Ms.v.bhavani

Page No. 1 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE :: AT :: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: Smt. V. BHAVANI,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge, Manthani.

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of December, 2025

O.S.No.12 of 2024

(Old O.S.No.141 of 2017)

Between :

Kanukuntla Laxmaiah S/o Pochalu, aged about 62 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District. ….Plaintiff

And

1. Mabbu Lingaiah S/o Bhimaiah, R/o.Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal.

2. The Special Deputy Collector, S.C.C.L., L.A. Unit, Godavarikhani, Peddapalli District.

3. The District Collector, Peddapalli. (Proforma Party)

...Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 02.12.2025 in the presence of Sri K.V.L.N. Hari Babu, Advocate for the Plaintiff; and Sri M. Sayendar Reddy, Advocate for the Defendant No.1 andupon hearing and on perusal of the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:-

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

1.The suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that he is entitled to receive an amount of Rs.1,14,616/- from the defendant No.1 & 2, further to

Page No. 2 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024 direct the defendant No.1 & 2 to pay the said amount along with interest and also for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:- 2.1) The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas situated at Akkepally Village Shivar of Manthani

Mandal. The Defendant No.2 authorities acquired the lands in the said village along with other lands on the requisition of S.C.C.L. operations and awarded compensation to the respected pattedars. The plaintiffs land is also acquired along with borewell and pipeline which he installed for his agricultural purpose. The R.W.S. authorities also conducted survey and submitted their report to the defendant No.2 authorities pertaining to the said pipeline and recommended for compensation of Rs.1,14,616/-. But, the said amount was not paid to the plaintiff. Later on, it came to his knowledge that the amount awarded to the plaintiff pipeline was mentioned wrongly in the name of Mabbu Lingaiah S/o Bheemaiah i.e., defendant No.1. Infact, the defendant No.1 is not having any borewell or pipeline. When this fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff, he immediately filed an application before defendant No.2 authorities on 24.04.2017.

2.2) Upon which, the defendant No.2 authorities also addressed a letter to the concerned R.W.S. authorities vide letter No.B1/110/2011, dated:

22.05.2017 and the same was replied by the R.W.S. authorities vide their

Page No. 3 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024 letter dated:12.06.2017 along with their report by clarifying the estimation for borewell pipeline . Thereafter, also the defendant No.2 not paid any compensation. Finally, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant

No.2 under intimation to other defendants. To the surprise, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 authorities already paid compensation to defendant No.1 wrongly and inspite of receiving the notice have not taken any steps and further advised him to approach the Court of law. Hence, the suit.

3.Written statement is filed by the defendant No.1 denying the plaint averments as false except admitting the acquisition of land in Sy.No.35 of

Akkepally Village Shivar Manthani Mandal by the S.C.C.L. authorities. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that he is having land in the said village i.e., in Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.0.22 guntas. His land was acquired by defendant No.2 for S.C.C.L. company and he was paid compensation. In the said acquired land of this defendant there was a borewell and pipeline. As such, the defendant No.2 authorities has awarded compensation to him to the said borewell and pipeline also. Subsequently, the plaintiff made a wrong propaganda claiming that this defendant had received compensation amount towards his pipeline and borewell. He is not aware about the communication between defendant No.2 and R.W.S. authorities as alleged by the plaintiff. After thorough enquiry, the defendant No.2 has paid compensation to him for the borewell and pipeline in his land. That the

Page No. 4 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024

Defendant is not at all liable to answer the claim of the plaintiff as he is noway concerned with the alleged compensation amount of plaintiff. The dispute is purely between plaintiff and defendant No.2, he has got nothing to do with the disputes between them. The plaintiff approached the court with uncleaned hands and filed the false suit against him, for which this defendant is entitled to seek damages against the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.The defendant No.2 did not file any written statement, even though statutory period was lapsed. Hence, his right to file written statement is forfeited. The suit against defendant No.3 is dismissed as not pressed by plaintiff.

5.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are framed for trial by my learned predecessor in office:-

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of Rs.1,14,616/-

against the defendants with interest?

ii. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 and A2. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW1 and no exhibits are marked on his behalf.

7. Both side arguments are treated as heard. Perused the material available on record.

Page No. 5 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024

POINT:

ISSUE No.1:

8.It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.35 admeasuring Ac.0.21 guntas situated at

Akkepally Village Shivar of Manthani Mandal. His land was acquired by defendant No.2 authorities for S.C.C.L. company and paid compensation to him. In his acquired land there is also a borewell and pipeline. The R.W.S.

authorities conducted survey and submitted their report to defendant No.2 authorities pertaining to the said pipeline and recommended for compensation of Rs.1,14,616/- to the plaintiff. But, so far the said amount is not paid to him and also it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the said amount was paid for the pipeline mentioned in the name of Mabbu

Linghaiah i.e., defendant No.1. As a matter fact, the defendant No.1 is not having any borewell or pipeline in his land.

