Smt V.Bhavani, LL.M

1

O.S.NO.287/2010

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT : Smt.V.BHAVANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Tuesday, the day 8 th of August 2017

O.S.287 of 2010

Between:

Mulaparthi Mariyamma, W/o Late Subbrao, age 60 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o Veeravallipalem, Ainavilli Mandal. 

..Plaintiff

And

Korapu Satyanarayana @ Satteyya, S/o Lacchayya, Age 45 years, Hindu, Coolie, R/o Veeravallipalem, Ainavilli Mandal. 

..Defendant

This suit coming on 09.06.2017 for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri.P.Radhakrishna, advocate for plaintiff and of Sri. A.V.S.Prasad, Advocate for

Defendant and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their men and followers from interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and for costs.

2]The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

The plaint schedule property is an extent of Ac.0.10 cents house site in

R.S.No.81 of Veeravallipalem of Ayinavilli mandal. Originally the plaint schedule property belongs to the mother of plaintiff by name Gorre Sattemma. During the life time of plaintiffs mother - Gorre Sattemma , she executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff on 03.06.1998. The said will is last will and testament of the Sattemma.

The said Sattemma died on 17.06.2000. After the death of plaintiff’s mother Sattemma, the will was acted upon by the plaintiff and the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and residing in the thatched house and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Subsequently, the plaintiff constructed a house with the help of AP Housing Corporation and paying 2

O.S.NO.287/2010

house taxes to the Panchayati of Veeravallipalem and enjoyed the schedule property peacefully. The plaintiff also got electrical connection and also paying electrical bills.

The plaintiff is a old lady without any male assistance. Taking taking advantage of her old age defendant is trying to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. On that the plaintiff got issued a registered legal notice to the defendant on 20.04.2010 and again on 25.05.2010. The defendant received legal notice and kept quite. The defendant along with rowdy elements threatening the plaintiff to disposes her from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff cannot resist the highhanded acts of the defendant. Hence, the suit.

3]The defendant filed written statement specifically denying the plaint allegations and further contending that Gorre Krishna Murthy, Adiyya and Samba Murthy of

Veeravallipalem are brothers and that Gorre Adiyya is father of the plaintiff and one

Ventapalli Sundaramma who is not having male issue. The plaint schedule property is ancestral property of the said Krishna Murthy and his brothers who enjoyed the same jointly before they orally partitioned the same. The three brothers enjoying the plaint schedule property jointly partitioned the same orally into three equal shares and each sharer got strip of property measuring 16 X 10 yards. In the said partition Krishna

Murthy got northern share, Adiyya got middle share and Samba Murthy got southern share. As per the said partition each each sharer enjoyed the properties with exclusively rights. The father of the plaintiff and Ventapalli Sundaramma i.e. Adiyya got middle share and enjoyed the same. While so enjoying , Adiyya died intestate leaving behind him his wife Sattemma, the plaintiff and Ventapalli Sundaramma as his next and nearest Class-I heirs. After the death of Adiyya his three heirs came into possession of the same and enjoyed the same with absolute rights by sharing coconut produce.

Subsequently, Sattemma also died intestate without making any arrangement with regard to her undivided 1/3rd share in Adiyya’s property. So, the plaintiff and her sister

Ventapalli Sundaramma after the death of their mother Sattemma enjoying the property of their father which devolved on them equally.

3

O.S.NO.287/2010

He further submits that there used to be a old house in southern share that fell to

Samba Murthy. Sambha Murthy had 2 daughters who are living with their families at their paternal places and after death of Samba Murthy his daughters allowed the family of Adiyya to live in the house of Sambha Murthy. Sambha Murthy’s daughters as they are living some other place gave their share of property to Ventapalli Sundaramma.

Malaka Appalamma who is daughter of Samba Murthy gave a letter on 28.05.2000 to the said Ventapalli Sundaramma stating that she handed over the property of her father to Ventapalli Sundaramma and that she was given right to enjoy the coconut trees in the said property. Since then, Ventapalli Sundaramma enjoyed the coconut trees in the property of Sambha Murthy and Gorre Krishna Murthy. Since then, the said Ventapalli

Sundaramma is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same and getting the coconuts plucked every month to the knowledge of all including the plaintiff and that the middle 1/3rd portion of of schedule property is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma and there is a thatched shed in the said portion, which is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and Ventapalli

Sundaramma.

It is further submitted by the defendant that the mother of plaintiff and Ventapalli

Sundaramma i.e., Sattemma died in the year 2000 and that after her death the plaintiff and her sister Sundaramma enjoyed the property of their father jointly and the plaintiff did not claim exclusive rights over the property and did not state that her mother executed a registered will in her favour and Ventapalli Sundaramma participated in funerals of her mother and the plaintiff and the Ventapalli Sundaramma shared the expenses that were incurred for peforming ceremonies of their mother and Ventapalli

Sundaramma used to look after the welfare of her parents and they used to show much love and affection towards the said Ventapalli Sundaramma and that the alleged will

dated 03.06.1998 is not true and correct and it is created by the plaintiff with the

assistance of alleged attesters and the scribe and the said will is not a true and genuine one and the plaintiff might have impersonated some body before Sub Registrar and created the alleged will and that the alleged will is not acted upon and it did not see the 4

O.S.NO.287/2010

light of day till filing of the earlier suit by the plaintiff in O.S.No.264/2004 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram against her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma and

that prior to filing of the said suit the plaintiff did not claim rights under the said will and moreover, Sattemma is not having absolute rights to execute a will in respect of the plaint schedule property as Adiyya is not having absolute rights over entire plaint schedule property as Adiyya died intestate only only and the 1/3rd share of Adiyya devolved on Satemma and she could make arrangements or alienations only with regard to her 1/3rd undivided share but not to the entire property of Adiyya on that ground also the alleged will is not enforceable one and no rights will be accrued to the plaintiff.

It is further submitted by the defendant that previously the plaintiff with the same allegations of the plaint filed a suit in O.S.No.264/2004 on the file this court against her sister-Ventapalli Sundaramma claiming permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property, basing on the alleged registered will dated 03.06.1998 and the said suit was dismissed as per the decree and judgment dated 23.10.2006 and in the said suit this court clearly given a finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged will dated 03.06.1998 and further given finding that the plaintiff alone is not the absolute owner and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma is having half share and that this court in

O.S.No.264/2004 held that as the plaintiff is not in possession of entire plaint schedule

property she is not entitled for permanent injunction and as as such the said suit was dismissed on merits, subsequently the plaintiff therein who is the present plaintiff preferred appeal in A.S.No.58/2006 and the said appeal was also dismissed on merits as per the decree dated 25.11.2008 and the plaintiff not preferred any second appeal and the said decree and findings in O.S.No.264/2004 became final, subsequently, the plaintiff and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma amicably settled the dispute before elders and orally partitioned the schedule property equally during the year 2009 and in that partition the plaintiff got Ac.0.05 cents and her sister Ventapalli Sundaramma got

Ac.0.05 cents, while so, the said Ventapalli Sundaramma sold her share Ac.0.05 cents to the defendant and executed a registered sale deed dated 07.04.2010 since the date 5

O.S.NO.287/2010

of sale deed the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the half share of the plaint schedule property and that the plaintiff suppressing all these facts filed the suit with false allegations and approached the court with unclean hands and as such she is not entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction.

He further submitted that the plaintiff is not having title and exclusive possession over the entire schedule property and that the plaintiff and the Ventapalli Sundaramma are jointly enjoyed the property of Adiyya and they are co-shares till recently they used to share the proceeds from coconut trees in Adiyya’s property and orally partitioned the property into two equal shares and as purchaser of the share of Ventapalli Sundaramma the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property purchased by him which is part of the plaint schedule property and as the earlier suit was dismissed and the claim of the plaintiff was negatived by this court in the earlier proceedings the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit and the present suit is not maintainable under the principal of resjudicata under section 11 of C.P.C. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

4]Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an equitable relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5]To substantiate the case, the plaintiff herself examined as PW.1, one Saka

Krishna Murthy, , Korapu Krishna Murthy, Naraharisetti Sathibabu (VRO), Rayudu

Lakshmi Narasimha Setty (Panchayat Secretary) were examined as Pws 2 to 5 and

Exs. A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1 were marked on behalf of plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, he himself got examined as DW.1 and one V.Peda Yesubabu as DW.2 and got marked Ex.B.1 during the evidence of PW.1.

6

O.S.NO.287/2010

6]ISSUE NO.1: It is a case of the plaintiff that, during life time of plaintiff’s mother, she executed a registered will in favour of the plaintiff on 03.06.1998, subsequently her mother died on 17.06.2000 and after her death, as per the will, she succeeded to the suit schedule property, since then, she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and paying taxes to the Grampanchayat and as well as paying electricity bills to the Electricity Department. The defendant having no right, title and possession over the schedule property, is trying to interfere with her possession taking advantage of her old age. She is not in a possession to resist the legal acts of the defendants without the aid of the court. In support of her contention, she filed her affidavit in chief before this court and it is nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments. In support of her contentions, the plaintiff relied upon Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4 to Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1. Ex.A.1 is Certified copy of registered will dated 03.06.1998 executed by Gorre Sathamma, Ex.A.4 is Bunch of House tax receipts and demand notices (16 in number), Ex.A.5 is Xerox copy of Ration Card (Compared with original),

Ex.A.6 is Bunch of Electricity payment receipts (14 in number), Ex.A.7 is possession certificate, dated 18.02.2016 issued by VRO, veeravallipalem village. Ex.X.1 is Bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001 -2002, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2015-2016

During cross examination, PW.1 admitted that herself and Ventappli

Sundaramma are two daughters of her mother. Her mother died in the year 2000 and her father died in the year 1990. She admitted that their marriages were performed by their parents during the life time of her father. She admitted that she filed a suit in

O.S.264/2004 on the file of this court against her sister – Ventapali Sundaramma in

respect of schedule property and the same was dismissed by this court vide Judgment

dated 23.10.2006. She preferred an appeal in A.S.58/2006 on the file of Senior Civil

Judge Court, Amalapuram against the Judgment passed in O.S.234 of 2004 and the

same was transferred to Hon’ble II Addl.District court, Amalapuram and ultimately it was dismissed on 25.11.2008. She further conceded that Krishna Murthy and sambamurthy were the brothers of Gorre Adiyya. She further submitted that she did not file any 7

O.S.NO.287/2010

documents before this court to show that the schedule property belongs to her mother.

The schedule property is Ac.0.10 cents. Previously there used to be a old thatched house with mud walls in the schedule property. She denied the suggestion that

Sambamurthy used to reside on the southern side of the said thatched house. She also stated that Sambamurthy is having two daughters and they are residing at far places.

Krishna Murthy and Sambamurthy were not having any lands in their village. Initially the mud thatched house in the schedule property stood in the name of her father, subsequently, her name was mutated. She denied the suggestion that the original house situated in the schedule property was partitioned equally among her father,

Krishna Murthy and Sambamurthy, her father got middle portion, Northern portion fell to the share of Krishna murthy and Southern portion fell to the share of Sambamurthy.

