Ms. T. SP Bhargavi

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 1 of 18

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

I-ADDIL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT: Ms. TSP. BHARGAVI,

Principal Junior Civil Jilge cu:

Judicial Magistrate of First Class.

Godavarikhaui FAC: I-Addl. .Junior Civil Judec-cul I-Add!. Judici! Matisirate of First Class

Godavriklhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 06H DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CALENDAR CASE NO. 339 of 2018

The State through the Sub-nspector of Police. Police Stal ion. Godavarikhani Between:

I-Town (Crime No.342 of 2018)

...Complainant

AND Rontala Suresh S/o: Komuraiah. Age: 30 vears. R/0: H.No. 15-1 -1 19.

Thilaknagar, Godavarikhani. .Sole Accused

This case is coming bcfore me on 28.03.2O23 TGr inal earing in the Dresence of Sri Naheda Farheen. learned Assistant Pubiic ProseCutor for the State and of Sri. S. Sanjay Kumar, learned counscl or the AccUsed having

been heard both sides and having stood over for considera1 ion till this day.

the Court delivered the following:

;:JUDGM E NT

The Sub-Inspector of Police. Police Station. Godavarikhani I-Town

has filed charge sheei against the sole aceused in Crime No.342 of 2018

for the offences punishable under sections 3F4-D and 506 of IPC.

The brief facis of the case are that o 09 07.20!Si C00 h0urs the 2.

de-facto complainant by name Nimnala Swarupa went to Godavarikhani

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 2 of 18

1-Town Police station and lodged a report staling that she is resident of

Thilaknagar. Godavarikhani. That she has oe daughler and One Son.

1at aDOut ð years ago, her hushand died due to ill-health, since then,

Sne 1S ing by doing their caste nrofession That since one week accused

lO1owea ner, gave gesturcs and sionals with mala-fide initenuon and misbehaved with her. That on 08 07 2018 at l000 hours. when Sne

returned to her house from Kirana shop and cbstructed her by saying

why she is not taking to him and not responded to his signals and

gestures and threatened that if she does not respond. he will kill her.

That, he came to her house and warned her. That the incident was

witnessed by Meckala Anil/LW5. Bobbala Rajkumar/LW3. Koluguru

Venkatesh/LW2 and Mohd. Sharif who were present there. Hence, she

requested to take necessary action against the acUsed.

3. Basing on the above report, the Sub-Inspector of Police.

Godavarikhani I-Town Police station/LW8 has registered a case in Crime

No. 342 of 2018 for the offences under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC and

took up the investigation. Dung the course of investigation, LWS

examined and recorded the statement of complainant/LW1, Subsequently

LW8 visited the scene ol olfenet ong with LWl and seCured the presence

of LWs. 2 to

5, Cxamieu

n and recorded heir statemenis.

Subsequently, he secured the prCSence of LWs 6 and 7 as panchas and

Conducted the scence of offenee Danchanama llnder the cover of the

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 3 of 18 Crime Details Form. That on 10.07.20 18 LW8 arrested the accused at inierrogation. the acCused Thilaknagar and interrogated him. That on voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. That he brought the accused to Godavarikhani-I Town Police statiou and issUed notice under secion 41-A Cr.P.C on the accused with instructions lo appear before the

Court on receipt of summons. After completion of investigation. LW8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offcnces punishable under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC.

Cognizance was taken for the offences punishablr under sections 4 354-D and 506 of IPC against the accused and nuimbered as CC No.339 of 2018.

On appearance of the accused. copies of documents were furnished 5.

to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C and he denied 6 the allegations levelled against him. hence, charges for the offences under

sections 354-D and 506 of IPC were lramed. read over and explained to

the accused in vernacular. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to

be tried.

The prosecution has examined Pws. 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 7.

to Ex.P3. PWI is the de-facto complainant, Prs.2 ancl 3 are the eye

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 4 of 18 witnesses to the alleged incident. PW� is the panch witness for the Crime

Details Form. PW5 is the investigating officer. The learned A.P.P has given

up the evidence of Lws.2, 4 and 7 as they statcd the same versin as

Lws.3 and 5.

After closure of the prosecuion Cvic ence. the accused Was 8. With regard to the incriminating examined under section 313 CT:1:

evidence adduced against him by The prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and reported no aelence witncsses.

Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P and the lcarned counsel 9.

for the accused.

Now the point for consideration is: 10. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences punishable under sections 354-D and 506 of PC?

11. POINT:

It is the case of the proseCution that the accused followed the de- gestures and signals with mala-fide

facto complainant/LW1, made

08.07.2018 at 1000 hours.

intention and misbehaved

with her and o!

when she returned to her house fronm Kirana shop and obstructed her by saying why she is not taking to him and not responded to his signals and

gestures and threatened that if she does not respond. he wrill kill her and

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 5 of 18 came to her house and warned her. Thereby. ihe acCUsed has committed the offences under sections 354-D and 5(06 of IPC.

the prosecution has stated above, to substantiate its case, As 12.

examined five witnesses and exhibited three doC. MetS.

PW1 by name Nimmala Swanuna who is ihe de-facto complainant

13. and victim deposed that she knows IWs2 to LW5. She further deposed that on 08.07.2018 at about 10.00 a m.. while she was returning irom

Kiranam shop to her home, the accused followed her on his Scooty by stating that he is following her since ten days and he will look after her well but she refused the same but the accused did noi heed her words and continued to follow her and came to her hOuse and threatened her with dire consequences to kill her if she do not iisten his words. then she made hues and cries by closing the doors then. LW2 to LW5 came there, immediately, she came inside the house and informed the same to LW2 to

LW5 and the accused fled away irom there. In this regard, she went to

Police station and lodged a report. She identified the accused who is present in the dock of the Court. Tnat Police (xamincd her and recorded her statement.

PWI during her cross-examination leposcd that Ex.Pl was drafted 14.

by the Police but she do not know his name. She adnnitted that she has

CC No.339 of 2018

well as in her statement belore the police how

Page No, 6 of 18 not menioned in Ex.Pl as accused. She admitted that the accused is not she came to know the residing near to her hOuse and she further adds that previously the accused resided in front of her house. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.Pl as well as in her statement before the police the specific overt acts played by the accused. That she do not know whether the accused used to lend money to the needy persons. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.Pl as well as in her statement before the police that the accused look after her well but she refused the same. She admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.Pl as well as in her statement

before the police that how she came to know the names of Lws.2 to 5.

That the distance between Kiranam shop and her house is about 300 meters. That she cannot say the name of Kiranam shop or its OWner where she purchased the household articles. She admitted that she did

not made any efforts to inform her neishbours as well as at her workn8

followed her. That on her dictation place that since l0 days the accused

Ex.Pl was scribed by the police.

PW2 by name B. Rajkumar who is the eye wilness to the alleged 15.

incident deposed that he knows PW]. LW2. LW4 and LW5 who are his locality persons. That in the of July, 2018. while himself, LW2. month LW4 and LW5 were cutling goat, at about 10.00 a.m One Scooty was stopped in front of the louse of PWi nd some disCUSs0Ols Were going on

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 7 of 18

were Lurned into heated

in betweern the accused and PW] which

discussion and on seeing the same binmself LW2. LW4 and LW5 went there. in our presenCe the accused stated to PWl that he will pay money and look after her well and heed bis words oilerwise, the accused wil

kill her. Immediately. she went into the house and later himself. LW2.

LW4 and LW5 left that place. That Police did not examine him and did not record his statement and he identified the accused who is present in the dock of the Court.

PW2 during his croSs-examination admitted that he did not

16.

mention how the accused is known to him. Tha. himself. LW2. LW4 and

LW5 wwere cutting the goat at Pochamma temple. That in between

Pochamma temple and the house of PW1 there are tWo houses and one

school. and the said houses and Sch0ol are vacant but he do not know

the name of the School. That some houses arc situated beside the house

of PWI and their names are Srinu, Naresh and Sunny and he used to

travel through their locality as such he knows tB e names of neibhours of

PWI. That some persons are resiaig n the houses of Srinu. Naresh and

Sunny. He admitted that when he rcached lo the house af PW1. no one

present including the acCused and he adds hat he accused left the

place. That the distance between the Pocham:a lemplc and the nouse of

PWI is about 200 meters.

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 8 of 18 PW3 by name Mekala Anil Kumar who is another eve wilness lo (he

17. alleged incident deposed that he knows PW1. PW2 LW4 and LW6 to LWS.