9.During cross examination, PW1 admitted that defendant No.1 also possess land in Sy.No.35 and he used to do agriculture in the said survey number. It is admitted that the land of defendant No.1 is also acquired by

S.C.C.L. authorities. PW1 stated that he has not obtained any permission for digging borewell in his land. PW1 denied the suggestion that no borewell and pipeline were installed in his land. He admitted that there was no estimation given with regard to borewell pertaining to him as per Ex.A2. He denied the suggestion that defendant No.1 is having borewell in suit survey

Page No. 6 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024 number and the borewell estimation belongs to defendant No.1. PW1 also denied the suggestion that he has not filed any application before concerned authorities for allotting amounts towards compensation of borewell in his favour. He also denied the suggestion that a false case is foisted against defendant to receive compensation towards borewell illegally. PW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.A3 is not disclosing that the borewell and pipeline were existing in his land which was acquired by

S.C.C.L. He admitted that it is not mentioned in Ex.A3 that his amount was wrongly paid to defendant No.1.

10.On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant No.1 that he is also having land in Sy.No.35 to an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas situated at Akkepally

Village Shivar of Manthani Mandal. His land was also acquired by defendant

No.2 authorities for Singareni Company and awarded compensation. There was a borewell and pipeline in his land. The defendant No.2 authorities awarded compensation to that borewell and as well as pipeline.

Subsequently, the plaintiff made a wrong propaganda against the defendant

No.1 alleging that he received the compensation amount towards his pipeline and borewell. It is further submitted by DW1 that he is not aware about the existence of borewell and pipeline in the land of the plaintiff and also about the survey conducted by the R.W.S. authorities and report submitted by them and regarding recommendation for compensation of

Rs.1,14,616/- pertaining to the alleged pipeline of the plaintiff.

Page No. 7 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024

11.During the cross examination DW1 admitted that his land was acquired for S.C.C.L. and as well as their entire village including houses and lands have been acquired for S.C.C.L. He also admitted that the compensation was awarded by the Government for their lands. He also admitted receiving of compensation from the authorities for the borewell and pipeline. He stated that he has not filed any document showing that borewell and pipeline was acquired by the Government from his land which is in his possession. DW1 denied the suggestion that he has no borewell and pipeline connection to his land and that the said pipeline connection was existing in the land of plaintiff. He stated that he is not aware whether the

Government conducted any enquiry on the application filed by the plaintiff and submitted detailed report giving an estimation for an amount of

Rs.1,14,616/- vide its report dated:22.05.2017. He stated that he does not remember whether any legal notice was received from plaintiff prior to filing of the present suit. He is not aware how many bore connections were existing in Sy.No.35 and how many were paid compensation for borewells and pipelines.

12.The undisputed facts from the evidence on record is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of land in Sy.No.35 to an extent of

Ac.0.21 guntas situated at Akkepally Village Shivar of Manthani Mandal. The said fact is established by the plaintiff by virtue of Ex.A1 i.e., original pattedar passbook. Another undisputed fact is that the defendant No.1 also

Page No. 8 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024 possessed land to an extent of Ac.0.22 guntas in Sy.No.35 situated at

Akkepally Village Shivar, Manthani Mandal. It is not in dispute that the defendant No.2 authorities acquired the land in Akkepally village along with some other lands on the requisition of S.C.C.L. operations and awarded compensations to the respective pattedars. It is the case of plaintiff that there is a borewell and pipeline installed in his land for agricultural purpose. The R.W.S. authorities submitted report to defendant No.2 authorities and recommended for compensation of Rs.1,14,616/- to the plaintiff. However, it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that the said amount awarded to his pipeline was mentioned in the name of defendant

No.1 and paid to him. Inspite of filing application before defendant No.2 authorities, upon which a letter also addressed to the concerned R.W.S.

authorities, no compensation had been paid to him till today.

