T Suhasini

1 S.C. 346 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present:-Smt.T.Suhasini, Asst. Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC.Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

Friday the 8th day of Novembver, 2019.

S.C. No. 346 of 2016

CRIME NO. 139/2015

Name of the complainant.The State of Telangana through, Station House Officer, P.S. Ramchandrapuram.

Description of the accused. Nireekshan Rao S/o. Venkata Ratnam Age 50 years, R/o.Ramchandrapuram.

Charge.U/S.307 IPC.

Plea of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty.

Sentence or order.Accused found not guilty for the offence U/S.307 IPC and acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySri D.Rlaghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri M.K.Nizamuddin, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri

D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.K.Nizamuddin, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T:

1.The Station House Office, Police Station Ramchandrapuram laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.139/2015 of Police Station

Ramchandrpuram for the offence U/S.307 IPC.

2.The brief averments mentioned in the charge sheet are that on 20- 3-2015 at about 20-30 hours the defacto-complainant by name G.Aliya 2 S.C. 346 OF 2016 came to the police station and lodged a complaint alleging that his cousin’s wife namely: Rajyam W/o. Ravi Kumar as she was living on second floor of his house since seven months as a tenant and working as contract worker in BHEL. The accused also residing behind the portion of

Rajyam and he developed illegal intimacy with the said Rajyam and subsequently disputes arose between them. That on 20-3-2015 at about 4-00 P.M. while the said Rajyam was in the balcony the accused came there with an intention to kill her, pushed her and she received injuries to her mouth, nose, upper lip, right hand and also received injury to her chest. Immediately the complainant, his wife and brother-in-law

Nachariah took her to ESI hospital for treatment.

Basing on the complaint lodged by the complainant police registered the case in Crime No.139/2015 and issued Ex.P4 FIR and investigated into. During the course investigation the Sub-Inspector of

Police recorded the statements of LWs1, 4 and 5 and also Pws.1 and 2, visited the scene of offence conducted Ex.P5 scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators and obtained their signatures on it. That he visited Indo US Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad and recorded the statement of PW3 U/S.161 Cr.P.C. That on 21-3-2015 he effected the arrest of the accused and sent him to the court for judicial custody, that he collected Ex.P6 medical certificate of PW3 and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. The committal court after following due procedure committed

P.R.C.90/2015 to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Medak Division at

Sangareddy since the offence U/S.307 IPC. is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy 3 S.C. 346 OF 2016 made over the present Sessions case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.The learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence for the offence U/S.307 IPC. in P.R.C.No.

90/2015. As the case is exclusively triable by of the Court of Session, committed the same to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak

Division at Sangareddy after following the procedure laid in Section 209

Cr.P.C. The case was registered in S.C.No. 346/2016 against the accused for the same offence and made it over to this court for disposal according to law.

5.On hearing the accused and after perusal of the record, a charge for the offence U/S. 307 IPC. has been framed readover and explained to the accused in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6 documents and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused is examined

U/S.313 Cr.P.C.,explaining the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and reported that he has no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard on both side.

8.The point stood for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S.307 of IPC. beyond all reasonable doubts?

4 S.C. 346 OF 2016

POINT:-

9.The defacto-complaiant/PW1 lodged a complaint with the police,

Ramchandrapuram that on 20-3-2015 at about 4-00 P.M. his sister

Rajyam’s clothes were lying on wire, the accused intentionally pushed

Rajyam, and she fell down from the second floor and sustained injuries on her face, hand and chest immediately she was shifted to ESI Hospital,

Ramchandrapuram and police registered a case for the offence U/S.307

IPC.

10. As could be seen from the evidence of PW1 who is cited as eye witness to the incident by the prosecution deposed that on 20-3-2019 at about 4-00 P.M. he returned from the college and was talking with LW6

Rajyam in the ground floor, he saw suddenly a lady fell down from the second floor and on verification she was LW6, he looked-up and saw the accused standing in the balcony. Immediately, he himself and others shifted LW6 to the ESI Hospital, Ramchandrapuram and some persons went upstairs and caught-hold the accused. Subsequently, he came to know from his mother that there was money transaction between the accused and LW6/Rajyam and accused had spread rumours against the character of LW6 and a quarrel took place between them the accused with an intention to kill Rajyam/LW6 pushed her and she sustained injuries and it comes to the cross-examination he clearly stated that he does not know anything about this case and police did not examine him.