She also denied that as Krishna murthy and Sambamurthy were not residing in the schedule house, they left their portions to her father and that the daughters of

Sambamurthy addressed a letter to her sister – Sundaramma on 28.05.2000 and handed over the coconut trees situated in the schedule property. She also denied that till the date of sale schedule property to the defendant, Sundaramma was in possession of schedule property including coconut trees and that her mother has no right to execute

Ex.A.1 in her favour and Ex.A.1 was created with the help of scribe and attestors. She also denied the suggestion that that Sundaramma sold the schedule property to the defendant under registered sale deed dated 07.04.2010 and since then he was in possession of Ac.0.05 cents out of schedule property. She also denied that by managing V.R.O., Veeravallipalem she obtained Ex.A.7 , though she was not in possession of entire schedule property. She also denied that Ex.A.1 is not a valid document and she cannot claim any right basing on Ex.A.1 as it was already decided in

O.s.264/2004 on the file of this court and that though she was defeated in O.S.264/2004

and A.S.58/2006, she again filed the present suit without any basis.

7]In support of her contention, the plaintiff got examined one Saka Krishna Murthy as PW.2. During the cross examination of Pw.2 admitted that, it is true that the plaintiff 8

O.S.NO.287/2010

filed a criminal case against Sundaramma, Venkatrao and others alleging that they bet her and that he deposed as a witness in the said criminal case and it was ended in acquittal. He deposed that he saw Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff obtained Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff did not attest on Ex.A.1 but he went to Register office at the request of the plaintiff. He know the father of the plaintiff- Adeyya. He do not know whether originally the property covered under Ex,.A.1 belongs to Adeyya or not. He do not know how

Sattemma succeded to the property covered under Ex.A.1 or not. Adiyya and his wife

Sathemma lived in their house. The house of Adeyya consists of two bed rooms during his life time. The marriage of plaintiff was performed at the time of childhood. Plaintiff resided with her husband in Pallamkurru. After the death of her husband, plaintiff came to Veeravallipalem. He did not see the documents of the schedule property. He do not know whether Sundaramma sold some part of her vacant site to defendant or not. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff was not in possession of entire Ac.0.10 cents of schedule property and the defendant is in possession of Ac.0.05 cents of schedule property and he is deposing false by receiving money from the plaintiff who is his relative.

8]The plaintiff also got examined one Korapu Krishna Murthy as PW.3 and he supported the version of PW.1 in all material aspects.

9]The evidence of PW.4 – V.R.O. is that Ex.A.7 was issued by the then V.R.O.

Mutyala Surya Rao. As per Ex.A.7 the total extent property is Ac.0.10 cents, out of which a thatched house is situated in Ac.0.02 cents and remaining Ac.0.08 cents is vacant site and it is in possession of plaintiff.

During his cross examination, he admitted that he cannot say whether Ex.A.7 was issued by Mutyala Surya Rao after conducting enquiry or not. Names of the title holders were not mentioned in their office records pertaining to Gramakantam site.

After receiving summons from the court, he has enquired about the schedule property.

One 3rd party is constructing a house opposite to the schedule property and he raised a temporary hut in the schedule property at the time of his enquiry. The house of the plaintiff is situated in Ac.0.02 cents of the schedule property on one side and the 9

O.S.NO.287/2010

remaining Ac.0.08 cents is vacant site. On enquiry he came to know that the plaintiff is having one sister. He do not know whether the schedule property belongs to plaintiff and her sister or not. Usually VRO has to conduct enquiry and submit his report to

M.R.O. and basing on report of V.R.O., M.R.O will issue possession certificate. There is no record in his office regarding the enquiry conducted by the then V.R.O. - M.Suryarao

before issuing Ex.A.1.

10]The evidence of PW.5 R.L.Narasimha Setty – Panchayat Secretary is that, he is working as Panchayat secretary , Veeravallipalem village. Ex.X.1 is bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001-2002, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2015-2016. The door numbers of house of the plaintiff as per the house tax demand register for the years 1997-1998 to 2001-2002 is 6-32. The door number of house of the plaintiff as per the House tax demand register for the years 2007-2008 is changed from 6-32 to 6-25. The door number of house of the plaintiff as per the House tax demand register for the years 2009-2010 is changed from 6-25 to 6-39. At present the door number of house of plaintiff is 6-39. Plaintiff is regularly paying house tax and residing in house bearing door number 6-39.

During his cross examination he deposed that the ownership details will not be entered in House tax demand register. The name of the persons who were in possession of the houses either owners or occupiers will be entered in house tax demand register. He did not verify house demand register pertaining to the years prior to 1997-1998 and he cannot say in whose name the house bearing door number 6-39 stands in the house tax demand register prior to 1997-1998. Since one year he is working as panchayat secretary. As per record he is deposing and he has no personal knowledge . Initially the name of elder member of family will be entered in the house tax demand register and in case of changes, the parties should submit their respective documents. He cannot say in which year the name of the plaintiff entered in house tax demand register. He cannot say the survey number and extent of the house property of the plaintiff.

10

O.S.NO.287/2010

11]It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is not having title and exclusive possession over the entire schedule property. The plaintiff and her sister

V.Sundaramma are jointly enjoyed the property of Adiyya and they are co-sharers till recently they used to share the proceeds from coconut trees in Adiyya’s property and orally partitioned the property into two equal shares. As purchaser of the share of

Ventapalli Sundaramma he is in exclusive possession of the property purchased by him which is part of the plaint schedule property. Since the date of sale deed he is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of house of the plaint schedule property i.e.,

Ac.0.05 cents . Infact, the plaintiff filed in O.S.264/2004 and the suit was dismissed and the came of the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit and the present suit is not maintainable under the principle of resjudicata. In support of his contention he himself was examined as DW.1 and he reiterated the contents of written statement.

During his cross examination he deposed that he do not know the contents of his chief examination affidavit. Plaintiff filed the suit in respect of Ac.0.05 cents of property.

Plaintiff filed the present suit questioning his sale deed. Plaintiff is residing in her house since 45 years. Plaintiff and her mother after the death of Adeyya used to reside in the thatched house with mud walls. He did not file any document before this court to show that he is in possession of schedule property. His name was not mutated in any revenue records in respect of schedule property. He denied the suggestion that he did not purchase schedule property from Sundaramma and he was never in possession of schedule property and he is deposing false. He do not know whether plaintiff filed private complaint against Gorre Venkatrao and others vide CCNo.171/2005 on the file of

AJFCM, Court, Amalapuram or not.

12]In support of his contention, the defendant got examined one V.Peda Yesubabu as DW.2. The evidence of DW.2 during his cross examination is that Plaintiff filed the present suit against the defendant claiming the schedule property. He cannot say the total extent of schedule property. He did not mention in his chief examination affidavit 11

O.S.NO.287/2010

about letter given by Malaka Apalamma to Ventapalli Sundaramma. He do not know about the letter, dated 28.05.2000 given by Malaka Appalamma to Ventapalli

Sundaramma. Mother of plaintiff died about 7 years back. Ventapalli Sundaramma is residing with her husband in Kandulapalem. He was not called by Sathemma or

Sundaramma for execution of document. He do not know about the suit in

O.S.264/2004. He cannot say the date of Judgment in O.S.No.264 of 2004 , but he

came to know that the said suit was decred. Daughter of Gorre Venkatrao was given in marriage to the son of Ventapalli Sundaramma. Ventapalli Sundaramma was not in possession of any documents in respect of part of schedule property sold to the defendant, but after the dismissal of suit in O.S.264/2004, she sold the part of schedule property to the defendant. He did not attest on the registered sale deed, dated 07.04.2010. Since 20 or 25 years plaintiff is residing in the house portion situated in the schedule property. He denied the suggestion that by the time of death of Sathemma, the house situated in the schedule property is with mud walls. He deposed that after the death of Sathemma, plaintiff by obtaining loan from A.P. Housing corporation constructed new house in the place of old mud walls house on the Southern side of the schedule property. He denied the suggestion that the plaintiff alone is in possession of entire Ac.0.10 cents of schedule property. He denied the suggestion that as plaintiff filed CC 171 of 2005 against him and others and as he was convicted in the said case, he is deposing false against the plaintiff.

13]On going through the rival contentions and basing on the entire evidence i.e. oral and documentary evidence available on record, the only question that arise in the present issue is, whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit and whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for. In that regard, the plaintiff relied upon the evidence of PW.2 to 5 and as well as Ex.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.X.1. Ex.A.1 is certified copy of Registered Will dated 03.06.1998 executed by the mother of the plaintiff during her life time. Ex.A.7 is possession certificate, dated 18.02.2016 and Ex.A.4 is the Bunch of 12

O.S.NO.287/2010

House tax receipts, Ex.A.6 is Bunch of Electricity payment receipts in respect of suit schedule property standing in the name of the plaintiff. Though the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not in possession of entire schedule property and that she failed to got examined the attestor of the will dated 03.06.1998 to prove the will as required by law, in fact the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. It is not necessary for the person claiming injunction to prove his title to the schedule property. It would suffice if he proves that he was in lawful possession of the schedule property and that his possession was invaded or threatened to be invaded by a person who has no title thereof. In the present case, though the defendant contended that he purchased the part of the schedule property from the sister of the plaintiff that is V.Sundaramma, the defendant did not file any documents before this court to show his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. No doubt as the present suit is filed by the plaintiff, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit by adducing appropriate oral and documentary evidence.

14]In the suit filed for permanent injunction, the burden is always upon plaintiff to prove her case and she cannot depend upon the latches or weakness of the defendant.

The plaintiff has to prove her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. In the instant case the plaintiff has adduced the evidence of

PW.4 , V.R.O. , PW.5 Panchayat Secretary and as well as relied upon Ex.A.1, Ex.A.4 ,

Ex.A.6, Ex.A.7 and Ex.X.1 to show her possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the filing of the suit. The plaintiff also adduced the evidence of independent witnesses to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant has not filed any scrap of paper to show his possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not examine any of the attestors of Ex.A.1. But in suit for injunction the same cannot be made a ground to deny the right of the plaintiff when there is other evidence available on record showing that the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

13

O.S.NO.287/2010

The plaintiff has filed possession certificate and other relevant documents to claim possession over the suit schedule property. Also the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is admitted by defendant during his cross examination.

Admittedly, the sister of the plaintiff i.e., V.Sundaramma is residing with her husband at kandulapalem and also the said Sundaramma was not in possession of the documents in respect of part of the schedule property sold to the defendant. Further more, the defendant failed to examine the said V.Sundaramma on his behalf to prove his contentions. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

15]ISSUE NO 2: In view of the findings of Issue No.1, the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

16]In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant restraining the defendant and his men from ever interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open court, on this the 8th day of August 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: P.W1: Mulaparthi Mariyamma. P.W2: Saka Krishna Murthy. PW3: Korapu Krishna Murthy. PW4: Naraharisetti Sattibabu PW5: Rayudu Lakshmi Narasimha Setti.