13.In support of his contentions, the plaintiff got marked Ex.A2 i.e., copy of the valuation and estimation of borewell and pipeline under RTI Act under extract of Gazette. On perusal of Ex.A2, it is clear that there was no estimation given with regard to the borewell alleged to be existing in the plaintiff’s land. On perusing the columns in Ex.A2, it is evident that there is no mention about existence of borewell and pipeline and no estimation was given in respect of plaintiff’s land i.e., in Sy.No.35. Also in Ex.A3, there is no specific mention that borewell and pipeline existing in the land of the plaintiff which was acquired by S.C.C.L. Also, the plaintiff has failed to

Page No. 9 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024 prove that his compensation amount was wrongly paid to the defendant

No.1 by the defendant No.2 authorities. Moreover, the plaintiff has failed to examine the competent authorities i.e., R.W.S. authorities to prove that they recommended for compensation of Rs.1,14,616/- to the plaintiff for the pipeline and borewell in his land. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff has filed an application before the Land Acquisition

Authorities, District Collector and other concerned authorities raising an objection after the issuance of Gazette publication for not properly estimating the value of his land and for not taking into account the borewell and pipeline at the time of awarding compensation. In the absence of sufficient evidence placed before this Court by the plaintiff with regard to the existence of borewell and pipeline in his land which was acquired by defendant No.2 authorities and payment of his compensation amount to defendant No.1 wrongfully, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

ISSUE No.2:

14.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 02 nd day of December, 2025

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge cum- Assistant

Sessions Judge, Manthani.

Page No. 10 of 10 O.S.No.12/2024

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: Kanukuntla LaxmaiahDW1: Mabbu Lingaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 is the original pattedar passbook. Ex.A2 is the copy of the valuation and estimation of borewell and pipeline under RTI Act under extract of Gazette.

FOR DEFENDANTS:

- Nil -

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge cum- Assistant

Sessions Judge, Manthani.

Page No. 1 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE :: AT :: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SMT. V. BHAVANI,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

MANTHANI.

Monday, this the 01st day of December, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.59 of 20 21

1.Name & description of : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. the ComplainantKamanpur (Cr.No.108/2019).

2.Name & description of : A1: Choppari Thirupathi S/o Aggimallu, aged the accusedabout 45 years, R/o.Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal.

A2: Vainala Raju S/o Sambaiah, aged about 40 years, R/o.Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal.

A3: Choppari Rajaiah S/o Aggimallu, aged about 38 years, R/o.Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal.

A4: Choppari Lingaiah S/o Aggimallu, aged about 40 years, R/o.Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal.

A5: Choppari Rajavva @ Radha W/o Thirupathi, aged about 40 years, R/o.Julapalli Village of Kamanpur Mandal.

… Accused No.1 to 5

3.Crime No.: 108/2019

4.Offence with which : Under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with charged 34 of Indian Penal Code

5.P.R.C. No.: 06/2020

6.Plea of the accused: Not Guilty

7.Finding of the Judge: Not Guilty

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section

Page No. 2 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the offences under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The marked case property i.e., M.O.1 which is already given in interim custody to its owner shall holds good after expiry of appeal period.

9.Prosecution conducted by : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Accused defended by: Sri S. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for accused.

*** This case coming before me for disposal on 01.12.2025 in the presence of learnedAdditional Public Prosecutorand Sri S. Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for accused No.1 to 5, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kamanpur filed charge sheet against accused in the Court of Principal Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Manthani for the offence punishable under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.108 of 2019 of P.S.

Kamanpur.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 17.11.2019 at 00:30 hours, the complainant / LW1 namely Mohammad Mujaheed came to P.S. and lodged a complaint, stating that he is the resident of Islamnagar,

Kamanpur Village and working in Sri Laxmi Xerox Center at Kamanpur

Village. On 16-11-2019 at about 20:30 hours, the Complainant closed

Page No. 3 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 his Xerox Center, then sat in a Cloth Store which was besides his shop and talking with one Gundu Anji / LW3, at that time Choppari

Thirupathi / Accused No.1 came there on one Red color Glamour Motor

Cycle and asked the Complainant who is the Mujaheed, then the

Complainant replied that he is the Mujaheed. On that Accused No.1 enquired with the complainant that one Mirja Musheer Baig took his daughter somewhere and asked him where is he? For which, the complainant replied to them, he don't know about them. But, Accused

No.1 and 2 did not hear the complainant and forcibly took him by folding his hands to his back side and sits him on middle of their Motor

Cycle, which was ride by Accuse No.2 and proceeded to an open place of old Government School at Julapalli. Later, Accused No.1 to 5 beat the complainant with their hands, kicked with their legs and strangle his neck to say about where they were and also threatened him with dire consequences by saying that they will remove his leg or hand. Due to which, complainant shouted loudly. At that time time, one Ajay /

