 board way, Madras represented by its agent T.K.Prakash, S/o

T.K.Rajagopal Setty, resident of 65 MIG Phase-II House No.33,

Housing Board colony, Vasavi School, Bellary town, Karnataka

State. In all the sale deeds a copy of authorization is annexed which is said to have been signed by his concerned authority.

Pw.1 deposed that, said certificate was not issued by complainant company. Admittedly, in Ex.P-4 one T.R.Prakash acted on behalf of complainant. In Exs.P.5 to P8 stand in the name of accused

No.2 and also Exs.P-9 to P-12 stand in the name of accused No.3, one T.K.Prakash, S/o T.K.Rajagopal Setty acted as agent of complainant company and entered into sale transaction with

Accused No. 2 and 3. Though Pw.1 in his evidence categorically deposed the said T.K.Prakash is not T.R.Prakash whose name shown in Ex.P-4 as an agent of complainant company the complainant did not examine said T.R.Prakash to show that, he is not the same person whose name is referred to in Exs.P-5 to P-12.

Admittedly, in the evidence of Pw.1 he categorically deposed that, he has no personal knowledge regarding the transactions under Ex.P-4. In his evidence he categorically deposed that, the complainant is styling regarding whom his company delegated powers to deal with Venkateswara Traders for purchase of plots.

In the sale deed it is shown that, one T.R.Prakash, Branch

Manager of Bellary acted on behalf of complainant company.

12/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

Admittedly, said T.R.Prakash is not examined before this Court to show that, the signatures in Ex.P-5 to P-12 and photographs annexed to Ex.P-5 to P-12 are not belong to him.

18. Upon perusal of Ex.P-5 to P-12 it makes clear that, one

T.K.Prakash, S/o T.K.Rajagopal Setty, R/o Bellary town sold plot numbers 9 to 12 to accused No.2 and 13 to 16 to A3 under Ex.P-5 to P-12. In all the sale deeds the residential address of

T.K.Prakash is shown as MIG Phase II, house No.33, housing board colony, Vasavi School, Bellary town. The complaint is filed by showing T.K.Prakash as accused No.1, in which, his residential address is shown as house bearing No.17/364/1, Kallubavi of

Adoni town. After taking the cognizance of offence, summons were issued to accused No.1, but as summons could not be served on him, the complainant has withdrawn complaint against accused No.1 on 7.7.2017 and got it dismissed against him. As per material available on record in all the times the complainant paid process to accused No.1 to his residential address of Adoni and not to the address shown in Ex.P-5 to P-12. If the complainant paid process to the address shown in Ex.P-5 to P-12 and even then summons were returned then it can be assumed that the accused No.1 is an unknown person styled himself as agent of complainant company sold plots No.9 to 16 to accused No.2 and

3. Therefore, non sending summons to accused No.1 to the address shown in Ex.P-5 to P-8 raises serious doubt on the contention of the complainant that Accused No.1 is not associated with complainant company and he is not their agent.

13/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

19. Admittedly, T.R.Prakash is not examined before this

Court and the complainant after recording the evidence of Pw.1 filed Ex.P-17 showing that the signatures in Ex.P5 to P12 are the signatures of T.R.Prakash who is Regional Manager of complainant company at Bellary. Admittedly, the learned advocate for the defence has seriously disputed regarding correctness of signatures in Ex.P-17. In the cross-examination of Pw.1, he deposed that, Ex.P-17 is inter office correspondence between complainant company and Regional Officer, Bellary but nowhere in Ex.P-17 it is shown that, the said correspondence is in between the complainant company and T.R.Prakash who is Regional

Manager. Admittedly, the specimen signatures of T.R.Prakash are not filed before this Court though his signatures are available in public domain. He further admitted that, the signatures of

T.R.Prakash are figuring in appointment letters. He also has bank account. Therefore, the complainant has chance of filing specimen signatures of T.R.Prakash available in his bank account, appointment letter and signature available in public domain.

Those specimen signatures are not placed before this Court.

Further, except filing sale deeds in the name of complainant and in the name of accused No.2 and 3 the complainant did not file any document to show that, T.R.Prakash whose name is referred to in Ex.P-4 is not the same person who executed Ex.P-5 to P-12.