That on 08.07.2018 at aboul 10.00 a.m while he Was proceeding to

Kiranam shop. at that time. some galata took pl:Ce between PWI and the

accused and the accused using abusive words towards PWI as to why

PWI is not talking with and responding to him. otherwise. the accused will kill PWi. Later. PWI went inside of her house. That himself. LW2.

PW2 and LW4 witnessed the incident. That on seeing them. the accused fled away from there. The witness identified the accused who is present in the dock of the Court. That Police examined him and recorded his statement.

PW3 during his cross-examination admitted that he did not state to 18.

police that he knows the accused and he can identify the accused if shown to him. He admitted that at the time of alleged incident, Lw2,

PW2, LW4 and himself were cutting the g0at. That towards right side of

his house there is a road and lef side there is open place. He admmtted

that he did not state to police that on the date of alleged incident, LW2,

PW2, LW4 and himself were cutting the goat at Pochamma temple. That the distance between Pochamma Temple and the house of PWi is about 30 meters. That the distance between his house and the house of PWI is about 5 to 10 meters. That thne house of PW! is situated to the opposite of his house. That at the time of alleped incider t. his wile was present in

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 8 of 18

PW3 by name Mekala Anil Kumar who is another eye witness to the 17.

alleged incident deposed that he knows PW1. PW2. LW4 and LW6 to LW8.

m while he was proceeding to

That on 08.07.2018 at about 10 0o

Kiranam shop, at that time. some salata took place between PWI and the

accused and the accused using abusive words towards PWI as to why

PWI is not talking with and responding to him. otherwise, the accused

will kill PW1. Later, PW] went inside of her house. That himself, LW2.

PW2 and LW4 witnessed the incident. That on seeing them. the accUsed fled away fromn there. The witness identified the accuSed who is present in the dock of the Court. That Police examined him and recorded his statement.

18. Pw3 during his cross-examination adnmitted that he did not state to police that he knows the accused and he can identify the accused if shown to him. He admitted that at the time of alleged incident. LW2.

PW2, LW4 and himself were cutting the goat. That towards right side of

his house there is a road and lelt side there is open place. He admitted

that he did not state to police that on the date of alleged incident, LW2,

Pw2. LW4 and himself were cutng the goat at Pochamma temple. That

the distance between Pochamma temple and the house of PWI is about 30 meters. That the distance betWEen his house and the house of PWI 1s 10 meters. That the house of PW1 is situated to the opposite about5 to of his house. That at the time of alleged incidernt, his wife waS present in

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 10 of 18 distance between his house and the scene of offence is about 40 meters.

That he knows the contents of Ex.P2. That as per Ex.P2. towards the

Northern side, the road towards Meeseva and Vittal Nagar was mentioned, Eastern side one Morri is mentioned. Southern side the road

Western side one Anil which leads to the house of PWI is mentioned.

house is mentioned. That he put his signature on Ex.P2 at about 2.30

p.m., That the reason for conducting Ex.P2 was mentioned upon Ex.P2.

21. PW5 by name U. Upender, who is the investigating officer in this

case deposed about the investigation done by him in this case.

22. PW5 during his cross-examination adnitted that PWi did not

mention in Ex.Pl as well as her statement before hin1 how she got

acquaintance with the accused. That Thilak Nagar is having only one

Beat and approximately consisting of 500 residential houses. He admitted

that he did not examine the neighbours of PW1's house. He admitted that

PWI did not mention in Ex.PI as well as her statement before him that

how she got acquaintance with LW2, LW4. PW2 and PW3. That except

PW2, all other eye witnesses are not belongs to caste of the PW1 and he

adds that they all belong to one street. That LW2 is resident of Vittal

Nagar. That Vittal Nagar and Thilaknasar are not one and the same. He

admitted that at the lime of alleged inciden. PWI alone is present and

later, LW2, LW4, PW2 and PW3 came ihere That he do not remember

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 11 of 18

whether there is a Pochamma temple near the house of PWL. He admitted

that in Ex.P2 the said Pochamma temple was Dot mentioned. That on the

he preparcd CDF btil he do iot kuow whether

date of alleged incident.