For defendant:

14

O.S.NO.287/2010

D.W1: Korapu Satyanarayana @ Sattiyya D.W2: Vande Peda Yesubabu

Documents marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1 : Certified copy of registered will, Dt: 03.06.1998 executed by Gorre Sathemma Ex.A2 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22.04.2010 Ex.A3 : Office copy of Legal Notice dated 25.05.2010. Ex.A4 : Bunch of house tax receipts and demand notices (16 in number) Ex A5 : Xerox copy of ration card (Compared with original). Ex A6 : Bunch of electricity payment receipts (14 in number) Ex A7 : Possession certificate dated 18.02.2016 issued by VRO, Veeravallipalem village. Ex A8 : Certified copy of judgment in CC.No.171/2005 on the file of AJFCM Court, Amalapuram. Ex A9 : Served postal acknowledgment dated 26.05.2010 for Ex.A.3.

Ex X1 : Bunch of attested copies of House tax demand registers for the years 1997-98 to 2001 -2002, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2015-2016

For Defendant : Ex B1 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.204/2014.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Amalapuram

1

O.S.NO.301/2011

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AMALAPURAM

PRESENT : Smt.V.BHAVANI

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Friday, this the 28 th day of December 2018

O.S.301 of 2011

Between:

1) Chikkam Padmavathi W/o Umamaheswara Rao aged 42 years, Hindu, Doctor, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2) Chikkam Sri Rama Murthy S/o Narasimha Murthy, aged 60 … plaintiffs years, Hindu, cultivation, Uppalaguptam

And

1) Nalla Tatayya Vanapallipalem naidu S/o Ammiraju, aged 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Upplaguptam.

2) Nalla Swamy Naidu S/o Ammiraju, aged 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Uppalaguptam.

3) Gurrala Venkateswara Rao S/o Veeranna, aged 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation, Komarajulanka, Ravulapalem mandal.

...Defendants

This suit coming on 26.10.2018 for hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.Adinarayana Rao, advocate for plaintiffs and Sri. Nalla Ravi Prasad, Advocate for defendants and in the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1]This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for Mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the bore point shown in the plan and also direct them not to allow the salt water from prawn tanks through the bodhis situated to the east and south of their property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from carrying aqua cultivation in their property and for costs.

2]The facts as mentioned in the plaint in brief are as follows:

The first plaintiff who is the daughter in law of the 2nd plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property from Narni Venkata Narsimha Ratna, Nalla Anantha Lakshmi and from Nalla Chandra Rao and others under three registered sale deeds. That the 2nd plaintiff looked after the transaction on behalf of 1st plaintiff. The defendants 1 and 2 are brothers and sons of Ammiraju. The defendants 1 to 3 each are having Ac.0.40 cents of 2

O.S.NO.301/2011

land to the south of the plaint schedule property. The defendants 1 and 2 are now in possession of the property of the 3rd defendant under lease.

The plaint schedule property that belongs to the 1st plaintiff is under the cultivation of the 2nd plaintiff is shown as ABCDEF and IJKL in the plan. The property that belongs to the defendants is shown as EFGH in the plaint plan. The plaint schedule property and the property of the defendants originally is a wet land. Subsequently the defendants converted the land as a prawn tank with a promise to carry fish culture with sweet water. In the property of 1st plaintiff , the 2nd plaintiff is doing fish cultivation with sweet water. There are yielding coconut trees that belong to the plaintiff’s along BA and on either side of AFG and GGI

While the matter stood thus the defendants made an attempt to carry aqua cultivation with salt water by digging bore in the month of June, 2011. A representation was made by the 2nd plaintiff on 25.6.2011 to the Tahsildar, Uppalaguptam. The

Tahsildar served notices on the defendants. The defendants appeared before Tahsildar,

Uppalaguptam on 26-6-2011 and executed an under taking letter on even date in favour of Tahsildar stating that they will not carry aqua cultivation with salt water either by digging bore or otherwise and carry fish cultivation only with sweet water by taking necessary precautions. The letter was attested by some of the villagers who were also present by then.

The defendants contrary to their undertaking, dug a bore point during the temporary absence of the plaintiffs and filled their property with salt water from the bore dug by then and carrying prawn culture. In that regard, the 2nd plaintiff representing himself and on behalf of the 1st plaintiff again addressed a letter dated 18.7.2011 to the

Honble Chief Justice, High Court of AP, Hyderabad and also to the grievance cell, East

Godavari District, Kakinada for the purpose of enquiry. In turn the said petition was sent to the 2nd Addl.District Judge, Amalapuram. Even though the Hon'ble Court got served notices on the defendants for their appearance, the defendant failed to appear and having no other go the petition was closed.

3

O.S.NO.301/2011

The defendants filling up their property shown as EFGH with salt water from the bore point marked in the plan and allowing the said water to pass into the East drainage bodhi and also towards Southern Irrigation bodhi. On account of this fact, the irrigation water is spoiling and causing damage to the property of the plaintiff and their coconut trees along BA, AFG, GG1 were badly damaged and effected the yield. Also the fertility of the land was also decreased. As the defendants are carrying the cultivation of salt water , the salt water is oozing into the property of the plaintiffs and resulting in seepage and there is likelihood of damage to the crop intending to be raised. Due to crop holiday, 1st crop was not raised and 2nd plaintiff is making efforts to transplant 2nd crop. So long as the defendants are allowed to use salt water in their property , the plaintiff will get abnormal damage which cannot be compensated in terms of money. The defendants are carrying on aqua cultivation with salt water contrary to their undertaking. The defendants are not legally justified to act in such a way causing damage to the plaintiffs and when the properties of the parties are not within CRZ zone, which dis-entitled the defendants to carry Aqua cultivation with salt water. Hence the suit.

3]On receiving summons, the first defendant filed his written statement and the same was adopted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The defendants in their written statement traversed allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: the plaintiffs developed the property as prawn and fish tanks and causing heavy damage to the property of the defendants situated adjacent to the schedule property and causing heavy damage to the property of the defendants by removing the age old irrigation bodhi and drainage bodhi. The defendants questioned the plaintiffs for their illegal acts and gave complaints to the Mandal Tahsildar, Uppalaguptham and the concerned revenue authorities. There upon the Mandal Tahsildar, inspected the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and instructed the plaintiff to restore the Government bodhi. But the defendants did not restore the bodi and they proclaimed in the village that they will not allow these defendants to cultivate their properties which resulted in the present suit against these defendants with false allegations.

4

O.S.NO.301/2011

It is further contended that the plaintiffs removed the age old irrigation bodhi which is a government bodhi which supplies water to the defendants land for agricultural purpose. Even though the defendants resisted the second plaintiff, he highhandedly removed the bodhi and dug prawn and fish tank by converting their land into tanks and leased out to others. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs and reported the matter to

Mandal Tahsildar and other revenue officials for restoration of the Government bodhi for their cultivation of their small extents of agricultural land. The plaintiffs are not doing cultivation of their lands . They developed the schedule property to tanks and leased out the fish and prawn tanks to Penumatsa Vasu Raju and now the tenant is in possession and doing prawn and fish culture causing damage to the small extent of land of defendants. Having no other go the defendants converted their small extent of 1.50 cents land into tanks and doing sweet water cultivation. The second plaintiff hatched up a plan and asked the defendants to lease out the same to him. As the defendants did not agree to give their land on lease, the 2nd plaintiff having bore grudge against the defendants filed the false suit by setting up a false theory of carrying aqua cultivation with salt water by digging bore point etc. allegations. The defendants denied doing cultivation with salt water and stated that they never executed any undertaking letter to anybody muchless to the Tahsildar, Uppalaguptam on 26.6.2011 as alleged by the plaintiffs. By conversion of their wet land into tank no damage would be caused to the plaintiffs tank or to the coconut trees. The entire ayacut in and around the lands of the plaintiffs and defendants are converted into tanks and all the ryoths are doing fish and prawn culture to the knowledge of one and all including the revenue officials. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit and the alleged cause of action is no true and correct. Hence, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

4]After perusing the pleadings and documents on record, the following issues are settled for trial by my learned predecessor:

1. whether the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for?

2. whether the plaintiff is entitled for a consequential injunction as prayed for?

3. to what relief?

5

O.S.NO.301/2011

5]During the course of trial, the 2nd plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got examined the Advocate Commissioner as PW2. Exs. A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On behalf of the defendant, 1st defendant and 3rd defendants got examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 besides examining DW3 and no documents are marked on the side of the defendant. Ex.C1 was marked through the Advocate

Commissioner.

6]As both counsels failed to advance arguments, this court treated the arguments as heard and posted the matter for judgment.

7]Now the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties are to be read in juxta position in order to arrive at a just conclusion.

8]ISSUE NO 1:

The 2nd plaintiff as PW1 filed his chief affidavit in corroboration with his plea.

During his cross-examination, he deposed that originally the schedule property belongs to the defendants and he purchased the same from them. The total extent of the schedule property is Ac.2.00 and odd. By the time of purchase, the schedule property was already converted into tanks and subsequently he converted into wet lands. It was not mentioned in ExA1 to A3 that the schedule property was shown as tanks. His daughter in law never visited the schedule property. The defendants are having property on the western side of schedule property. By the time of purchase the defendants lands are wet lands. He admitted that the schedule property and other property was converted into sweet water tank. The total extent of 9 acres was converted into single tank is situated on the eastern side of defendants property. He further admitted that there was a panta bodhi on the western side of his property and the property of the defendants. There was an irrigation bodhi proceedings towards east from the said panta bodhi. He further deposed that at present the irrigation panta bodhi is on the Southern side of his property and property of the defendants proceeding 6

O.S.NO.301/2011

towards east. He stated that himself and one Penmatsa Vasu Raju jointly cultivating the sweet water tanks. He stated that there were fish and prawn tanks in and around the schedule property and the property of the defendants. There were coconut trees on one side of his tank , but they are not yielding coconut trees. His properties and the properties of the defendants are situated at a distance of 6 km from the sea. At present there is Murugu drain on the Eastern side of his tank. In the months of February,

March, April and May salt water will flow through Mugugu drain. Some of the lands were adjourning the Murugu drain and some lands were adjourning the irrigation panta bodhi. Except the irrigation panta bodhi, there are no other bodhis on the Western side of his property and properties of the defendants. The sweet water is flowing through panta Bodhi. There is a cart way on the northern side of property of the defendants.

There were coconut trees on both sides of the said cart way. There was a bridge on the

Western side of his coconut garden. Without any obstructions, he is proceeding through the cart way to reach his tank. The width of the cart way is 24 feet. The height of the bund of the tank is 8 feet. He admitted that the properties of the defendants is in low level when seen from his tank. He also admitted that revenue people often visits the schedule property and other properties as they were converting into tanks. He deposed that after converting the lands into tanks, there was decrease in the earnings on the coconut trees in the entire ayacut. The defendants are having coconut garden on the western side of their property. He deposed that he did not observe whether defendants are drawing water from irrigation panta bodhi by inserting a pipe to their tanks or not. The total extent of defendants property is Ac 1.20 cents out of which

Ac.0.80 cents is converted into tanks and the remaining Ac 0.40 cents is coconut garden. He deposed that he did not obtain any permission from the 1st plaintiff for filing present suit and for giving evidence in the present suit. He do not know about CRZ zone. He do not know about the markings given as BA, AFG and GGI in the suit plan by his counsel. He deposed that there were separate drains for flow of drainage water.