The complainant should have sent Ex.P-5 to P-12 to handwriting expert for comparison of disputed signatures with admitted signatures of its Regional Manager to ascertain that, Ex.P-5 to P- 14/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 12 are outcome of forgery. At least the complainant should have examined T.R.Prakash before this Court to ascertain that, the person whose name is figured in Ex.P-5 to P-12 and whose photograph affixed in Ex.P-5 to P-12 is not the same person whose name is mentioned in Ex.P-4 as representative of complainant company. Therefore, non-examination of T.R.Prakash and non sending Ex.P-5 to P-12 to handwriting expert for comparison of disputed signatures of T.R.Prakash with his admitted signatures it cannot be said that, the accused committed offence.

20. Further, the person who said to have committed the forgery is not before this Court and case against him was with drawn as summons could not be served on him. Admittedly, the complainant paid process to the Adoni address instead of address shown in Ex.P-5 to P-12. Therefore, now the complainant cannot contend that, he has withdrawn the complaint against accused

No.1 as he could not be traced out. Since the accused No.1 who said to have executed the document is not before this Court as an accused, it is not possible to arrive a conclusion that, accused

No.2 and 3 conspired with accused No.1 and created Exs.P-5 to P- 12.

21. Admittedly, a civil suit is pending filed by the complainant in respect of disputed property and the Tahasildar also issued proceedings under Sec.145 Cr.P.C. to maintain peace and tranquility at disputed property. Since, there is serious dispute regarding genuineness of Exs.P-5 to P-12 the complainant 15/16C.C.No.43 of 2013 should have examined T.R.Prakash and adduced evidence that, the person figured in Ex.P-5 to P-12 as an executant is not it's agent but simply withdrawn the case against him. Therefore, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that, the complainant failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/sec.465 IPC as such, they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant and in favour of Accused No. 2 and 3.

22. In the result, the accused No.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec.465 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused

No.2 and 3 shall be in force for a period of six months as required

U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to personal assistant, transcribed, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 16th day of April,

2019.

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/ I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None.

PW.1 : R.Sundara Rajan

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: True copy of authorization issued in favour of complainant.

Ex.P2: Certificate of incorporation of complainant's company.

Ex.P3: Memorandum of association and articles of association of complainant's company.

16/16C.C.No.43 of 2013

Ex.P4:Original registered sale deed executed by Sree

Venkateswara Estate Traders in favour of complainant's company.

Ex.P5 to

Ex.P-8:Certified copies of four registered sale deeds Dt:23.3.2011 executed by A1 in favour of A2.

Ex.P9 to

Ex.P12: are the 4 registered sale deeds Dt:23.3.2011.

Ex.P13: Office copy of legal notice issued to A1 to A3.

Ex.P14 to

Ex.P16: are the postal receipts in proof.

Defence:

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ADONI.

1/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I

CLASS, ADONI

C.C.NO.552/2015

1Date of offence14.05.2015 2Date of complaint14.05.2015 3Date of apprehension of accused No.1 to 31 U/sec.41(A) Cr.PC29.08.2015 4Date of release on bail of accused - 5Date of commencement of trial18.07.2019 6Date of close of trial13.09.2019 7Date of Judgment 29.10.2019

ComplainantState represented by the Inspector of Adoni II Town Police Station.

Accused1. Bandmeedhi giddaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu, age 43 years,R/o H.No.19/121, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal.

2. Mulla Nabirosool, S/o Vannur, age 52 years, Ramalingayapalli

(v), Chennampalli post, Tuggali (M).

3. Avula Shekaranna, S/o Chinna Mallaiah, age 45 years, R/o H.No.19/109/A, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal.

4. Ramakonda Guruda, s/o R.Sanjappa, age 60 years, H.No.11-210-1, ramakrishna Reddy Nagar, Pathapet, Pattikonda town and mandal.