any lunction was going on in Pochamma tempre. That the CDF was not

He admitted that he mentioned the

drawn by him at the house of PWI

house of PWi in Ex.P2. That as per Ex.P2 there is no School 1car the

house of PW1. He admitted that he did not examine the Kiranam shop

0oW about the

OWner. That he do not emember how he cahe

of PWI in Ex.P2. That he examined and recorded

neighbouring houses

the statements of PW2. PW3. LW2 and LW4 on the same date of lodging

Ex.Pl prior to conducting of Ex.P2. He admitted that PWI to PW3, LW2

and LW4 did not state before him that they will identify the accused if

shown to them and he adds that they know (he accused. He admitted

that PWi to PW3. LW2 and Lw4 did not state before him that the

accused is known person to them. 1hat the house of LW5 was mentioned

in Ex.p2. That on right side nerc S road which leads to Mecseva centre

and left side the house of one Swaiy is situated. He admitted that no one

stated to him that while they were cutting goat at Pochamma ternple. the

alleged incident took place. That he do not remember whether there is

any festival on the date of alleged inncident. He admitted that as per his

investigation, the incident occurTed a (he Lo se

PVL. That PWI is

residing along with her children in her house. That he did not investigate

CC No.339 of 2018

presence of children of PWI at the time of alleged

Page No. 12 of 18 incident. That he cannot say the distance between the house of PWl and with regard to the

PW4. That the scene of offence is situated beside the Mori on the road was not

He admitted that Ex.P2

which leads to Meeseva centre.

per Ex.P, PWI did not

Conducted near the house of PW1. That as

mention about the date and time ol threatening of the accused by

entering into her house. That PWI nled Ex.P but he do not know who

drafted it. That he sent the FIR along with complaint through the Court

constable to the Court by handing over the same to him on the date of its

registration but it reached the Court on 12.07.2018 at 4.00 p.m.. That

there is gap of (04) days in transmitting the same to the Court. He admitted that PW1 to PW3. Lw2 and LWA did not state to him about the

specific abusive words used by the accused towards PW1. He admitted

that on seeing PWl to PW3. LW) and LWA the accused fled away irom

the scene of offence. He admitted thait pW did not state to him that upo

threatening of the accused, she went inside tae house by closin8 tie

and cries, thereupon hearing of noise. doors of the house and made hues she came out.

The first charge against the Sole accuscd is for - the offence

23.

Section 354-D of

punishable under Section 354-D of IPC i.c..

Stalking.

IPC defines Stalking and it reads thus:

(1) Any man who

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 13 of 18

( Jollows a woman and coniacts. Or alienpis lo

woman to foster personal iunleraction

repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by

Contact such

Such Woman: or

(ii) monitors the use bu a woman o/ the Iiternet.

email or any other formn of electronic. c0muication.

commits the offence of stalking:

provided that such conduct shall not anoiul to stalking if

the nan who pursued it proves that

(0 it was pursued for the purpose of preventig or

detecting crme and the man aCcused of stalking had

been entrusted with the responsibilits of prevention

and detection of crime by the State: or

(i) it was pursued under any law or to comply with

any condition or requirement impOsed by any person

under any law: or

(iil in the particular crcumstances such conduct was

reasonable and justified.

(2) whoever commits the offence of stalkiung shall be punished on

first conviction with imprisorment of either 'escription for a termn

which maå extent to three years, and shall also be liable to fine:

and be punished on a secOld or subseguent conviction. with

imprisonment of either �escrption for term which maå extend to

fve years and shall also be liable to fine

24. Now, from the evidermce avalable on record. it has been seen as lo whether the prosecution is abie to establish the Þuilt of ihe accused Tor the olfences punishable under seClions 354-D and 506 of IPC.

On perusal of the evidence of 3. there are a lot of 25.

Page No. 14 of 18 not

contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and their evidence is

corroborating with cach other. For instance, PWI deposed that accused

came to her house and threatened her with dire consequences lo kill her

if she do not listen to his words. then sne made hues and cries by closing

the doors, then Lws.2 to 5 came there, mmediately. she came outside the

house and informed the same to Lws.2 to 5 and the accused fled away

from there. Thus, it is the version of PWI that she informed about the

alleged incident and threatening of the accused to Lws.2 to 5. Whereas,

PW2/LW3 deposed that in the month of July. 2018. while himself, LW2.