The witness again volunteers that waste water will flow through irrigation panta bodhi and there were no separate Murugu drains. He stated that he do not know the contents 7

O.S.NO.301/2011

of the report filed by the advocate commissioner before this court. He also deposed that as lands are existed near Murugu drains, they are not fit for cultivation. He further deposed that previously the lands were damaged due to flow of salt water from the sea, but at present due to existence of drain high level bunds, there is no damage to the cultivable lands. He stated that he did not file any photographs in the suit. He do not remember when commissioner visited the schedule property. Except in summer the defendants are cultivating the tanks throughout the year.

9]The evidence of PW.2 is Advocate commissioner is that as per the orders of this court he visited the suit schedule property note down the physical features of EFGH portion of suit plan and to note down the bore fixed therein and to verify the water used by the respondent for carrying prawn culture. Accordingly, he executed the warrant and filed his report vide Ex.C.1. He deposed that the plaintiff’s property is situated in the

Northern side of the defendant property. Plaintiff did not raise any crop towards North of

EF lane shown in the plan annexed to Ex.C.1. The coconut trees shown in the plan annexed to Ex.C.1 are not yielding trees. Some of the coconut trees are damaged.

There is a salty layer in EFGH property. There is submarine bore point at the E point shown in plan annexed to Ex.C.1. There is no motor connection to bore point at the time of his visit. Plaintiff s lands are sweet water lands. By the time of his visit, there is no water in the EFGH tank.

During his cross examination, he deposed that he did not take photographs of the schedule property. By the time of visit EFGH tank is dry and there is some water at

F point. He did not make any marking at F point regarding seepage of water. There is no bore point in EFGH tank. There were no coconut trees in EF line. Coconut garden of the defendants is situated on west of EH line. To further west, the main canal of panta bodhi is situated. There is a trench from the main canal to EFGH tank. There is pipe inserted towards east to EFGH tank. He did not give a special marking to the pipe inserted EFGH tank. He did not specifically mentioned the existence of bore point in

Ex.C.1 but the same was mentioned in annexed to Ex.C.1. There are one or two trunks 8

O.S.NO.301/2011

of coconut trees in the schedule property by the time of his visit. The neighbouring farmers informed him that the plaintiffs are doing fish culture. There is a panta bodhi with fresh water on southern side of GH line. There is a drain on the eastern side of

EFGH tank. He deposed that there is no chance of collusion of drain water with water of panta bodhi. He has noted down the yielding condition of the coconut trees of defendants. The ages of coconut trees were not mentioned in Ex.C.1. All the neigbouring properties are EGGH tank were converted into tanks. He deposed that he did not mention the distance in between EF line and bandi baata. There is a panta bodhi on the northern side of bandi baata. There is no connection from plaintiff’s property to panta bodhi. The coconut trees shown in Ex.C.1 are aged about 30 to 35 years.

10]The 1st defendant got examined as DW.1 and the 3rd defendant got examined as

DW.2 and one Nalla Ammiraju was examined as DW.3 on behalf of the defendants.

Though these witnesses were cross examined at length about installing bore and the damage of coconut trees due to salt water generated from the prawn culture of the defendant, nothing significant could be elicited from their testimonies.

11]On going through the rival contentions, and on perusal entire evidence available on record, there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the plaintiff and the defendants over their property. The only dispute is the defendants is doing prawn culture in EFGH portion of plan with salt water from the bore point marked in the plan and allowing the said water to pass into the Eastern drainage bodhi and also towards southern irrigation bodhi . On account of which the irrigation water is spoiling and causing damage to the property of the plaintiff and their coconut trees. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the salt water from the defendants tanks is oozing into their property resulting in seepage and there is every likelihood of damage to the crop intending to be raised. Even though he presented a report to Tahsildar Uppalaguptam and addressed a letter to Hon’ble Chief justice High court of AP and to grievance cell to 9

O.S.NO.301/2011

Kakinada, East Godavari the defendant failed to appear before the said authorities and continued his acqua cultivation with salt water, he filed the present suit for mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. In support of his contentions the plaintiff examined the advocate commissioner as PW.2. As per Ex.C.1, the Advocate commissioner categorically mentioned that there is no bore point in EFGH tank and there is a trench from the main canal to EFGH tank. There is a pipe inserted towards East to EFGH tank. Also the report reveals that the plaintiff did not raise any paddy crop in the property situated to the North of EF point. But however he noticed a white salty layer (Uppu thattu) and covered with green grass. He noticed bandi batha to the north of property of the plaintiff as shown in his plan. The coconut trees 14 in number situated towards North of EF point and to south of bandi baata are not giving yield. The coconut trees that are in existence to the North of Bandi baata are in good condition. There is a panta bodhi to the south of coconut garden and tank of the defendant . The said bodhi is running from west to East and took a small diversion towards southern side as indicated in the plan. There is a drainage bodhi to the East of the plaintiff land and defendant tank as shown in the plan. The said drainage bodhi is in ‘L’ shape. He also stated that though the drainage bodhi and pantha bodhi are meeting at a junction at south east corner, there is no overlapping in between these two systems for the reasons that the drain water from the drainage bodhi is going towards East through a cement pipe that was inserted over and above the irrigation bodhi. The water in the drainage and the water in irrigation bodhi cannot touch with each other on account of arrangement of cement pipe. He also further mentioned in the report that he found a little bit water ‘F’ point in EFGH tank and the rest of the Tank is totally drying up and appears that water therein appears to have been taken out about 3 to 5 months back.

The plaintiff is doing fish culture with sweet water towards east of FG line, the fish tank is plaintiff sweet water is situated. The coconut trees is situated to the south of the said tank are giving good yield. He also further mentioned that the irrigation water in irrigation bodhi is at fresh at that time and no seepage at that time because no water in

EFGH tank. The contention of the plaintiff the salt water in seeking into the East 10

O.S.NO.301/2011

drainage bodhi and also towards southern irrigation bodhi does not appear to be true and acceptable. In these circumstances, as plaintiffs did not file any photographs of the schedule property and the contention of the plaintiff is that there was a bore point does not appear to be correct, as the same was disproved by the advocate commissioner evidence and report who was examined as PW.1 and filed his report under Ex.C.1.

12]There is specific recital in the Ex.C.1 that the drainage bodhi and irrigation bodhi water cannot touch with each other and also mentioned that there is no overlapping in between those two systems for the reasons that the drain water from the drainage bodhi is going towards East towards cement pipe that was inserted over and above the irrigation bodhi. In pursuance of the same, as per the observations of the commissioner since there is no evidence with regard to seepage of the salt water as alleged by the plaintiff and as there is no bore point in EFGH plan and as there is no chance of collusion of drain water with water of pantha bodhi , removal of the said bore does not arise. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

13]Issue No.2 : As seen from the commissioner report, he has not observed any damage or cultivation in the plaintiffs land. Hence the claim of the plaintiff that he sustained damages with regard to the yield of the coconut trees is not correct. Also as per Ex.C.1 report the EFGH tank is totally dry and no water limit except at F point as shown in his plan. Hence, the plaintiff cannot stop the passing of drain water through underground passage which is towards east of the plaintiff land and defendant tank.

The plaintiff is contending that due to the acts of the defendant his coconut trees and cultivation was damaged. It is for the plaintiff to prove that because of the acts of the defendants, his coconut trees and crop was damaged. In this regard, as seen from the record, the plaintiff did not choose to examine any independent witness to prove his contention that due to acts of the defendants, himself and other farmers sustained damage. In fact the plaintiff did not choose to examine Tahsildar, Uppalaguptam are filed the undertaking letter alleged to have been executed by the defendants. Except 11

O.S.NO.301/2011

the self serving testimony of PW.1, there is no independent witness evidence to come to conclusion that the defendants are doing prawn culture with salt water by digging a bore and allowing salt water to flow into the drainage bodhi and pantha bodhi. In these circumstances this court has no other go except to conclude the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for.

14]In the result, the suit is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation by stenographer Grade III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 28th day of December 2018.

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Amalapuram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs PW1: Chikkam Srirama Murthy PW2: N V Krishna Murthy (Advocate Commissioner)

For Defendants DW:1 Nalla Tatayya Naidu DW.2 Gurrala Venkateswarlu DW:3 Nalla Ammiraju

Exhibits marked

For Plaintiffs

Ex.A.1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.08.2004 executed in favour of 1st plaintiff Ex.A.2: Certified copy of Sale deed dated 21.05.2005 executed in favour of 1st plaintiff Ex.A.3: Certified copy of Sale deed dated 21.05.2005 executed in favour of 1st plaintiff. Ex.A.4: Office copy of representation, dated 18.7.2011 submitted to Hon’ble chief justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court Ex.A.5 : Office copy of representation, dated 18.07.2011 submitted to Officer Grievance Cell, District collector, East Godavari District. Ex.A.6: Copy of letter, dated 2.8.2011 addressed by Administrative officer, A.P. state Legal service authorities, Hyderabad to District Collector, East Godavari District.

Ex.C.1 : Commissioner report along with plan.

For Defendants Nil

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Amalapuram.

Note: “The parties should apply, as soon as possible, for return of all exhibits which they wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to be destroyed after three years from the date of decree or order”.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AMALAPURAM

Present: Smt.V.Bhavani, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram Friday, this the 21st day of April,2017

Calender Case No.25 of 2012

Between: The State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

Amalapuram Taluk P.S. ... Complainant

And

1.Badugu Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, S/o.Trimurthulu, Age 22 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

2.Badugu Punyavathi, W/o.Trimurthulu, Age 45 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

3.Badugu Bharati, D/o.Trimurthulu, Age 19 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.… Accused 1 to 3

This case is coming on 18.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri Md.Azam, Advocate for Accused and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed under Sections 324, 323 r/w 34 IPC in

Cr.No.120/2011 of Amalapuram Taluk P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as narrated in the charge sheet is that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are residents of Baduguvaripeta

H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, A-2 is mother, A-1 and A-3 and the son and daughter of A-2 respectively. L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma W/o.late Dharmaraju, who is also resident of Baduguvaripeta, Kamanagaruvu village got an extent of

Ac.0-01 cents assigned land vide SR No.1036 at Baduguvaripeta

H/o.Kamanagaruvu village in Amalapruam Mandal after demising her husband. She constructed a thatched house and has been living in it along with L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi and L.W.3 Peyyala Sri Durga Prasad. The alleged Badugu Trimurthulu who is the brother-in-law of L.W.1 Badugu

Santhamma temporarily constructed a thatched house in the vacant site of

L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma after getting permission from L.W.1 Badugu

Santhamma to live along with his family members as he is being constructed a new building in his house site. Though the construction of the new building was over, Badugu Trimurthulu did not remove his thatched hut established in the site of L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma, due to which L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma asked him to remove his house, but he refused to do so. On 19-11-2011 at about 13-00 hours L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma and L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi while erecting poles for construction of new house in the existing old house of

L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma, A-1 to A-3 intervened, removed the poles erected by

L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma and L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi and disputed with them, in a fit of rage, A-1 beat L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma on her both lower hands with iron bar available there. A-2 and A-3 beat both L.W.1 Badugu

Santhamma and L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi with hands and kicked with legs.