5. Komati Maddilety Setty, S/o K.Narayana Setty, age 54 years, H.No.1/161, Nalla Chelimala village, Devanakonda mandal.

6. Boya Gudise Madanna, S/o B.G.Maddappa, age 75 years, H.No.1/114, K.Thimmapuram village of Yemmiganur mandal.

7. Uppara Karumanchi, S/o U.Eranna, age 39 years, H.No.2/8, Kindigeri, Pedda Hulti village of Pattikonda mandal.

8. Kondamida Nagendra, S/o K.Sanjanna, age 57 years, Valagonda village, Muthukuru post, Aspari Mandal.

9. Bandinepati Muniswamy, S/o B.Ranganna, age 33 years, H.No.1/9, BC colony, Chirumandoddi village of Aspari Mandal. 10.Mangala Kanaranna, S/o M.Hultheppa, age 46 years, H.No.1/99, Mangala Street, peddahulti village, Pattikonda mandal. 11.Bandameda Surendra Kumar, S/o B.Venkateswarulu, age 38 years, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal. 12.Basapuram Gopal @ Pujari Gopal, S/o P.Pedda Lingappa, age 54 years, H.No.1/173, 103 Basapuram village of Adoni mandal.

13. Malliboina Hanumappa, S/o Naganna, age 45 years, H.No.1/85, Pakirappa temple street, Agraharam Post, Maddikera Mandal. 14.Pasedulla Venkateshwarulu, S/o P.Pedda Yerra Sunkanna, age 45 years, H.No.4/11, Rallapadu village of Tuggali Mandal. 15.Kadavala Sudhakar, S/o K.Sunkanna, age 38 years, H.No.5/37 A, Pandikona village of Pattikonda mandal. 16.Kurakula Thimmaiah, S/o K.Anjinaiah, age 57 years, H.No.2/34, Nakkaladoddi village of Pattikonda mandal. 17.Syed Sulthan, S/o Syed Bojjullu, age 31 years, SV Subbareddy Nagar, Pattikonda mandal.

18. Mangali Satyanna, S/o M.Ramanna, age 45 years, H.No.5-79, Kallugotla village of Yemmiganur mandal. 19.Pujari Pampanna Goud, S/o Peranna Gowd, age 48 years, H.No.1- 103, BC Colony, Pulichintala village of Nandavaram mandal. 20.Korrapati Ajay Babu, S/o K.Ramaiah, age 55 years, H.No.11-344, 2/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

Havannapeta, Adoni town. 21.Kare Lakshmireddy, S/o K.Parameshwar Reddy, age 65 years, H.No.19/371, Venkannapeta, Adoni town. 22.Boya Raju, S/o B.Giddaiah, age 50 years, H.No.17/466, Kallubavi, Adoni town. 23.Ontedulla Boya Nagaraju, S/o O.Balanaganna, age 52 years, H.No.4-307A, Bavajipeta, Adoni town. 24.Boya Narasappa, S/o B.Chinna Thimmappa, age 45 years, H.No.1/137, Virupapuram village of Adoni mandal. 25.Ediga Eranna Gowd, S/o Ediga Narasappa Gowd, age 40 years, H.No.1/132, Virupapuram village of Adoni mandal. 26.Pichigunta Satyanna, s/o P.Naganna, age 42 years, H.No.3/85, Nagarur village of Aspari mandal. 27.Katike Kishan Rao, S/o K.Narasinga Rao, age 38 years, H.No.1/871, BC colony, Nagarur village of Aspari mandal. 28.Akula Pedda Narasappa, S/o K.Thimmappa, age 36 years, H.No.4/41, Pinjari Street, Mulagundam village of Aspari mandal.29.Ulava Nagesh, S/o Somanna, age 38 years, Mulagundam village of Aspari mandal. 30.Arekanti Venkateswarulu, S/o A.Chandrashekar, age 25 years, Beerappa Temple Street, Karumanchi village of Aspari Mandal. 31.Thimmapuram Veeresh, S/o T.Ayyappa, age 46 years, H.No.17/836/65B, New Gandhi Nagar, Adoni town. (The case against A6 as abated as died)

OffenceBeing member of an unlawful assembly. House trespass, Mischief, and thereby causing damage to the amount of 50 rupees or upwards Section of Law U/Sec.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 FindingAccused No.1 to 5, A7 to A31 are found not guilty. Sentence or In the result, accused No.1 to 5, and accused No.7 to 31 are orderfound not guilty for the offence under Secs.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/secs.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5, A7 to A31 shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., 3 broken plastic chairs, one broken tube light and one damaged ceiling fan shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case against A6 as abated as died.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, ADONI. Copy submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief-Judicial Magistrate-cum-

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kurnool.