LW4 and LW5 were cutting goat at about 10.00 A.M. one scooty stopped

in front of the house of PWl and some discussions were going on in

between the accused and PWI which turned into heated discussion and

on seeing the same. himself. LW2. LWA and LW5 went there and in their

presence, the accused stated to PW1 that he

will pay mney and look

after her well and heed his words othoeiee the accused will kill her and

immediately. she went into the house a and later himself. LW2. LW4 and

LW5 left that

place. Thus, it is

PW2 that accused of the version

threatencd PWI in the presence of himsel LW2. LW4 and LW5. PW5

during his crOSS-Cxamination admited 1hal no one stated to him that

while they were cutling goat at Pochamma temple. the alleged incident

took place. Furher, PW2 deposed hat accused statcd to PWl that he will

pay money and look after her wel. but the sane is n0t deposcd by PWI

Page No. 15 of 18

CC No.339 of 2018

before this Court. Moreover pw diamo depose anylhing ab0ut the

fleeing of the accused from the somscfonce PW3 who is another eye

wilness to the alleged incident denosed ihat while he was proceeang t0

Kiranam shop, meanwhile, some galata took place between PWI anld ie

accused and the aCCUsed using abusive words towards PW1 as to wny

PWI is not talking with and not responding to him. otherwise, the

accused will kill PWi and later. PWl went inside of her house. That

himself, LW2, PW2 and LW4 witnessed the incid nt. That on seeing them,

the accused fled away from there. Thus, it is the version of PW3 that he

witnessed the alleged incident and that it occurred in his presence, which

is contradictory to the version of PW1 that she infornmed PW3 about the

alleged incident. Further. PW2 deposed that in he month of July, 2018.

while himself. LW2. LW4 and LW5 were cutting goat at about 10.00 A.M.

the alleged incident took place. Wnereas, Pw3 deposed that while he was

proceeding to Kiranam shop, the aleged incident look Dlace

None of the prosecution wilnesses deposed about the registration

26.

number, model or colour of the ooy by which the accused came to the

place of alleged offence.

1l is mentioned in the Crine Details orm hat the place of 27.

is shown by PWI Whereas. W4 during his

OCCUrrence

CrosS examination deposed that at the COnducting Ex.P2, hinnself and LW7

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 16 of 18 were present. eXcept them no other persOns along with two police men were present.

PW5 during his cross-examiaon admnitted that PWs.1 to 3. Lws.2

28.

and 4 have not stated to him about tne specific abusive words used by

the accused towards PW1.

29. PW5 during his cross-examination admitted that as per his

investigation. the incident occurred at the house of PWI. That PW1 is

residing along with her children in her house. That he has not

investigated with regard to the presence of children of PWI at the time of

alleged incident.

30. PW5 during his cross-examination admitted that as per Ex.Pl. PWi

has not mentioned about the date and time of threatening of the accused

by entering into her house.

31. PW5 during his cross-examinaiion 9dmitted that the scene of

offence is situated beside the mori On the road which leads to Meeseva

centre. Whereas, on perusal of the evidence of PW1. the alleged offence

OCCurred at the house of PW1. PW5 during his cross-examination

admitted that Ex.P2 was not conducted near the 10use of PW1.

PWI during her croSS-examination deposed (hat Dx. Pl was drafted

32.

by the Police but she do not know his hame. Thal on her dictation, Ex.P]

Page No. 17 of 18

CC No.339 of 2018

was scibed by the Police PuVE daris his cross-examinaton depost

that PWI filed Ex.PI but he do not know who draticd it. He denied the

suggestion that Ex.Pl was scribed by the Poli

33.

On perusal of the evidence of Pwl. sh deposeddbout the alleget

incidernt which took place on 08 07 2018. Whereas. it is the case ol the

prosecution that the accused followed the de facto complainant/PWI Tor

one weck prior to lodging of report/Ex.Pl mad gestres and signals with

mala-fde intention and misbehaved with her. but PWI has not deposed

before this Court about the alleged following and making ol gestures and

signals by the accused and misbehavior towards her. PWi during her

cross-examination admitted that she has not mentioned in Ex.Pl as well

as in her statement bcfore the police. he specitic overt acts played by the

accused.

For the foregoing reasons. ne proseCution has miserably failed to 34.

bring home the guilt of the acetsed beyond all reasonable doubt for the

ofences punishable under Seeuos 354-D and 506 of IPC and thereby.

.ho ace1 sed is entitled tor an acquittal. Accordingly. the point is

answered.