Due to which L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma sustained bleeding injury on her both hands. L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi sustained contusions on her person, neighbours L.W.s 4 to 7 Nakka Venkata Reddy, Korukonda Surya Kumari,

Gosangi Bhavani and Gosangi Satyavathi intervened and pacified the dispute.

L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma and L.W.2 Peyyala Pushpavathi were shifted to

Govt. Area Hospital, Amalapuram by L.W.3 Peyyala Sri Durga Prasad for treatment. On receipt of hospital intimation from Govt. Area Hospital,

Amalapuram L.W.11 G.Gabriel, Head Constable 1529, Amalapuram Town P.S.

recorded the statement of injured L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma and transferred the same along with hospital intimation to Amalapuram Taluk Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. Basing on the hospital intimation and statement of

L.W.1 Badugu Santhamma, L.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk

Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.120/2011 under Section 324 r/w 34

IPC of Amalapuram Taluk Police Station and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he visited the Govt. Area Hospital, Amalapuram, examined the injured L.W.s 1 and 2 Badugu Santhamma and Peyyala

Pushpavathi, recorded their detailed statements, visited the scene of offence at

Baduguvaripeta in the presence of mediators, prepared rough sketch and seized the crime weapon used for the commission of offence under cover of scene observation report. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

L.W.10 Civil Asst. Surgeon, Govt. Area Hospital, Amalapuram who examined and treated the injured L.W.s 1 and 2 Badugu Santhamma and Peyyala

Pushpavathi, issued wound certificates with her opinion that the injuries sustained by L.W.s 1 and 2 Badugu Santhamma and Peyyala Pushpavathi are simple in nature. Initially the FIR is registered against A-1 to A-5, but as per the evidence collected during the course of investigation the involvement of A-4 and A-5 not established, they were deleted from the accused column after obtaining permission vide C.No.86/SDPO-A/2011 Dt.10-12-2011. L.W.12 Sub-

Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Taluk Station arrested the accused Nos.1 to 3 on 6-12-2011 and sent them for judicial custody. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused 1 to 3.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable U/Secs.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused case copies were supplied to the them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.

1 to 3 denied the offence. Heard and on consideration charges for the offence

U/Secs.324 IPC against A-1, under Section 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC against

A-2 and A-3 have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.O.1 as detailed in the appendix of evidence.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating evidence against them and reported no defence evidence. On hearing both sides, the matter is posted for judgment.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case under Section 324 IPC against A-1 and under Sec.323, 324 r/w 34 IPC against A-2 and A-3 beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :

9.In order to constitute the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC, the prosecution shall establish its case that the accused Nos.1 to 3 caused simple injuries to P.W.1 with deadly weapons in furtherance of their common intention.

10.Unfolding the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined

P.W.s 1 to 9 on its behalf. P.W.1 is the victim. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1.

P.W.s 3 to 5 are the independent witnesses. P.W.6 is the mediator for scene observation report. P.W.7 is the Medical Officer. P.W.8 is the person who recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.9 is the investigating officer.

11.It is relevant to consider the evidence of P.W.s 1 to 9 to find out as to whether the ingredients of Section 324 IPC has been made out. While perusing the evidence of P.W.1, she has stated in her chief-examination that previously she used to reside in her house which is situated in Baduguvanripeta. Due to her illness she went to her elder daughter's house and after one month fifteen days she returned to her house. Thereupon, the accused Nos.1 to 3 claimed the house and necked out from the house. The incident took place three years back. Thereupon she approached Amalapuram Mandal Revenue Officer and showed the documents. On verification of the documents, the Mandal Revenue

Officer sent the surveyor and other officers. The Surveyor measured the house and informed her that thereafter there would be no disputes. After measuring, the Surveyor informed her that the house is belonged to her. She further deposed that due to her illness she along with L.W.2 Pushpalatha, her daughter and grand son L.W.3 Durga Prasad are residing in the said house. She purchased four cement poles to construct the house in the existing hut. She got erected the cement poles and brought wood and other material. A-1 to A-3, one Trimurthulu and her brother-in-law came along with spades and crowbars and rope and they removed the cement poles. When she obstructed them, A-1 to A-3 beat her. A-2 and A-3 beat her with hands all over the body and they pushed her on cement pole resulting she received injury on her right shoulder.

She also deposed that A-1 beat her with iron oosa (spoke) on her hand resulting she received bleeding injuries. When L.W.2 Pushpalatha tried to rescue her, A- 1 to A-3 fisted and kicked L.W.2 Pushpalatha. The by-passers witnessed the incident and shifted her to Area Hospital, Amalapuram. L.W.2 Pushpalatha also received injuries in the incident. She deposed that A-1 ran away saying that he could remove her. Thereupon police recorded her statement in the hospital. Ex.P1 is her statement. M.O.1 is the iron oosa (spoke), thereupon she referred to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment.

During her cross-examination, she deposed that four or five women were present at the time of incident and no male persons were present. She engaged an auto which running at the time of incident and she do not know the auto particulars. P.W.1 deposed that she is having an house near the house of one

Rajulapudi Vishnu in Kamanagaruvu and it is two portioned tiled house. She stated that after the marriage L.W.2 Pushpalatha along with her husband used to reside at Yanam. She also deposed that she is residing along with her daughter in the house situated near the house of Vishnu Murthy.

11.The evidence of P.W.2 who is the daughter of P.W.1 is that on 19-11-2011 at 1-00 p.m. while herself and her mother were present at the house of her mother in Baduguvanipeta, A-1 to A-3 and another person came there and demolished the house of P.W.1 and beat her and P.W.1. A-1 beat P.W.1 with

M.O.1 on her two elbows. A-1 to A-3 beat her with hands and legs and necked out her and P.W.1. A-2 and A-3 pushed P.W.1 as a result, she fell on the cement pole and sustained injury on her head. L.W.4 Nakka Venkatareddy,

L.W.5 Gosangi Satyavathi, L.W.5 Korukonda Suryakumari and some others witnessed the incident, came to the scene of offence and received and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. Later, she shifted her mother P.W.1 to

Area Hospital, Amalapuram for treatment. On the advise of Area Hospital

Doctors, she shifted P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Kakinada for better treatment.

During her cross-examination she stated that P.W.1 is having one own house opposite to Rajulapudi Vishnu's house in Kamanagaruvu village. She do not remember the year when P.W.1 constructed the house in Baduguvanipeta and that she has stated before police that Government allotted one cent of house site to P.W.1 and she constructed a house and residing in it. She also deposed that there was a house in existence at the time of alleged offence in the disptued site. P.W.1 raised a hut in the disputed site and raised cement poles in the disputed site. She denied the suggestion that she did not state before police that A-1 to A-3 demolished the house of P.W.1. She further stated that around 15 persons gathered at the time of alleged offence and stated that she has not handed over any documents to the police to show that herself and her mother were residing in the disputed site on 19-11-2011. She further stated that she is in possession of house site patta and house tax receipts of Ac.0-01 cents of land.

12.P.W.s 3 and 4 who are the independent witnesses turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even though they were cross-examined by learned

Asst. Public Prosecutor nothing could be elicited in support of the prosecution story.

13.The evidence of P.W.5 who is an independent witness is that on 19-11- 2011 at 1-00 p.m. a galata took place at Baduguvanipeta. At that time she was present in his house. On hearing the cries, she came out from the house and noticed that A-1 to A-3 beating P.W.s 1 and 2 with hands and legs. A-1 beat P.W.1 with an iron spoke on her elbow, as a result she sustained bleeding injury. She also stated that L.W.5 Korukonda Surya Kumari was also present at that time and witnessed the incident. Public gathered at scene of offence and shifted P.W.s 1 and 2 in an auto to a hospital for treatment.

During her cross-examination, she deposed that she do not know the relationship between P.W.1 and A-1, but stated that they are relatives. She admitted that herself and L.W.3 Peyyala Sai Durga Prasad fell in love. L.W.3

Peyyala Sai Durga Prasad is the maternal grandson of P.W.1. After the alleged incident, she marrked L.W.3 Peyyala Sai Durga Prasad. She also stated that

P.W.1 is having another house in Kamanagaruvu village opposite to the house of one Rajulapudi Vishnu. She stated that blood has oozed from the body of

P.W.1 and stained on her cloths and on the floor where the offence took place and the iron spoke is approximately 2 1/2 feet length. She stated that the dispute in between P.W.1 and A-1 is the boundary dispute and that P.W.1's house is thatched house and the accused house is tiled house. She stated that she do not know how P.W.1 and A-1 acquired their house properties and extents of their house properties.

14.P.W.6 who acted a mediator for the scene observation report deposed that at about three years back on one day on request of one Badugu Trimurthulu he went to Amalapuram Taluk Police station and signed on a written report. He do not know the contents of the said report. Ex.P1 is his signature on scene observation report dt.20-11-2011. He did not go to scene of offence.

P.W.6 was declared as hostile to the case of the prosecution. Even though the learned Asst.Publice Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.6 with permission of the court, nothing could be elicited in support of the prosecution story. He denied the suggestion that on 20-11-2011 at 7-00 a.m. in his presence, Amalapuram Taluka police observed the scene of offence i.e. vacant site situated in Baduguvanipeta of Kamangaruvu of Kamanagaruvu Panchayat in his presence and seized one iron spoke from the scene of offence under the cover of scene observation report and on going through its contents he signed on the said report.

In the cross-examination by the learned defence counsel P.W.6 stated that he is an illiterate and he cannot read and write. He learnt how to sign in

Akshara Godavari scheme.

15.The evidence of P.W.7, Medical Officer that she examined P.W.1 on 19- 11-2011 at 2-00 p.m. and noticed the following injuries i.e. 1) abrasion of size 5 x 1 cm over left forearm 2) contusion of size 4 x 4 cm over mid right forearm and she opined that the above injuries are simple in nature and caused due to blunt force and age of the injuries is less than 2 hours and accordingly he issued Ex.P5 wound certificate of P.W.1. She further deposed that on the same day at 2-20 p.m. she examined P.W.2 and found the injury i.e. 1) 5 x 1 cm abrasion present over the left fore arm and she opined that the injury is simple in nature caused due to blunt force and the age of the injury is less than two hours. Accordingly, she issued Ex.P6 wound certificate of P.W.2.

During cross-examination P.W.7 admitted that Ex.P5 did not disclose any injury over right shoulder. She stated that if the injury is fresh they used to mention the age of injury as less than two hours and the injury in red colour will exist for six hours. She further stated that she did not mention in Exs.P5 and P6 that the injuries were fresh at the time of her examination. She also admitted that the wound certificate is the extract of accident register and she did not note the history of the case in Exs.P5 and P6. She also stated that she cannot say the weapon used in the commission of offence basing on width of injury. She admitted that the injuries 1 and 2 in Ex.P5 are not caused with the same weapon and that there is possibility of sustaining injuries mentioned in

Exs.P5 and P6 when contacted with hard or rough surface.