3/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS ::

ADONI.

Present:-Sri T.Keshava,

Prl.Junior Civil Judge,

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Adoni.

Tuesday the 29th (Twenty ninth) day of October, 2019.

C.C. No. 552 of 2015

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town Police Station.

...Complainant

Vs

1. Bandmeedhi giddaiah, S/o Venkateswarlu, age 43 years, R/o H.No.19/121, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal.

2. Mulla Nabirosool, S/o Vannur, age 52 years, Ramalingayapalli (v), Chennampalli post, Tuggali (M).

3. Avula Shekaranna, S/o Chinna Mallaiah, age 45 years, R/o H.No.19/109/A, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal.

4. Ramakonda Guruda, s/o R.Sanjappa, age 60 years, H.No.11-210-1, ramakrishna Reddy Nagar, Pathapet, Pattikonda town and mandal.

5. Komati Maddilety Setty, S/o K.Narayana Setty, age 54 years, H.No.1/161, Nalla Chelimala village, Devanakonda mandal.

6. Boya Gudise Madanna, S/o B.G.Maddappa, age 75 years, H.No.1/114, K.Thimmapuram village of Yemmiganur mandal.

7. Uppara Karumanchi, S/o U.Eranna, age 39 years, H.No.2/8, Kindigeri, Pedda Hulti village of pattikonda mandal.

8. Kondamida Nagendra, S/o K.Sanjanna, age 57 years, Valagonda village, Muthukuru post, Aspari Mandal.

9. Bandinepati Muniswamy, S/o B.Ranganna, age 33 years, H.No.1/9, BC colony, Chirumandoddi village of Aspari Mandal. 10.Mangala Kanaranna, S/o M.Hultheppa, age 46 years, H.No.1/99, Mangala Street, peddahulti village, Pattikonda mandal. 11.Bandameda Surendra Kumar, S/o B.Venkateswarulu, age 38 years, Bramhin Street, Pattikonda town and mandal. 12.Basapuram Gopal @ Pujari Gopal, S/o P.Pedda Lingappa, age 54 years, H.No.1/173, 103 Basapuram village of Adoni mandal.

13. Malliboina Hanumappa, S/o Naganna, age 45 years, H.No.1/85, Pakirappa temple street, Agraharam Post, Maddikera Mandal. 14.Pasedulla Venkateshwarulu, S/o P.Pedda Yerra Sunkanna, age 45 years, H.No.4/11, Rallapadu village of Tuggali Mandal. 15.Kadavala Sudhakar, S/o K.Sunkanna, age 38 years, H.No.5/37, A, Pandikona village of Pattikonda mandal. 16.Kurakula Thimmaiah, S/o K.Anjinaiah, age 57 years, H.No.2/34, Nakkaladoddi village of Pattikonda mandal. 17.Syed Sulthan, S/o Syed Bojjullu, age 31 years, SV Subbareddy Nagar, Pattikonda mandal.