In the result, the Accused is foumd Iiot guilty for the offences 35. punishable under sections 354-D and 506 of IPC and he is acquitted

under section 2481) Cr.P.C. tor the above said carges. The bail bonds of

CC No.339 of 2018

Page No. 18 of 18 the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

personal laptop. corrccted and

me, directly on my

pronounccd by me in the open Court. on this the 06" day of April. 2023.

Typed by

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrate ofFirst Class.

Godavarikhani 1- \ddl. Junior Civil Judge-cum

FAC:

I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE DEFENCE: FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PWl � Nimmala Swarupa None

PW2 - B. Rajkunmar

PW3 � Mekala Ani! Kumar

PW4 - Avunuri Rambabu

PW5 - Upendar Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.Pl - is the report.

Ex.P2 - Is the Crime Details Form.

Ex.P3- Is the FIR.

FOR THE DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

Nil

Principal Junipr Civil Judge-cum

Judicial Magistrale of First Class.

Godavarikhani

FAC: I-Addl. Jnior Civil JudgC-cum

OS No. 104 of 2018

Page No.l of

IN THE coURT OF THE PRLJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:- Ms.Thiruchinapalli S P Bhargavi, -Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- I-Addl. Judi.Magistrate of First Class

Godavarikhani.

FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl.Magistrate of First Class

Godavarikhani.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

ORIGINAL SUIT No.104 of 2018

Between:- Peddola Ramesh S/o.Komaraiah, Age 32 years, Occupation Nil, R/o.H.No.5-4-192/1, Narrasalapalli village of Ramagundam mandal of Peddapalli District Plaintiff AND

1. The General Manager, RG-1, SCCL, Godavarikhani

2. To whom so ever it may concern.

Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 11.11.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Smt.Ch.Sailaja learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendants No.l and 2 remained ex-parte; and the matter having stood over till this day for eonsideration, this Court delivered the

following

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare the plaintiff as the legal heir of the deceased Peddola Mallamma.

2

It is averred in the plaint that the father of the plaintiff namely

Komaraiah was employee in Singareni Collieries Company Limited and he died long back. That after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the mother of the plaintiff namely Mallamma has joined in the SCCL under dependent employment and she died on 01.10.2017.

That the father of the plaintiff was blessed with four children, two male and two female children and that two female children got married. That one son namely Srinivas died at the age of 16 and the bharqui

OS No. 104 of 2018

Page 2 of4 That after death of the mother of the plaintiff is another son. plaintiff, the plaintiff applied 1o amily members certificate before

That on revenue authorities and they 1C the said certificate.

letter to the 19.01.2018 the defendant no. authority issued a plaintiff stating that the said Mallamma died and to apply for the benefits within one year. That ater taking the said certificate and letter from the employer of the deceased, the plaintiff has applied for dependent employment before delendant No.1 but they advised the plaintiff to get the legal heir certilicate from the competent Court.

Hence the suit.

3. After receipt of summons, the defendant No.1 appeared before this Court and engaged counsel but did not choose to file written statement within the stipulated period in spite of conditional order.

Hence, the defendant No.1 is set ex-parte. No one appeared before this Court as Defendant No.2 (To whomsoever it may concern) even after a publication was made for Defendant No.2 in Nava Telangana daily news paper dated: 17.02.2020 and accordingly Defendant No.2 was set ex-parte.

+. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

PW1 and also examined his sisters by name Eligeti Krishnaveni and

Golishetti Laxmi as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Ex.Al to Ex.A3.

5 Heard the learned counsel for the plaintift

6. Perused the record.

Now the point for determination is:

.

Whether the plaintiff is the ledal heir of the deceased Peddola Mallamma?

harqan

Page No.3 of 4

OS No.104 of 20183

8. To prove its case, the plaint untiff has examined himself as PW1

and and also examined his siste

isters by name Eligeti Krishnaveni and

Golishetti Laxmi as PW-2 and pw-3 respectively and Bou

Ex.Al to Ex.A3 on his behalf. Ex.A-1 is the death certificate of

Mallamma dated 13.10.2017. Er A-2 is the death certificate

or Srinivas dated 25.05.2018. Ex.A3 is the Family members certificate

dated 31.05.2018.