11. PW2 who is friend of PW1 deposed that on 20-3-2015 when he was speaking with PW1 in front of his house at about 4-00 P.M. at that time LW6 was fallen from the second floor and when he looked-up he 5 S.C. 346 OF 2016 saw the accused in the balcony and LW6 sustained injuries and they shifted her to ESI Hospital, Ramchandrapuram. The accused pushed

LW6 with an intention to kill her. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know about this case and police did not examine him.

12. As could be seen from the evidence of PW3 who is the injured deposed that about four years back she fell down from the second floor and she was shifted to the hospital and the police did not examine her.

Since, the witness resiled from her earlier stand, the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine her, in the cross- examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor she deposed that she did not state to the police as in Ex.P2.

13. As could be seen from the evidence of PW4 who is the

Investigating Officer, he deposed about the investigation done by him in chronological event about receiving complaint dated: 20-3-2015, registering the case in Crime No.139/2015 for the offence U/S.307 IPC.

and issued Ex.P4 FIR. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 and 2, Lws.1, 4 and 5 and visited the scene of offence, conducted Ex.P5 scene of offence panchanama in the presence of panch witnesses, that he visited the Indo-US Hospital and recorded the statement of PW3. That on 21-3-2015 during the investigation he apprehended the accused and sent him to the court for judicial custody, after collecting medical report and completion of investigation he filed the charge sheet.

14. Pws.1 and 2 who were cited as eye witnesses by the prosecution, though deposed in their chief-examination that PW3 was on the second floor and the accused pushed her, as such she sustained injuries and she 6 S.C. 346 OF 2016 was shifted to the hospital. From the evidence of PW1 in chief, he deposed that he returned from the college and when he was talking with

LW6, suddenly he saw a lady has fell down from second floor he went to her and found the said lady is LW6. He clearly stated that when he was talking LW6 a lady was fell down, in such a case it is not possible for LW6 to go-up and fell down from the second floor. Pws.1 and 2 further deposed in their chief that after the lady fell down from the second floor they looked-up and saw the accused in the second floor, but they have not stated that they have seen the accused while pushing PW3 from the second floor. Since, the witnesses resiled from their earlier stand and make to use inconsistent statement, it is not safe to rely on their evidence. More over, the injured/PW3 herself deposed before this court that she fell down from the second floor. From the evidence of Pws.1 to 3, it is not established the accused is responsible for the alleged incident and there is no iota of evidence either oral or documentary to connect the accused with the alleged crime. After careful scanning of both oral and documentary evidence i.e. Exs.P1 to P6, I hold that the prosecution utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

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

U/S.307 IPC and he is acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.

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

me in the open Court on this the 8th day of November, 2019.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC.Asst.Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

7 S.C. 346 OF 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION. DEFENCE.

PW1 B.Bharath.Nil.

PW2 Nancharaiah.

PW3 Rajyam.

PW4 M.Praveen, Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED.

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P3 Complaint.

Ex.P4 FIR.

Ex.P5 Scene of offence panchanama.

Ex.P6 Medical Certificate of PW3 issued bt Dr.L.Salman.

MATERIAL OBJECTS.

Nil.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medak. FAC.Asst.Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.

8 S.C. 346 OF 2016

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE;

SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: SMT. T. SUHASINI, Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

DATE 20th DAY OF MAY, 2015

C.C. No. 1106 OF 2012

Between:-

The State through P.S. Ramachandrapuram. … Complainant

A n d

1) Mukkidi Ramulu S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 30 years, R/o Chinthalcheruvu(v).

2) Mohd. Yousuf S/o Quthbuddin, Aged: 42 years, R/o Asifnagar, Hyderabad.

3) Shaik Fareed S/o Shaik Abdulla, Aged: 45 years, R/o Langer house, Hyderabad.

4) Md. Akber S/o Babu Miyan, Aged: 27 years, R/o Peddakanjarla(v).

5) Md. Iqbal S/o Jhani, Aged: 40 years, R/o Himayathnagar(v).

6) Md. Rizwan Khan S/o Habeeb Khan, Aged: 30 years, R/o Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad.