LW4 and Anji / LW5 were came there, but due to fear of accused they did not rescued the complainant from their hands. While Accused No.2 beating the complainant with his hands, his finger ring hits on complainant’s lips, causing injury over his lips. All accused beat him to reveal the location of Vasantha and Musheer. Meanwhile, one Srinivas

Page No. 4 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 who is a Police Constable and other Police personals came there and rescued the Complainant from the accused hands. When, the Accused

No.1 and 2 trying to took the complainant from Cloths Store shop, the complainant's co-father i.e., Saleem had tried to stop them, but accused also beat him with their hands and pulled him on the floor of the ground, took away the complainant from there. As such, the

Complainant requested to take action against the above said persons as per law. Based on the above report, LW15 / P. Shyam Patel had registered a case vide Cr.No.108 of 2019, under Section 342, 367, 323, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated upon.

3.The learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani taken cognizance of the offence under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.108 of 2019 against Accused

No.1 to 5 following committal procedure, committed the accused to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar along with case records vide

P.R.C.No.06/2020. The Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Karimnagar took cognizance of the offence against Accused No.1 to 5 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this Court framed the charges for the offence under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1

Page No. 5 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 to 5, read over and explained the same to them in their vernacular language, for which they are denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked EX.P1 to P13 and M.O.1.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 5 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defense side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is; “w hether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused

No.1 to 5 for the offence under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506

read with 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that one Mirja Musheer

Baig took away the daughter of accused somewhere, for which the accused enquired about them with the Complainant, then the complainant replied to them that he does not know anything about

Page No. 6 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 them. Thereafter, accused took the complainant forcibly on their Motor

Cycle. At that time, the complainant’s co-father tried to resist them, but in vain. Accused beat the complainant and complainant’s co-father and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences to remove his leg and hand.

10.On marshaling of the evidence and considering the material placed before this Court, it would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by the parties / prosecution for just conclusion of the case.

The PW1 at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion, during the course of his testimony before this Court had turned hostile by specifically stating that he does not know anything about the facts of the case and Police also never examined him nor recorded his statement.

11.PW2 to PW5 who are said to be eye witnesses in this case have categorically stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.The prosecution in their efforts to bring home the guilt of

Accused No.1 to 5 have examined PW6, who was the Investigating

Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against

Accused No.1 to 5. PW5 during the course of his chief-examination have

Page No. 7 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 testified about the process and procedure followed by him while investigating the case. However, during his cross-examination, nothing much could be elicited by the defense and he denied the suggestions as to the innocence of Accused No.1 to 5.

13.On analysis of the entire evidence, there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of

Cr.P.C. In fact, there is no evidence against Accused No.1 to 5 to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence and so far as the testimony of PW6 is concerned, it is also of no value as the conviction of Accused No.1 to 5 cannot be based on the sole testimony of PW6 / Investigating Officer in the absence of there being sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. In view of the the above testimony of the witnesses, there is lack of evidence against Accused No.1 to 5 as to their involvement in the alleged commission of the offence and the Accused No.1 to 5 cannot be penalized in the absence of sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. As such, Accused No.1 to 5 are entitled for the benefit.

14.The learned counsel for Accused No.1 to 5 argued that there is no iota of evidence against Accused No.1 to 5 and the Police had

Page No. 8 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 registered a fake case and falsely implicated them for their statistical purpose and that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged to have committed by Accused No.1 to 5 are not proved and there is no evidence to prove the guilt of them. In these circumstances and in view of hostility of material witnesses, the prosecution also did not show much interest in leading further evidence and accordingly, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor did not choose to examine remaining

witnesses. When, the prosecution itself lifted its hands from proving its case against Accused No.1 to 5 by giving up the remaining witnesses and when the material witnesses themselves did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court do not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against Accused No.1 to 5 and therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, they are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 342, 367, 323, 324, 506 read with 34

Page No. 9 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the offences under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The marked case property i.e., M.O.1 which is already given in interim custody to its owner shall holds good after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 01 st day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1)Mohammad Mujaheed Complainant and injured

PW2 (LW3)Gundu Anji Eye witness

PW3 (LW4)Barla AjayEye witness

PW4 (LW5)Aanavena Anji Eye witness

PW5 (LW8)Eerla Prashanth Eye witness

PW6 (LW15)P. Shyam PatelInvestigating Officer

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1is the signature of the complainant on his complaint.

Ex.P2is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Page No. 10 of 10 S.C.No.59/2021

Ex.P3is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P4is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P5is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

Ex.P6is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P7 is the complaint

Ex.P8is the original F.I.R.

Ex.P9is the Crime Details Form

Ex.P10 is the rough sketch

Ex.P11 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama.