9

Onperusal of Ex.A1 is the original death certificate of

Mallamma, dated:13.10.2017, showing that Peddola Mallamma died

on 01.10.2017 in Deccan hospital at Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

10. On perusal of Ex.A-2 is the death certificate of Peddola

Srinvias, dated:25.05.2018 showing that Peddola Srinivas who is the

son of the Komuraiah died on 12.04.2000.

11. On perusal of Ex.A3 is the Family members certificate, dated:

31.05.2018 issued by the Tahasildar, Ramagundam showing that the plaintiff herein and Peddola Krishnaveni/PWW-2 and Peddola

Laxmi/Pw-3 are the family members of Pedddola Mallamma

W/o.Komuraiah.

12. Further, the plaintiff examined his sisters by name Eligeti

Krishnaveni and Golishetti Laxmi as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively who deposed in their chief-examinanon affidavit that after the death of their mother, their brother wno 1s the plaintiff herein applied for dependent employment in the derendant company but they advised to get legal heir certificate. That uiey have no objection if this Hon'ble

Court issues legal heir certificale to their brother i.e.. plaintiff herein

harngaui

OS No. 104 of 2018

Page 4 of 4 by declaring that the plaintiff 1s ule only legal heir of the deceased

Mallamma, as they got marrieu and living with their husband respectively. Hence, from the eviaence of PWi to PW-3 coupled with the documents under Ex.Al to .A-3, it is established that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Peddola Mallamma

W/o.Komuraiah. Further, the evidence of PW1 to PW-3 coupled with

Ex.A1 to Ex.A-3 remained unchallenged and unrebutted by the defendants. Hence. the suit claim is proved. Accordingly the point is answered.

IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed by declaring 3.

that the plaintiff is the legal heir of the deceased Peddola Mallamma.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-IlI, directly on computer corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

Araraahu2)

-ADDL.JUNÓR �IVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C..

GODAVARIKHANI

FAC: PRLJUNIOR CVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C..

GODAVARIKHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF(s): FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

Nil PW1 -Peddola Ramesh PW2 Eligeti Krishnaveni PW2 Golishetti Laxmi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFs:

Ex.A-1 is the death certificate of Mallamma dated 13.10.2017. Ex.A-2 is the death certificate of Srinvias dated 25.05.2018. Ex.A-3 is the Family members certificate dated 31.05.2018,

FOR THE DEFENDANT(s):

Nil.

-ADDLJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

GODAVARIKHANI.

FAC: PRLJUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

GODAVARIKHANI.

THE AT GODAVARIKHANI

BEFORE section 90 of the Legal services Athorities Act, 198)

(Referreð

under

JUDGE:.MS. TSp BHARGAVI,

PRESIDING � JUDGE-CUM-

PRESIDNG PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

cODAVARIKHANT.

ADDITIONAL. CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUNIOR

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

RAC: I

IADDITIONAL JUDICIAL

GODAVARIKHANT

IOK-ADALATH MEMBERS:1). Soi evas Advp (a R

2). Snnt V. Vaa laLn, Advo ate

THURSDAY, THE 31st DAY OF MARCH, 2023.

C.C NO. 8 oF 202 J.M.F.C. Godavarikhani) (on the file of I LOK-ADALATH CASE NO, 52 OF 2023

Between 1| The State through SHO of Police station

...Complainant

(Crime No 38 of 20 9) ...Defaco complainant

AND

katay

....Accused

AWARD U/S.21 OF LEGAL SERVCES AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 whereas the complainant and the accused person (s) have appeared before Lok

Adalath through a separate petition and the complainant has voluntarily compounded the offences punishable under sections 458-9, sol against the accused person (S). The Lok Adalath have considered the matter and permitted the complainant to compound the matter and accordingly such composition is eeorded ana award 1s passed as per the terms settled between the parties. The accused iolos ooguitted of ne above said offences under section 320 (8) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the acCused il shall stand cancelled.The unmarked non valuable property í any shall be destroved forthwil. The marked/unnmakred valuable property if any shall be returmed to its owner according to law.

TERMS OF COMPPOMISE IF ANY

SIGNATURES OF THE ACCUSED PERSON (S)

SIGNATURE OF THE COMPLAINANT

(

ACCUSED IS/ARE IDENTIFIED BY

COMPLAINANT IS IDENTIFIED BY

Given under our hands and the under the seal of Lok-Adalath on this the

31* day of March, 2023 at Godavarikhani.