4/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

18. Mangali Satyanna, S/o M.Ramanna, age 45 years, H.No.5-79, Kallugotla village of Yemmiganur mandal. 19.Pujari Pampanna Goud, S/o Peranna Gowd, age 48 years, H.No.1-103, BC Colony, Pulichintala village of Nandavaram mandal. 20.Korrapati Ajay Babu, S/o K.Ramaiah, age 55 years, H.No.11-344, Havannapeta, Adoni town. 21.Kare Lakshmireddy, S/o K.Parameshwar Reddy, age 65 years, H.No.19/371, Venkannapeta, Adoni town. 22.Boya Raju, S/o B.Giddaiah, age 50 years, H.No.17/466, Kallubavi, Adoni town. 23.Ontedulla Boya Nagaraju, S/o O.Balanaganna, age 52 years, H.No.4-307A, Bavajipeta, Adoni town. 24.Boya Narasappa, S/o B.Chinna Thimmappa, age 45 years, H.No.1/137, Virupapuram village of Adoni mandal. 25.Ediga Eranna Gowd, S/o Ediga Narasappa Gowd, age 40 years, H.No.1/132, Virupapuram village of Adoni mandal. 26.Pichigunta Satyanna, s/o P.Naganna, age 42 years, H.No.3/85, Nagarur village of Aspari mandal. 27.Katike Kishan Rao, S/o K.Narasinga Rao, age 38 years, H.No.1/871, BC colony, Nagarur village of Aspari mandal. 28.Akula Pedda Narasappa, S/o K.Thimmappa, age 36 years, H.No.4/41, Pinjari Street, Mulagundam village of Aspari mandal.29.Ulava Nagesh, S/o Somanna, age 38 years, Mulagundam village of Aspari mandal. 30.Arekanti Venkateswarulu, S/o A.Chandrashekar, age 25 years, Beerappa Temple Street, Karumanchi village of Aspari Mandal. 31.Thimmapuram Veeresh, S/o T.Ayyappa, age 46 years, H.No.17/836/65B, New Gandhi Nagar, Adoni town. (The case against A6 as abated as died)..

...Accused

This case is coming on 25/10/2019 for final hearing before me and upon perusing the entire material available on record and upon hearing the arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and of Sri K.Vijayakumar Reddy, Advocates for accused No.1 to 31 and having stood over for consideration till this date, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town Police Station filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 31 in Cr.No.73/2015 5/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sec.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act.

2.The averments of charge-sheet in brief are as follows:- Pw.1 is then Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni. Pw.6 the Inspector of Police of Adoni II town P.S. deputed Pws.4 and

Lw.6 namely K.Krishna and M.Rama Swamy along with other police constables on Bando bust duties near RDO office, Adoni.

On 14.05.2015 the members of CPI party and other union members gave a call for JAIL BHARO program against new land acquisition Act 2013. The accused No.1 to 31 conducted Jail

Bharo program near RDO office, Adoni in between 11.15 am to 12.30 PM under the leadership of accused No.1 and 2. A1 to A31 did not heed the words of the police and criminally trespassed into RDO office and damaged three plastic chairs, ceiling fan and one white tube light. Then, on the complaint of Pw.1, Pw.6 registered a case in Cr.No.73/2015 for the offences U/sec.143, 448, 427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 of PDPP Act and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation Pw.6 visited the scene of offence and seized damaged articles under cover of panchanama. On 29.08.2015 he served Sec.41(A) Cr.P.C. notice on all the accused. Then, on concluding investigation he filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken cognizance for the offence under

Sec.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC and issued summons to the accused No.1 to 31.

6/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 31 before this court, copies of documents as contemplated under Sec.207 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C') were furnished and when they were examined under Sec.239 Cr.P.C about the substance of allegations leveled in the charge-sheet, they denied the same and hence charge under Sec. 143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.On behalf of prosecution, Pws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 and M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused

No.1 to A5, A7 to 31 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and further stated that they did not commit any offence and they were implicated in a false case. Accused No.1 to 5, A7 to A31 did not choose to examine any defence witnesses nor marked any documents.

7.Heard arguments of learned APP for the prosecution and the learned counsel for accused.

8.Now the point that arose for determination is as follows:

“Whether prosecution brought home the guilt

of accused No.1 to 5, A7 to A31 beyond

reasonable doubt for the offences under

Secs.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC” ?

7/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

9.POINT: As can be seen from the contents of Ex.P-1 report said to have been lodged by Pw.1, it is specific case of prosecution that, as against the introduction of new land acquisition Act 2013 in the Parliament on 14.05.2015 Communist

Party, district executive members B.Giddaiah and Nabi Rasool and their followers about 150 members at about 11.15 AM to 12.30 PM conducted Jail Bharo program and in the said program they high-handedly entered into RDO office and damaged 3 plastic chairs, one ceiling fan, one tube light. Therefore, from the contents of Ex.P-1 it makes clear that, under the leadership of accused No.1 and 2 nearly 150 members of CPI party and agriculture labour Union trespassed into RDO office and damaged 3 plastic chairs, one ceiling fan and one tube light.