16.The evidence of P.W.8 is that on 19-11-2011 at 7-00 p.m. he received hospital intimation from Area Hospital, Amalapuram and then he proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Ex.P7 is the hospital intimation. Thereupon he forwarded Exs.P7 and P8 to the Station House

Officer, Amalapuram Taluk Police Station on the point of jurisdiction.

During his cross-examination he admitted that P.W.1 did not state in

Ex.P1 that she sustained injury on her right shoulder.

17.The evidence of P.W.9 is with regard to the investigation made by him about registration of case, issuance of FIR, examination of witnesses and preparation of rough sketch and scene observation report. During his chief- examination, P.W.9 deposed that during the course of investigation, as the complicity of A-4 and A-5 is not proved, he deleted the names of A-4 and A-5 after obtaining permission from Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram.

Ex.P11 is the SDPO proceedings dt.13-12-2011. He also deposed about arrest of the accused 1 to 3 and receiving wound certificate of P.W1 and subsequently filed charge sheet.

During his cross-examination he deposed that as per Ex.P9 scene of offence is at the vacant site situated opposite to the house of Badugu

Santhamma i.e. P.W.1. There are no cement poles. He stated that he has not ascertained from the revenue officials the owner of the alleged disputed property situated at the scene of offence and that he has not seized any relevant documents from P.W.1 pertaining to the alleged disputed property. He also stated that he has not obtained photographs at the scene of offence. He admitted that M.O.1 is cycle spoke and that M.O.1 was found at the place of offence shown in Ex.P9. He also admitted that the specific place where M.O.1 was seized was not mentioned in Ex.P10.

18.Considering the above testimonies of the witnesses, it is pertinent to note that P.W.s 1, 2 and 5 are the available witnesses for the prosecution to prove the incident dt.19-11-2011. But the witnesses have stated an improved version than their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. The contents of the chief-examination of

P.W.1 are different from that of the contents of Ex.P1 statement. P.W.5 has stated that she was present at the time of the incident, but P.W.1 has not stated about the presence of P.W.5. Further, the testimony of P.W.1 reveals that she was pushed on to the cement pole by the accused Nos.1 to 3 and she received injury over the right shoulder, but whereas as per the version of P.W.2,

A-2 and A-3 pushed P.W.1 as a result P.W.1 received injury on her head.

Further, P.W.2 deposed that L.W.4 Nakka Venkata Reddy, L.W.7 Gosangi

Satyavathi and L.W.5 Korukonda Surya Kumari and some others witnessed the incident, came to the scene of offence and rescued them from the clutches of the accused. If really, L.W.4 Nakka Venkata Reddy, L.W.7 Gosangi

Satyavathi and L.W.5 Korukonda Surya Kumari and some others were present at the time of alleged incident, P.W.1 would have stated about their presence in

Ex.P1 report. Further, Ex.P1 is not corroborating P.W.1 with regard to mode of occurrence of the incident and the place of the incident. Even though P.W.s 2 and 5 who are the daughter and the relative of P.W.1 deposed about their presence, but the answers given by P.W.s 2 and 5 are inconsistent with the testimony of P.W.5. P.W.s 2 and 5 deposed in different versions than their 161

Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.5 who is the relative of P.W.2 deposed an improved version than her 161 Cr.P.C. statement and Ex.P1 report and to the evidence of

P.W.1. As per the prosecution witnesses, the scene of offence is located in a residential area, but the nearby persons were not examined by the investigating officer. The rough sketch also not shows the presence of iron spoke and cement poles at the place of offence and also the testimony of P.W.1 is inconsistent and uncorroborated with the wound certificate Ex.P5 and the contents of Ex.P1 report. All the prosecution witnesses deposed in different versions with regard to their presence, manner of offence and crime weapon used for the commission of offence. As per the testimonies of prosecution witnesses boundary disputes are pending between P.W.1 and the accused, but the investigating officer did not try to ascertain the particulars of boundary disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. Further, the investigating officer has not tried to ascertain owner of the disputed property.

19.Though the evidence of the Medical Officer is that she has found injuries on P.W.s 1 and 2, even if having pain is taken to be the result of the injury, but prosecution as clear from the above discussion has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injury or pain was caused by any voluntary action of the accused with the requisite mensrea.

20.From the above, this court finds that the testimony of P.W.1 was not wholly reliable as well as wholly unreliable, therefore, in order to prove the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution has to adduce independent evidence which would corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. But, as stated above the evidence of other witnesses who are the relatives of P.W.1 are inconsistent and conflicting which makes them unsafe to be relied upon.

Except P.W.s 1, 2 and 5 who are daughter and relative of P.W.1 respectively no other independent witness supported the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution solely rests upon the testimonies of interested witnesses, who have admittedly have disputes with the accused, it is the duty of the court to scrutinize the evidence very carefully without giving any scope to any false version to creep into thereby making guilty keeping in mind the disputes between P.W.1 and the accused and latches on the part of the investigating agency and prosecution in establishing its case.

21.As the prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as alleged by it, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilty of the accused for the charges farmed against them under Section 324, 323 r/W 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt and hence, accused Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for an order of acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 and against the prosecution.

22.In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 324

IPC, A-2 and A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1: Badugu Santhamma P.W.2: Peyyala Pushpavathi P.W.3: Nakka Venkata Reddy P.W.4: Gosangi Satyavathi P.W.5: Gosangi Bhavani P.W.6: Kandikatla Yesubabu P.W.7: Dr.B.Indira P.W.8: K.Gabriel P.W.9: G.Venkateswara Rao

FOR DEFENCE:--- NIL ---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Statement given by P.W.1 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4

Ex.P4: Signature marked in the scene observation report Ex.P5: Wound certificate issued by P.W.7 in favour of P.W.1 Ex.P6: Wound certificate issued by P.W.7 in favour of P.W.2 Ex.P7: Hospital Intimation Ex.P8: Original FIR in Cr.No.120/2011 of Amalapuram Taluk P.S. Ex.P9: Rough sketch prepared by P.W.9 Ex.P10: Scene observation report Ex.P11: SDPO Proceedings

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Iron Vucha (spoke)

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Smt.V.Bhavani, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram

Date of Offence : 19.11.2011

Date of Report or Complaint : 19.11.2011

Date of Apprehension of accused :6.12.2011

Date of Commencement of trial :20-11-2014

Date of Close of trial :6-1-2017

Date of sentence of Order :21-4-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks:Due to non-production of Prosecution witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO.25 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, AMALAPURAM.

1.Badugu Venkata Ramana @ Ramana, S/o.Trimurthulu, Age 22 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

2.Badugu Punyavathi, W/o.Trimurthulu, Age 45 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

3.Badugu Bharati, D/o.Trimurthulu, Age 19 years, C/SC-Mala, Baduguvaripeta, H/o.Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.… Accused 1 to 3

Offence : Under Sec.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of accused : Not Guilty

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence: In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC, A-2 and A-3 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copies submitted to:

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMALAPURAM

Present: Smt.V.Bhavani, Addl.Judl. First Class Magistrate, Amalapuram

Monday, this the 17th day of April, 2017

CALENDER CASE NO.142 of 2012

Between: The State: Inspector of Police,

AMALAPURAM Taluka P.S.... Complainant

and

A1) Uppu Subbarao, S/o.Kanakayya, A/30 yrs, C/Uppara, Uppara Colony, Amalapuram A2) Vemula China Subbarao @ Subbu, S/o.Godavari, A/35 yrs, C/Uppara, Uppara Colony, Amalapuram (Case is abated against A2 as he was died) A3) Gunjey Prasad @ Katlu Prasad, S/o.Veera Swamy, A/30 yrs,

C/Uppara Uppara Colony,m Amalapuram ..Accused

This case is coming on 12.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. for Prosecution and of Sri S. Srinivasarao for the accused No.1 to 3 and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a case filed under Section 379 or 411 IPC in Cr.No.24/2012 of

Amalapuram Taluka P.S.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief as narrated in the charge sheet is that the accused Nos.1 to 3 are residents of Uppara Colony, Amalapuram mandal.

On 07-04-2012 early hours some unknown offenders cut and carry away telephone cable 50 pairs measuring about 25 liters worth about Rs.6,000/- which was instablled along railings on Bhatlapalamem bridge by BSNL department,

Amalapuram and decamped with booty. On 10-4-2012 on the strength of report of L.W.1 Yalagaduri Venkateswara Rao, L.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police,

Amalapuram Taluka P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.24/2012 under Section 379 IPC of Amalapuram Taluka P.S. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, L.W.10 S.I. of Police, Amalapuram Taluka P.S. examined L.W.1

Yalagaduri Venkateswara Rao and recorded his detailed statement, visited the scene of offence, prepared its rough sketch and examined the other witnesses and recorded their detailed statements. On 15.4.2012 L.W.9 S.I. of Police arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 at Bus stand center, Amalapuram in the presence of mediators while the accused Nos.1 to 3 were in possession of stolen telephone cables. On separate interrogation before mediators, both the accused confessed total three telephone cable offences including this offence. On verification L.W.9

S.I. of Police, Amalapuram Taluka PS Police identified 50 pairs telephone cable measuring about 6'-3' length cable as stolen property relating to this case, after affixing the identity slips on them and seized the same in the presence of mediators L.W.s 7 and 8 Garnipudi Ramudu and L.W.7 Bolusu Srinivas under cover of mediators report. Subsequently, he sent the accused Nos.1 to 3 to judicial custody. After completion entire investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the charge.

3.Cognizance was taken on file by my predecessor for the offence punishable U/Sec.379 or 411 IPC against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3, case copies were supplied to the accused as per the section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 denied the offence. Heard and on consideration charge for the offence

U/Secs.379 or 411 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 5 and Ex.D-1 and MO.1 as detailed in the appendix of evidence.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 3 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating evidence against him and reported no defence evidence. On hearing both sides, the matter is posted for judgment.

8.Heard arguments.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case against accused for the offence punishable U/Secs. 379 or 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

10.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. PW.1 is the defacto complainant and gave report to the police in this case, PW.2 is Madasu

Subrhamanyam, Lineman, BSNL, Amalapuram, PW.3 is VRO in whose presence the property was seized and the accused was arrested by SI of police, Amalapuram

Town PS i.e. PW.4. PW.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Amalapuram Town Police who arrested the accused and recovered the property relating to this case and other offences relating to Amalapuram Taluka PS. PW.5 is the Investigating Officer,

Amalapuram Taluka PS who received Ex.P-1 from PW.1 and registered the case and issued FIR vide Ex.P-4.

11.PW.1 in his chief examination deposed that on 07-04-2012 night some body committed theft of 25 meters of 50 pair cable from the line at Bhatlapalem bridge.

LW.2- Subrhamanyam informed him about the same on 07.04.2012. he visited the scene of offence and verified the cable and later gave report in Amalapuram

Taluka PS which is marked as Ex.P-1. Later police informed him that part of the stolen property was recovered. MO.1 is six feet 50 pair cable.

During his cross-examination, he stated that on 07-04-2012 the BSNL customers complained him.