SIGNATURE OF THE MEMBERS :

1).

2). M.Vavalannlo

PRESIDING JUDGE-CUM

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM

MAGISTRATE

JUDICIAL

GODAVARIKHANI.

OF FIRST CLASS,

FAC: I ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

GODAVARIKHANI.

OF FIRST CLASS,

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C. : AT : GODAVARIKHANI

Present:Ms.Thiruchinapalli S P Bhargavi Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani FAC: I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

THURSDAY, ON THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

CC NO.127 OF 2018

Between: The State through SHO of PS NTPC

... Complainant

AND

1) A.1 - Manupati Naresh Address - Erukala, r/o Bheemunipatnam, NTPC, now at H.No. 4-6-68, Crushernagar, NTPC.

2) A2 - Gurijala Prabhu @ Prabhu dasu M.Kapu, r/o Crushernagar, NTPC

3) A3 - Suripogu Chinna Naga Mala, r/o Crushernagar, NTPC

4) A4 - Shaik Mohammed Ali Muslim, r/o Ayodhyanagar, Ramagundam.

… Accused

:: D O C K E T O R D E R ::

A1 to A.4 are called present. Judgment pronounced in open Court ( Vide separate one). In the result, Accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under SEction 248(1) Cr.P.C for the above said charge. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 4, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked property i.e., Mini Ashok Leyland Van bearing No.AP.15.TB.8743 and Mini Ashok Leyland Van bearing No. TS.22.T.1393 which were returned to its original owners shall holds good after expiryof appeal time. The sale proceeds of the iron scrap weighing 7700 kgs in this case shall be confiscated to the state after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III, directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31 st day of March, 2022.

Sd/­ Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­

Judicial Magistrate of F.C.,

Godavarikhani FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge­cum I­Addl.Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Godavarikhani.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AT GODAVARIKHANI.

PRESENT:­ Ms.Thiruchinapalli S P Bhargavi,

I­Addl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ I­Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class FAC: Prl.Junior Civil Judge­cum­ Judl.Magistrate of First Class Godavarikhani.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

E.P.NO.66 OF 2021

IN

ARB NO.680 OF 2017

Between: M/s.Margadarsi Chit Fund Private Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, D.Umapathi S/o.Muralaiah, Age: 55 years, R/o.NTPC, Jyothinagr, Karimnagar District. …..Award Holder/Decree holder AND 1].Datla Swapna W/o.Mahesh Age: 31 years, Occupation: Prem Chetan Raj Online Service Centre, Gouthaminagar, Fertilizer City, R/o.H.No.12­4­ 165, Elkalapalli Gate, Fertilizer City, Peddapalli District 2].Laxetti Narsaiah S/o.Rajaiah Age: 56 years, Occupation Coal cutter, GDK 11A incline, The Singareni collieries company Limited, RG­I Peddapalli District, R/o.H.No.17­4­456/2, Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District 3].Panuganti Rajalingam S/o.Bheemaiah, Age: 45 years, Occupation Security Guard, S & PC Department, The Singareni collieries company Limited, RG­II, Peddapalli District, R/o.Q.No.D­2261, Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

4].Dasari Mahesh S/o.Shankar Age: 31 years, Occupation : Supervisor, M/s.Shiva company society, Thilak Nagar, Godavarikhani, R/o.H.No.12­ 4­165, Elkalapally Gate, Fertilizer City, Peddapalli District. 5].Matta Venkata Basaveshwara Rao S/o.M.V.Subba Rao, Age: 51 years, Occupation Electrician helper, Adriyala LWP, The Singareni collieries company Limited, RG­III, Peddapalli District, R/o.H.No.18­4­58/2, Sagara Veedhi, Godavarikhani. 6].Erukulla Veeranna S/o.Vishwanadham Age: 62 years, Occupation Prop.M/s.Rajesh Kiranam & General Stores, Addaguntapalli, Godavarikhani, R/o.H.No.17­6­10/B, Addaguntapalli, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District …...Opponents /Judgment Debtors

:: O R D E R ::

Salary attachment warrant of JDR No.5 is executed in the office of JDR

No.5. Hence E.P. is terminated.

Typed to my Dictation by the Stenographer Grade­III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 19th day of November, 2021.

SD/­ I­ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ I­ADDL.JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C., FAC: PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

GODAVARIKHANI.