10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would contend that, the evidence of Revenue Divisional Officer, Senior Assistant, police constable and the evidence of Investigating Officer i.e., evidence of Pws.1 to 6 manifestly proved that, the accused No.1 to 31 participated in the incident and they have committed the offence. Therefore, they are liable to be convicted.

11. Per contra, the learned defence counsel would contend that, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is quite contradictory as all the Revenue Officials failed to identify the suspects or they deposed that, they are not eye witnesses to the incident. The evidence of police constable i.e., Pw.2 alone supported the case of prosecution at the influence of his higher authorities. The prosecution failed to prove the participation of accused No.1 to 8/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 31 in the alleged incident. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12. In view of rival contentions of both the parties, now it is to be seen, whether the prosecution has established that, the accused No.1 to 31 participated in “JAIL BHARO” program organized by CPI party and agricultural labour union against introduction of new land acquisition Act 2013 in the Parliament and inspite of orders disbursing the unlawful assembly trespassing into the RDO office and damaged 3 plastic chairs, one ceiling fan and one tube light. To prove the above the prosecution relied upon the evidence of Pws.1 to 6.

13. Pw.1 is then Revenue Divisional Officer who is said to be an eye witness to the incident. In his chief-examination he categorically deposed that, on 14.05.2015 he came to his office at Adoni and on the said day Communist Party of India gave a call for Jail Bharo in view of introducing new land acquisition bill 2013 in the parliament. Nearly 150 members of said party heeded by

Divisional Executive members namely Giddaiah and Nabi Rasool started demonstration in front of his office. In between 11.00 AM to 12.30 PM they tried to enter into the office and the police tried to stop them. As there was no sufficient force for the police, some of the activists entered into the office and damaged the plastic chairs. He categorically deposed that, when the incident took place he was in his chambers, his staff members came to him and informed him about the same and then he came out from the office and observed damaged furniture. On the details of 9/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 the names of the agitators given by his staff members he gave complaint. He identified accused No.1 and 2 and he did not identify the other accused. In the cross-examination also Pw.1 categorically deposed that, at the time of alleged incident he was inside his chamber and his staff members informed him about the incident. Therefore, from the evidence of Pw.1 in the chief- examination it is clear that, Pw.1 is not an eye witness to the incident and he was merely inside his chambers and after he came to know about the incident, he came out from his office and noticed the damaged furniture. Therefore, his evidence is only relevant with regard to damaged caused to M.O.1 to 3 and he lodging complaint on the names given by his staff members.

14. Coming to the evidence of Pw.2, Pw.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that, there was a dharna in front of his office and the agitators forcibly entered into his office and damaged M.Os.1 to 3. He deposed that, he can identify only accused No.1, but he cannot identify the others who allegedly involved in the incident. In the cross-examination of Pw.2 he categorically stated that, in the absence of RDO he used to act as incharge RDO and all the political party leaders used to met him.

Therefore, he got acquaintance with them due to such acquaintance he also knew accused No.1. He categorically deposed that as mob consists of huge members he cannot identify each members in the mob. As Pw.2 categorically deposed that, he cannot say who damaged M.Os.1 to 3, his evidence that he named accused No.1 due to his prior 10/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 acquaintance with him cannot be ruled out. Pw.3 who is eye witness to the incident did not support the case of prosecution on any material particulars and he turned hostile.

15. Coming to the evidence of Pw.4, Pw.4 in his evidence he categorically deposed that, on 14.5.2015 Pw.6 deputed him and other constables on Bundobust duty at RDO Office, Adoni.

While they were at RDO Office, Adoni at about 1.15 pm the activists CPM party including accused No.1 and 2 and 150 followers came to RDO Office and started conducting JAIL BHARO program against introducing new land acquisition bill in the parliament. The staff members and RDO came out from their office, but in the meantime the activists of CPM party and agricultural labour union trespassed into the RDO office and damaged M.O.1 to 3. He identified all the 31 accused stating that, they all participated in the incident. Pw.4 in his evidence he categorically deposed that, while he was at RDO office and dharna was going the RDO and his staff members came out from their office to hear the demands of agitators. But the agitators rushed to RDO office by pushing the officials aside and damaged the furniture. It is not the evidence of either Pw.1 or 2 that they came out from their chamber to the agitators to hear their demands. It is the evidence of Pw.1 that, while he was in his chambers the agitators rushed into the office and damaged the furniture. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.4 is falsified the evidence of Pw.1 regarding RDO and other staff members approaching agitators to hear their demand on that the agitators 11/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 rushing into the office and damaging the furniture. Admittedly