13.PW.2-M Subrhamanyam deposed that on 07-4-2012 he received complaint from BSNL subscribers. He proceeded to the line and checked the line and found yetigattu at Bhatlapalem the cable was cut and the same was not there. The length of the cable is 25 meters. Immediately he reported the matter to PW.1.

PW.1 visited the spot and verified it and later gave report to police. MO.1 is cable.

Nothing significant could be elicited during his cross-examination.

15.PW.3 who is the mediator of the Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 confession and seizure mediatornama and seizure mediatornama respectively. He deposed that on 15.4.2012 at 12-30 PM at the request of SI of police, Amalapuram Town Police station he proceeded to the police station and from there himself, SI of police and other staff proceeded to RTC bus stand, and noticed A1 and A3 and another person and on seeing them they tried to escape. On suspicious the SI of police detained A1 and A3 and another person and interrogated them. A1 and A3 and another person confessed that they committed theft of cable wire in Amalapuram.

Then SI of police recorded confessional statement of accused under the cover of

Ex.P-2 certified copy of mediator report. Basing on the confession of A1, A3 and another person they proceeded to the house of A1 and seized MO.1 under the cover of

Ex.P-3 certified copy of seizure mediatornama and stated that he scribed Ex.P.3.

During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he has mentioned two different names regarding A1 in Ex.P-2 and that police did not seized MO.1 under the cover of Ex.P-3 and that E.xP-2 and Ex.P-3 were drafted to the dictation of SI of police in the police station.

16.PW.4 who is the SI of police, Amalapuram Town PS deposed that on 15.04.2012 at 1-00 PM he secured the presence of mediators i.e. PW.4 and LW.7 and proceeded to RTC complex, out gate along with his staff and mediators and noticed A1 to A3 on suspicious circumstances. On interrogation A1 to A3 confessed the commission of offence in this case and other offences relating to

Amalapuram Taluka PS. He recorded the confessional statements of A1 to A3 and seized MO.1 and other properties in the presence of mediators under the cover of

Ex.P-2 certified copy of mediators report. Basing on the confession of A1 to A3, they proceeded to house of A1 situated in Uppara colony, Amalapuram and seized burned wire under the cover of Ex.P-3 certified copy of mediator report in the presence of mediators. After that he brought A1 to A3 along with the seized property to the police station and sent them for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he laid charge sheet.

17. PW.5 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 10-04-2012 at 11-30

AM he received Ex.P-1 from PW.1 registered the case and issued FIR vide Ex.P-4.

He took up investigation and examined PW.1 and visited the scene of offence, prepared the rough sketch vide E.xP-5 and examined other witnesses and recorded their statements.

On 15-4-2012 he received information from SI of police, Amalapuram Town

Police about the arrest of A1 to A3 in respect of Cr.No.75/2012 of Amalapuram

Town PS. On confession of A1 to A3 in the said crime about the commission of offence in Cr.No.24/2012 of Amalapuram Taluka PS, on 24-1-2012 the accused A1 to A3 were produced before court on execution of PT warrant. Subsequently he filed charge sheet in this case.

During his cross-examination he stated that PW.2 informed about the theft to PW.1 on 07-4-2012 and PW.1 gave report on 10-4-2012. He further stated that he has issued acknowledgment of the receipt of stolen property to Amalapuram

Town PS.

18.When all the testimonies of prosecution witnesses is cumulatively and carefully scrutinized, it is learnt that, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P-1 report and Ex.P-4 FIR shows that some unknown offenders committed theft of

MO.1. The evidence of PW.1 remains unchallanged. PW.2 corroborated the evidence of PW.1 in all aspects. This court do not find any latches in the investigation done by PW.4. The evidence of PW.3 is the SI of police arrested the accused in his presence and seized MO.1 pertaining to this case from the possession of the accused under the cover of Ex.P-3 basing on the confession of the accused recorded under the cover of Ex.P-2. Though Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 are prepared in the presence of PW.4 police officer, they are admissible in evidence with regard to seizure of Mo.1 and other properties are concerned, as per section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further there is no dispute with regard to the registration of the case and arrest of the accused.

Generally in property offences like theft, the evidence of mediators of the mediator report and seizure of material objects plays a pivotal role in establishing the guilt of the accused. As mentioned above PW.3 who is the mediator gave evidence with regard to the seizure of Mo.1 under the cover of Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 by the police in his presence. So from the evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 coupled with

Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, it can be said that PW.4 recovered MO.1 from the possession of

A1 to A3.

According to illustration (a) to Sec.114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 a person who is in possession of stolen goods after theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Here in case on hand, the evidence of PW.1 coupled with Ex.P-1 report goes to show that some unknown offenders committed theft of MO.1. as per the discussion made supra, the seizure of MO.1 was proved from the possession of A1 to A3. So A1 to A3 are either thieves or receivers of stolen properties since there is no explanation from the end of A1 to A3 about presence of MO.1 in their possession and they have not accounted for the same.

As per the the discussions made by this court in the above paragraphs, it can be incurred that A1 to A3 confessed their guilt in the presence of PW.3 and

PW.4 recovered MO.1 from the possession of A1 to A3 in his presence. So the testimony of PW.3 coupled with Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 is corroborated with the testimony of PW.4 in all aspects.

PW.1 identified Mo.1 belongs to them and PW.3 also deposed that

PW.4 seized MO.1 from the possession of A1 to A3. Thus, it is clear that the property which was stolen at black bridge at Chinavanthena and Mo.1 which is recovered from the possession of A1 to A3 are one and the same and thus it can be said that the essential ingredients of Sec.411 IPC viz. i) Identity of the property and ii) its possession by the accused are satisfied.

Hence, this court is of opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge framed under section 411 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts and hence A1 and A3 are liable to the convicted for the offence punishable under section 411 IPC. The case against A2 was abated as he was reported died by the prosecution and death certificate of A2 was filed to that effect. Point is answered accordingly in favour of prosecution and against A1 and A3.

19.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found guilty for the offence under

Section 411 IPC and they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this 17th day of April, 2017.

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram.

When the accused Nos.1 and 3 are questioned with regard to quantum of offence, the accused pleaded that they are the sold bread winners of the family and that their family is depending on them and hence prayed to take lenient view.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel this is not fit case to invoke provisions under P.O. Act or under Section 360 Cr.P.C.

20.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found guilty for the offence under

Sec. 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The accused

Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of

Three months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) eachin default of payment of fine accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The period of detention underwent by the accused

NO.1 and 3 from 21-04-2012 to 30-04-2012 is ordered to be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to its rightful owner after expiry of appeal time. The accused was informed about his right to prefer an appeal. On being questioned, the accused submitted that, they have sufficient means to engage an advocate to prefer appeal.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of April, 2017.

Addl.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Yelagaduri Venakteswara Rao

P.W.2: Madasu Subrahmanyam

P.W.3: Garnipudi Ramudu

P.W.4: R. Anka Babu

P.W.5: G. Venkateswara Rao

FOR DEFENCE:--- NIL ---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1 to SHO, Amalapuram Taluka PS

Ex.P.2: Certified copy of mediators report on 15.04.2012 at 1-00 PM

Ex.P.3: Certified copy of mediator report on 15.04.2012 at 3-00 PM

Ex.P.4: Original FIR in Cr.No.24/2012 of Amalapuram Taluka PS

Ex.P.5: Rough sketch prepared by P.w.5

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D-1: is relevant marked portion in the Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Six feet 50 pair cable wire

A.J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Smt.V.Bhavani, Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram Date of Offence: 07.04.2012 Date of Report or Complaint : 10.04.2012 Date of Apprehension of accused :21.04.2012 Date of Commencement of trial :19.02.2015 Date of Close of trial :18.01.2017 Date of sentence of Order :17.04.2017 Explanation of delay and remarks:Due to non-production of Prosecution witnesses JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO. 142 OF 2012 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, AMALAPURAM.

A1) Uppu Subbarao, S/o.Kanakayya, A/30 yrs, C/Uppara, Uppara Colony, Amalapuram A2) Vemula China Subbarao @ Subbu, S/o.Godavari, A/35 yrs, C/Uppara, Uppara Colony, Amalapuram(Case is abated against A2 as he was died) A3) Gunjey Prasad @ Katlu Prasad, S/o.Veera Swamy, A/30 yrs, C/Uppara Uppara Colony, Amalapuram Offence : U/Sec.379 and 411 IPC

Plea of accused : Not guilty

Finding : Guilty u/Sec.

Sentence: In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 3 are found guilty for the offence under Sec. 411 I.P.C. and they are convicted under Section 248(2) Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 3 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three months each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) eachin default of payment of fine accused shall under go simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. The period of detention underwent by the accused NO.1 and 3 from 21-04-2012 to 30-04-2012 is ordered to be set off under section 428 of Cr.P.C. The case property i.e. M.O.1 is ordered to be returned to its rightful owner after expiry of appeal time. The accused was informed about his right to prefer an appeal. On being questioned, the accused submitted that, they have sufficient means to engage an advocate to prefer appeal.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copies submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

AMALAPURAM

Present: Smt.V.Bhavani, Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram Friday, this the 21st day of April,2017

Calender Case No.315 of 2008

Between:

Kollu Savithri, W/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Age 50 years, Hindu, Inam, R/o.Allavaram Village,

Allavaram Mandal.... Complainant

And

1.Kollu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 40 years, Carpenter, Allavaram.

2.Kollu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 55 years, Carpenter, Allavaram.… Accused 1 and 2

This case is coming on 17.4.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Adinarayana Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri N.Mallikharjuna Rao, Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 and 2and upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a private complaint filed by the complainant under Section 190 (1) (C) Cr.P.C. against the accused for the offence punishable under

Sections 354, 447, 506, 324 r/w 34 IPC .

2.This court referred the case to the Allavaram police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the Allavaram Police issued referred notice to the complainant stating that the complaint filed by the complainant to be false.

After receipt of the referred notice by the complainant, the complainant filed the protest petition.

3.The case of the complainant as per the contents of the complaint as well as protest petition is that the complainant is permanent resident of

Allavaram village and she is having an extent of Ac.0-04 cents and 8 square yards situated in R.S.No.616/1 and 612/1b at Allavaram which was got by virtue of registered gift deed dt.2-6-2007 and since then she has been enjoying peaceful possession without any hindrance. The accused No.1 is having landed property on the southern side of the complainant's property. The complainant's sons are residing at Hyderabad due to their employment and she is residing in her native place without any male assistance. Taking advantage of the loneliness and old age the accused 1 and 2 are trying to grab away the property of the complainant. While the matter stood thus, on 26-6-2007 at about 6-30 a.m. while the complainant plucking the coconuts at her land with the assistance of the coconut plucker and completing the plucking from her land and she collecting the coconuts with the assistance of her husband.