7) Laxmagoni Surender Goud S/o Anja Goud, Aged: 30 years, R/o Madaram(v).

8) Mohd. Kamar S/o Latheef, Aged: 30 years, R/o Kistareddypet(v). … Accused

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of A.P.P.O. for the Complainant/State and of Sri M. Vijay Raj, learned counsel for the Accused upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing both sides, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The accused are sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P.

Walta Act, in Cr.No.507 of 2012 of P.S. Ramachandrapuram.

2 The gravemen charges leveled against the accused are that on 14-11-2012 at 21:30 hours the de facto-complainant A.

Srinivas, PC 1584 of P.S. Ramachandrapuram lodged a complaint stating that on 14-11-2012 he along with HG 100 were performing day beat duty and they are moving in Raghavendra colony, Bheeramguda area at about 20:00 hours the lorry drivers bearing No. AP 23 V 5330, AP 29 T 3780 and AP 23 V 9369 were transporting sand in the said lorries, on seeing them they left the lorries near Sunday Market and escaped from there, the accused lorry drivers and owners were illegally transporting the filter sand in the said lorries without having any permission from Government and they are damaging water sources, and requested to take action against them.

On the basis of the above compliant, the Investigating

Officer, LW-10 registered a case in Cr.No. 507 of 2012, under

Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act. During the course of investigation, LW-10 examined and recorded the statements, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of panchas and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of panchas, seized the crime vehicles i.e. the lorries bearing Nos.AP 23 V 5330,

AP 29 T 3780 and AP 23 V 9369. The accused were apprehended, on interrogation they confessed the offence, and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of

I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act.

2. On appearance before the Court, the accused were furnished with all copies of documents as provided u/s 207

Cr.P.C. The accused were examined u/s 239 Cr.P.C. for the 3 offence punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act. A charge for the offences under Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act, framed, read over and explained to the accused, for which, the accused pleaded not guilty and preferred a trial.

3.The prosecution, to prove its case, examined \ Pw-1 to

Pw-7 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-7.

4.As there is no incriminating material against the accused, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with.

5.Heard both sides.

6.Now, the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act?

7.POINT:-

PW1 is the panch for scene of offence has not supported the case of the prosecution stating that Police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in his presence.

Ex.P-1 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that Police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence, read over to him and he signed on it and now deposing false before Court.

8.PW2 is the panch for confessional panchanama has not supported the case of the prosecution stating that Police did 4 not conduct confessional panchanama in his presence. Ex.P-2 is his signature on confessional panchanama.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that Police conducted confessional panchanama in his presence, read over to him and he signed on it and now deposing false before Court.

9.PW3 is another panch for confessional panchanama has also not supported the case of the prosecution stating that

Police did not conduct confessional panchanama in his presence. Ex.P-3 is his signature on confessional panchanama.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that Police conducted confessional panchanama in his presence, read over to him and he signed on it and now deposing false before Court.

10.PW-4 who is cited as witness has not supported the case of the prosecution stating that he don't know anything about this case.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-4 and now deposing false before Court.

11.PW-5 who is cited as witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution stating that he don't know anything about this case.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied 5 the suggestion that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-5 and now deposing false before Court.

12.PW-6 who is cited as another witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution stating that he don't know anything about this case.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that he stated before Police as in Ex.P-6 and now deposing false before Court.

13.PW7 is the another panch for scene of offence has also not supported the case of the prosecution stating that Police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in his presence. Ex.P-7 is his signature on scene of offence panchanama.

During cross examination by the learned A.P.P. nothing could be elicited in support of prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that Police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence, read over to him and he signed on it and now deposing false before Court.

14.The other listed witnesses are not examined by the prosecution. The crucial witnesses who are witnesses, panch witnesses for confessional panchanama and scene of offence panchanama themselves did not support the case of the prosecution and retracted from their earlier stand. As there is no incriminating material against the accused the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. dispensed with. There is no iota of evidence to connect the accused 6 with the crime. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

11.In the result, the accused is found NOT GUILTY for the offence punishable under Sections 379 of I.P.C. & Sec. 27/35 of A.P. Walta Act, and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED under section 248(1)Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are hereby discharged. Un- marked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, Gr.II corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 20 th day of May, 2015.

Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE; None

PW-1 Rajasekhar PW-2 Abdul Nayeem PW-3 Yousuf PW-4 Venkatesh PW-5 Prabhu PW-6 Shankaraiah PW-7 Jani Miya

Exhibits marked for PROSECUTION:DEFENCE; Nil

Ex.P-l signature of PW-1 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-2 signature of PW-1 on the confessional panchanama Ex.P-3 signature of PW-1 on the confessional panchanama Ex.P-4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4 Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5 Ex.P-6 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6 Ex.P-7 signature of PW-7 on the scene of offence panchanama

Material Objects marked for -Nil-

Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

1 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY.

Present:-Smt. A.Neeraja,

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

Thursday the 31st day of October, 2019.

O.S.No. 192 of 2016.

Between:-

Baindla Pentaiah S/o. Late Sailu @ Sayanna, Age 43 years, R/o.H.No.74 Cheriyal(v), Kandi Mandal. Plaintiff. And.

1.Baindla Buchaiah S/o. Late Sailu @ Sayanna, Age 50 years,

2. Cheemaldari Ramchandraiah S/o. Bakkaiah, Age 70 years,

3. Cheemaldari Mallesham S/o. Ch.Ramchandraiah, Age 45 years,

4. Baindla Durgamma W/o. Late Anjaiah, Age 45 years, All R/o.Cheriyal(v), Kandi Mandal.

Defendants.

This suit is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of

Sri G.Ravinder, Advocate for the Plaintiff, defendants set-exparte, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T:

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property.

2. The plaint averments in brief are that one Baindla Balaiah was the common ancestor of the parties. The said Baindla Balaiah died long back leaving behind his two sons namely: Sailu @ Sayanna and

Ramulu and he left the land in Sy.No.170/5 admeasuring Ac.5-00 situated at Cheriyal(v), Mandal Kandi. The said Ramulu died un- married. After the death of common ancestor of the said land was 2 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 mutuated in the name of his son Sailu @ Sayanna. The said Sailu @

Sayanna also died leaving behind his two sons i.e. plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his only legal heirs and successors, as such the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are Hindu Joint Family co-parceners and

Hindu Law governs on them. The joint family inherited the land in

Sy.No.170/5 admeasuring Ac.5-00 situated at Cheriyal(v), from their ancestor by way of succession. There is no partition and separate possession of the above said property in between the parties with metes and bounds, the said land is subject matter of the suit which is hereinafter called as suit schedule land.

It is further submitted that the suit schedule land is ancestral property and the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoying the usufructs from the suit schedule land.

Thus the suit land is co-parcenary property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The father of the plaintiff namely: Sailu @ Sayanna is elder in the family and he was maintaining the joint family undivided property as elders and Kartha of the family and his name was entered in the revenue records as owner. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and taken away the shares of the crops. After the death of common ancestor, the land is mutuated and transferred in the name of father of the plaintiff Sailu @ Sayanna since he beingl the elder Kartha and Manager of the joint family. The said Sailu @

Sayanna used to give the yield every year of the crops towards the share of the plaintiff till his death. After the death of plaintiff’s father, the defendant is being the elder and looking after the joint family 3 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 property on behalf of the joint family as Kartha. After that the defendant No.1 who is the elder brother of plaintiff, used to give the yield every year of the crops towards the share of the plaintiff till 2015. Due to sudden increase rates of the land the defendant No.1 stopped in giving the yield of crops to the plaintiff since last year, the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.1 and the defendant avoiding in one way or the other.

The plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 got transferred the suit schedule land in the name of defendants 2 to 4 illegally and the defendants are trying to alienate the suit schedule land to the third parties and illegally entered the name of the defendants in the revenue records. So, the plaintiff demanded defendant No.1 for partition and separate possession of his legitimate share, but the defendant No.1 avoided for the same on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff is entitled share along with the defendant No.1 i.e. half share each in the suit schedule land. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendants did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, the proceedings against defendants went in exparte.

4During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and two other witnesses are examined as Pws.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiff. Perused the record.

4 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

6.Now the point for consideration isthat “whether the

plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and

separate possession in respect of the suit schedule land as claimed by him?