Pw.4 is a constable who always oblige on the instructions of his higher officials. On the other hand, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 does not provide that, while they were hearing the problems of agitators, the agitators pushed them aside and entered into the office and damaged M.Os.1 to 3. Therefore, since in the absence of any other material the evidence of Pw.4 alone cannot be taken into consideration to believe the contentions of the prosecution.

Further, as there are serious contradictions regarding participation of the accused in the alleged incident, the evidence of Pw.4 alone cannot be taken into consideration to base the conviction against the accused. Admittedly, Pws.1 to 4 are government officials and as per their evidence they had acquaintance with accused No.1 and 2 being in their capacity as leaders in CPI party in Adoni town. Since, they had prior acquaintance with accused No.1 and 2 and the alleged agitation call was given by CPI party the contention of the accused that, the police have implicated the political leaders of Adoni belonging to CPI party cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any independent evidence and identification of accused by Pws.1 to 3 even in the Court hall the evidence of Pw.4 alone cannot be taken into consideration to prove that, the accused participated in the incident. Even, it is not the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses that, regarding the specific overt acts committed by each accused. On the other hand, it is the case of prosecution that, merely 150 persons forcibly entered into the RDO office.

12/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

The Investigating Officer did not apprehend all the accused nor even named them in the charge-sheet. Therefore, it appears that, the agitation call was given by CPI party the Investigating

Officer appear to have named the prominent leaders of some political party in Adoni town and filed charge-sheet to wash of his hand. Pw.5 is panch witness in whose presence the Investigating

Officer seized M.O.1 to M.O.3 under cover of Ex.P-3. Pw.6 is

Investigating Officer, he deposed that, on the report of Ex.P-1 he registered Ex.P-4 F.I.R. and investigated into the matter. During the cross-examination he categorically deposed that, other than the police officials and Revenue authorities he did not examine any persons who visited the RDO office at the time of incident on their personal work. Therefore, in view of the location of RDO office in between Isvi police station, Court building and Tahasildar office, Adoni it appears that, there would be several eye witnesses to the incident. In the absence of any independent eye witnesses and In view of contradictions crept in the prosecution, the evidence of Pw.4 alone cannot be taken into consideration to base the conviction against the accused for the offences referred to supra.

16. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that, though the prosecution proved that, on 14.05.2015 there was a agitation, the agitators entered into RDO office and damaged

M.Os.1 to 3, but it failed to prove that accused No.1 and 2 participated in the incident and damaged M.Os.1 to 3. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all 13/14C.C.No.552 of 2015 reasonable doubt, as such, they are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused No.1 to 31 and against the prosecution.

17. In the result, accused No.1 to 5, and accused No.7 to 31 are found not guilty for the offence under Secs.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec.248(1) Cr.P.C. for the offences U/secs.143, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5, A7 to A31 shall be in force for a period of six months under Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., 3 broken plastic chairs, one broken tube light and one damaged ceiling fan shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The case against

A6 as abated as died.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this the 29th day of October, 2019.

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

FAC/I ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESES EXAMINED

Prosecution:Defence: None.

P.W.1 : B.Ch.Obulesu

P.W.2 : A.Mohan

P.W.3 : Anwar Basha

P.W.4 : K.Krishna, PC.

P.W.5 : S. Krishna, VRO

P.W.6 : U.Lakshmaiah, Inspector of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED:

Prosecution:

Ex.P1: complaint of Pw.1.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3.

Ex.P3: Scene observation mahazar Dt:14.5.2015.

14/14C.C.No.552 of 2015

Ex.P4: F.I.R.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch of scene of offence.

Defence: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: 3 broken plastic chairs.

M.O.2: One broken tube light.

M.O.3: One damaged ceiling fan.

PJCJ., FAC/AIJMFC,ADN.