Meanwhile the accused Nos.1 and 2 trespassed into the complainant's land with common intention armed with casurina sticks and abused her in filthy language stating that "LANJA KAYA MUTTUKUNTE NARIKESTHAM" and threatened her with dire consequences and immediately the accused No.1 kicked with legs on her stomach and by using criminal force and outraging her modesty of the complainant he placed his his hands on her chest and pulled her and thereby the complainant fallen on the ground. Then A-1 and A-2 tried to beat her with sticks on her head and that she resisted the same with her hands and on that she received injuries on her both hands of wrists and immediately husband of the complainant tried to rescue her from the hands of of the accused, they also tried to beat him. Immediately, the complainant approached the Station House Officer, Allavaram Police Station and she gave report against the both the accused and the police sent her to the Area

Hospital, Amalapuram. L.W.6 Medical Officer who got treated the complainant issued would certificate. The Allavaram Police did not take any action or enquiry against the accused due to political influence made by the accused.

Though the complainant waited with a fond hope that the police will take action against the accused, but in vain. Hence, she filed the complaint.

After hearing the complainant and perusing the record, this complaint is forwarded to Station House Officer, Allavaram by this court for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and for report.

The Station House Officer, Allavaram Police Station registered the court endorsed report as a case in Cr.No.88/2007 under Section 354, 447, 506, 324 r/w 34 IPC on 17-9-2007.

It is further submitted by the complainant that the Station House Officer,

Allavaram Police Station filed final report without conducting proper investigation and enquiry and without visiting the scene of offence. It is further contended that due to higher influence made by the accused persons, the police referred the case as a false and after long lapse of time without pursuing the matter issued referred notice to the complainant on 17-12-2007. Immediately, after receipt of notice, the complainant filed the present protest petition.

This court recorded the sworn statements of Kollu Savithri, Patta

Nagaveni, Kollu Vishnu Murthy and Kollu Satyanarayana Murthy and cognizance was taken on file for the offence under Sections 447 and 506 r/w 34

IPC against the accused on 13-5-2008 by my learned predecessor in office.

4. On appearance of the accused, case copies were supplied to the them as per section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sections 447 and 506 IPC and they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The complainant in support of her case, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 as detailed in the appendix of evidence.

7. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos. 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and they denied the incriminating evidence against them and reported no defence evidence. On hearing both sides, the matter is posted for judgment.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove its case under Sections 447 and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Point :

9.The evidence of P.W.1, who is the defacto-complainant is that on 26-6- 2007 at 6-30 a.m. while she was plucking the coconuts in her coconut garden in Allavaram, A-1 and A-2 beat her claiming right over the land. When they tried to beat her head, she kept her arms on her head to prevent the blow and she received injuries on her arms. She received contusion injuries. When they tried to beat her husband, L.W.s 2 to 5 Kollu Vishnumurthy, Patta Nagaveni,

Kollu Venkateswara Rao and Kollu Krishnaveni came there and rescued him.

Later, she went to Allavaram Police Station and gave report to the police. She was referred to Area Hospital, Amalapuram, Dr.R.Madhu gave treatment to her and the police did not act properly on her report, she approached the court and filed the complaint. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the protest petition.

During her cross-examination, she admitted that there are boundary disputed between them and the accused and she filed civil suit due to that dispute. She filed this complaint in respect of disputes relating to her landed property. She further stated that the incident took place when the workers are ready to pluck the coconuts. The accused beat her with survey stick of 10 feet length and 6 inches diameter and the accused beat her forcibly, but she did not receive any fracture to her arm. She admitted that she did not produce the stick before this court.

10.The evidence of P.W.2 who is the husband of P.W.1 is that P.W.1 is having Ac.0-04 cents and 8 yards of coconut garden in Allavaram. P.W.1 is attending the work of plucking of coconuts. On 26-6-2007 at 6-30 a.m. while

P.W.1 was getting plucking the coconuts, A-1 and A-2 attacked P.W.1 with sticks, A-1 kicked P.W.1 on her stomach and as a result, she fell down, when

A-1 and A-2 tried to beat P.W.1 and when she tried to escape from the blows, the stick of A-1 hit the left wrist of P.W.1. When he rushed there to rescue

P.W.1, A-1 and A-2 tried to beat him. In the meanwhile Vishnu Murthy, Katta

Nagaveni, Kollu Venkateswara Rao and N.Krishnaveni rushed to the scene of offence and rescued him and P.W.1. He also deposed that the above referred persons gave water to P.W.1 and later with their assistance, they went to

Allavaram police station. The police referred her and P.W.1 through one home guard to Area Hospital, Amalapuram. Dr.Madhu, Medical Officer at Area

Hospital, Amalapruam gave treatment to him and P.W.1. As police did not take action against the accused, P.W.1 filed private complaint before this court.

During his cross-examination, he deposed that the accused are having coconut garden on the southern side of their coconut garden. She also admitted that there are civil disputes in between him and the accused and the dispute arose after the incident. He stated that he do not remember in which year he filed the civil suit. He stated that he filed the civil suit after they approached the police. He deposed that the accused beat P.W.1 with a stick measuring about 3 inches diameter and 3 1/2 feets length. The accused beat P.W.1 forcibly and P.W.1 received severe blows. He did not receive injuries. He deposed that the Area Hospital Doctors gave wound certificate of P.W.1. He further admitted that Vishnu Murthy, Katta Nagaveni, Kollu Venkateswara Rao,

N.Krishna Veni are his relatives. Vishnu Murthy alone witnessed the incident and others did not witness.

11.The evidence of P.W.3, who is brother of P.W.2 is that P.W.1 filed the complaint against A-1 and A-2 and Suryavathi and they are neighbours of

P.W.1. He deposed that P.W.1 is having Ac.0-04 cents of coconut garden and on 26-6-2007 at 6-30 a.m. the incident took place in the coconut garden of

P.W.1. While P.W.1 was getting plucked the coconuts, A-1 and A-2 armed with sticks trespassed into the coconut garden of P.W.1, the accused pushed P.W.1 as why she got plucked the coconuts and accused claimed the trees. When A-1 tried to beat P.W.1 with stick, she warded the blow with hand and received injury on her left wrist. Later, as P.W.1 has no dare to oppose the accused, she approached the police.

During his cross-examination, he stated that he was present at his house while P.W.1 was getting plucked the coconuts. He deposed that there are civil disputes between P.W.1 and the accused prior to this incident. The diameter of stick is approximately 2 inches.

12.The evidence of P.W.4 is that P.W.1 is having some land in front of her house and the same is in the possession and enjoyment of P.W.1. On 26-6- 2007 in between 6-00 and 6-30 a.m. P.W.1 got plucked the coconuts in the above referred land through one coconut plucker by name Chunchudu and while he was plucking the coconuts, A-1 and A-2 came there, A-1 kicked P.W.1 on her abdomen. A-1 and A-2 beat P.W.1 with stick of four feet length and 6 inches diameter resulting injuries on her left wrist of P.W.1. She further deposed that when the husband of P.W.1 rushed there and having noticed the sticks in the hands of A-1 and A-2, he did not intervene in the dispute. At that time, she came there to draw water from the well. she heard the hue and cry of

P.W.1 and she rushed to the scene of offence, she gave water to P.W.1 and she shifted her to her house as she was in unconscious condition. She further stated that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Thereafter, P.W.1 approached the police. She further deposed that she witnessed the incident.

During her cross-examination, she deposed that she do not know the civil disputes between P.W.1 and the accused. She do not know the civil suits between P.W.1 and the accused. She further admitted that her house is not situated nearer to the house of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that she cannot see their houses from her house as there are compound walls. She further deposed that at the time of incident she came to the well to draw the water and stated that the stick is 2 1/2 length and five inches diameter. She further deposed that she did not interfere when the accused attacked P.W.1 and stated that P.W.1 received contusion injuries.

13.The evidence of P.W.5 Medical Officer is that on 26-6-2007 at 11-30 a.m.

he examined P.W.1 Kollu Savitri and found the injury i.e. complaining of pain left wrist and anterior aspect of chest. On examination both wrist movements are normal. He is of the opinion that no opinion can be given. Accordingly, he issued wound certificate, Ex.P3 is the wound certificate of P.W.1.

During his cross-examination he stated that on his examination he has not found any external wounds on P.W.1.

14.On thorough reading of testimonies of P.W.s 1 to 5 and Exs.P1 to P3, this court is of the opinion that an inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence was brought before this court and it is not just to punish the accused basing on that evidence.

P.W.1 deposed in an inconsistent version to Exs.P1 and P2. Exs.P1 and

P2 reveals that accused abused her in filthy language and A-1 by using criminal force outraged her modesty by placing his hands on her chest whereas nothing was stated by the eye witnesses and P.W.1 with regard to outraging of modesty of P.W.1 by the accused during their evidence. The testimonies of

P.W.s 1 to 4 are uncorroborated with regard to their presence and trespass of accused into the land / coconut garden of P.W.1. Further, the defacto- complainant did not produce any evidence with regard to possession of coconut garden and the civil disputes pending between P.W.1 and the accused and no evidence was brought on record to prove that P.W.1 got the disputed property by virtue of a registered gift deed dt.2-6-2007. The admission of P.W.s 1 to 3 with regard to pending of civil disputes is strengthening the defence version that with a view to harass the accused, the false complaint was made against them. Except P.W.s 2 to 4 who are the relatives and interested witnesses of

P.W.1, no other independent witnesses were examined to prove the trespass committed by the accused. Further more, the injuries stated by P.W.1 are not corroborated with Ex.P3 wound certificate. The Medical Officer who examined as P.W.5 has not given any opinion with regard to the injury alleged to have been sustained by P.W.1 in the hands of accused 1 and 2. More over the said coconut plucker Chunchudu was not examined on behalf of the complainant to prove the alleged trespass committed by the accused. Also the crime weapon was not produced before this court. The testimonies of P.W.s 1 to 3 are inconsistent with Ex.P3 wound certificate and contents of Exs.P1 and P2. All the witnesses deposed different version with regard to description of crime weapon used for the commission of offence. No acceptable material was placed

before this court to prove the guilt of the accused. Hence, in view of the above

discussion, this court has no hesitation to say that the accused are entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 447 and 506 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 21st day of April, 2017.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1: Kollu Savithri P.W.2: Kollu Satyanarayana Murthy P.W.3: Kollul Vishnu Murthy P.W.4: Putta Nagamani P.W.5: Dr.R.Madhu

FOR DEFENCE:--- NIL ---

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Private Complaint Ex.P.2: Protest petition Ex.P.3: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram.

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

District of East Godavari Calendar of cases tried by Smt.V.Bhavani, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram

Date of Offence : 26.6.2017

Date of Report or Private Complaint : 13.8.2007

Date of Apprehension of accused :--

Date of Commencement of trial :26-7-2013

Date of Close of trial :5-1-2017

Date of sentence of Order :21-4-2017

Explanation of delay and remarks:Due to non-production of witnesses

JUDGMENT IN CALENDAR CASE NO.315 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, AMALAPURAM.

1.Kollu Nageswara Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 40 years, Carpenter, Allavaram.

2.Kollu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana, S/o.Narayana Murthy, Age 55 years, Carpenter, Allavaram.… Accused 1 and 2

Offence : Under Sec.447 and 506 IPC

Plea of accused : Not Guilty

Finding : Not Guilty

Sentence: In the result, A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447 and 506 IPC and they are acquitted under Sec.255(1) Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of accused 1 and 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Addl. J.F.C.Magistrate, Amalapuram. Copies submitted to:

1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kakinada