7.It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 with dishonest intention sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 2 to 4 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff. The suit schedule land is not yet partition between the parties and it is the joint family property. The plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 for partition of the suit schedule land, but he refused for partition on one pretext or the other.

8.The defendants did not choose to contest the suit. Hence, they were set ex-parte. Therefore, it can be said that there is no resistance from the defendants to the claim made by the plaintiff over the suit schedule land. However, it is the plaintiff who approached the court, so it is the burden of the plaintiff to establish his case.

9.In order to establish his case the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and also examined two other witnesses as Pws.2 and 3 in chief and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of khasra pahani for the year, 1954-1955. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of ROR for the year 1979-1980. Ex.A3 is the certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of 5 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016 pahani for the year 1990-1991, 1995-1996, 20001-01, 2005-06, 2007- 08, 2010-11 and 2012-2013. Ex.A5 is market value certificate.

10.The above documents proved that plaintiff is having share in suit schedule property and also supports the plaintiff’s version.

These documents of plaintiff remained unrebutted. This documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence of PW.1 to 3 proves the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has established that he is entitled for partition of suit schedule property/land. The sale transactions made by defendant1 No.1 in favour of defendants 2 to 4 are valid only to the extent of their respective shares. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is preliminary decreed without costs dividing the suit schedule property into two equal shares and allotting one such share each to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of October,

2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE.

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF. DEFENDANTS.

PW1 Baindla Pentaiah.Nil.

PW2 Juttu Ramaiah.

PW3 Juttu Lachaiah.

6 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF.

Ex.A1 Certified copy of khasra pahani for the year, 1954-1955.

Ex.A2 Certified copy of ROR for the year 1979-1980.

Ex.A3 Certified copy of ROR for the year 1989-1990.

Ex.A4 Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-1991, 1995-1996, 2001- 2001, 2005-06, 2007-08, 2010-11 and 2012-2013.

Ex.A5 is market value certificate.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS.

Nil

Senior Civil Judge,

Sangareddy.

7 O.S.NO.192 OF 2016

TSSN030007832015

Presented on : 25-04-2015 Registered on : 20-05-2015 Decided on : 25-05-2015 Duration : 0 years, 1 months, 0 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy

AT SANGAREDDY,MEDAK

CC/200574/2015

PSSangareddy Town Through Police Station Officer PS SANGAREDDY TOWN 33, PSSangareddy Town

SANGAREDDYMEDAK

PSSangareddy Town VERSUS : A1 Ch. Srikanth Age: 0 Occupation : Aged. 26 years, Occu. Business , Ro. H.No. 2-74 2:A2 B Bharathreddy Age: 26 Occupation :

3:A3 R Sreenivas reddy Age: 39 Occupation :

4:A4 A Raju Age: 23 Occupation :

5:A5 G Ramesh Age: 45 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: APP, Advocate for B.Bhoopal reddy appearing for A1 Ch. Srikanth Advocate , appearing for , , 2,3,4,5 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORDER

A1 to A5 are the defaacto complainant are present. The police concerned present and identified the parties and obtained their signatures in my presence. The office alleged punishable u/s 448,427,323 r/w 34 IPC are compoundable. The matter is compromised between the parties on due conciliation before Lok Adalath. The defacto complainant is represented that, he has no grievance against the accused and that, the A1 to A5 may be relieved. Hence the A1 to a5 are acquitted u/s 320/8 cr.p.c for the offence u/s 448,427,323 r/w 34 IPC

Date : 25-05-2015 sd/-

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy

TSSN030002412014

Presented on : 27-01-2014 Registered on : 24-02-2014 Decided on : 20-05-2015 Duration : 1 years, 3 months, 24 days

IN THE COURT OF

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy CC/200151/2014

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): The State of A.P Through P.S Sangareddy-Rural Through Police Station Officer Sangareddy Rural PS 29, The State of A.P Through P.S Sangareddy-Rural

SANGAREDDYSANGAREDDY

The State of A.P Through P.S Sangareddy-Rural VERSUS : Syed Ahmed Age: 0 Occupation : RO Katepally village of pitlam Mandal Medak Dist.

ORDER

Accused is present. Judgment pronounced vide a separate typed one. \ In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s 304/A IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/s 255/ 1 cr.p.c \ The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled and the sureties are here by discharged.

Date : 20-05-2015

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Sangareddy