Ex.P12 is the Medical Certificate of PW1

Ex.P13 is the Medical Certificate of LW2

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1 is the photographs of the seized vehicle

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Page No. 1 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE :: AT :: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SMT. V. BHAVANI,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

MANTHANI.

Monday, this the 09th day of December, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.19 of 20 24

1.Name & description of : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. the ComplainantGodavarikhani II Town (Cr.No.169/2023).

2.Name & description of : A1: Lokini Sammaiah S/o Ellaiah, aged about 46 the accused persons years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.2-69, K.K. Nagar, Venkatraopalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal.

A2: Lokini Venkatesh S/o Sammaiah, aged about 26 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.2-69, K.K. Nagar, Venkatraopalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal.

A3: Lokini Sammakka S/o Sammaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.2-69, K.K. Nagar, Venkatraopalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal.

A4: Lokini Premalatha W/o Venkatesh, aged about 21 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.H.No.2-69, K.K. Nagar, Venkatraopalli Village, Ramagiri Mandal. … Accused No.1 to 4

3.Crime No.: 169/2023

4.Offence with which : Under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with charged 34 of Indian Penal Code

5.P.R.C. No.: 19/2023

6.Plea of the accused: Not Guilty

7.Finding of the Judge: Not Guilty

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian

Page No. 2 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024

Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

9.Prosecution conducted by : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Accused defended by: Sri A. Madhu, Advocate for accused. *** This case coming before me for disposal on 09.12.2025 in the presence of learnedAdditional Public Prosecutorand Sri A. Madhu, Advocate for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing material papers on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Godavarikhani II Town filed charge sheet against accused in the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Manthani for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 354-A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.169 of 2023 of P.S. Godavarikhani

II Town.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 09-10-2023 at 0700 hours, the complainant / Undati Rajkumar came to P.S. and lodged a petition stating that his elder sister Lokini Sarojana and Lokini Madhu got married 10 years ago. They are blessed with son and daughter. His brother-in-law i.e., Lokini

Madhu lost his leg in an accident 6 years ago. Since last 4 years, Lokini

Sammaiah / Accused No.1 who is uncle of his elder sister used to harass her to fulfill his sexual desire and since last 6 months Lokini Venkatesh /

Accused No.2 who is younger brother-in-law of his elder sister also used to

Page No. 3 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 harass her to fulfill his sexual desire. Lokini Sammakka / Accused No.3 who is aunt of his elder sister and Premalatha Accused No.4 who is wife of brother-in-law of his elder sister supported Accused No.1 & 2 and physically, mentally harassed his elder sister to fulfill their sexual desires. When his sister informed the same to them, they held a panchayat in the presence of elders. In the said panchayat, they agreed that they will not harass his elder sister again. Thereafter, the said Accused No.1 & 2 again used to harass his elder sister to fulfill their sexual desires. The same was informed by Last elder sister i.e., Sarojana to their parents.

On 02-10-2023 at morning hours, the complainant’s mother / Undati

Rajamma and his aunt / Undati Rajeshwari went to the house of his elder sister in K.K. Nagar. While the complainant’s mother and aunt were talking to Accused No.1 & 2, all the accused persons beat his elder sister with their hands in front of her mother and aunt by stating that to satisfy the sexual desires of Accused No.1 & 2, otherwise instigated the complainant’s elder sister to drink poison and die. On the same day due to unbearable harassment of accused, the complainant’s elder sister committed suicide by consuming insecticide poison. Immediately, the mother and aunt of complainant shifted his elder sister to Government Hospital, Godavarikhani, from there they shifted to Orchid Hospital, Karimnagar for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, on 08.10.2023 in the night hours at around 1120 hours the complainant’s elder sister died. As such, the

Page No. 4 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 Complainant requested to take action against the above said persons as per law. Based on the above report, LW16 / M. Chandra Shekar registered a case vide Cr.No.169 of 2023, under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and investigated upon.

3.The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani taken cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.71 of 2023 against Accused No.1 to 4 following committal procedure, committed them to the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions, Peddapalli along with case records vide P.R.C.No.19/2023. The

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Peddapalli took cognizance of the offence against

Accused No.1 to 4 and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this

Court framed the charges for the offence under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.1 to 4, read over and explained the same to them in their vernacular language, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked EX.P1 to P13.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution

Page No. 5 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defense evidence on their behalf. Hence, the defense side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is; “w hether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused No.1 to

4 for the offence under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of

Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant’s brother-in-law lost his leg in an accident. Thereafter, the Accused No.1 & 2 harassed the elder sister of complainant to fulfill their sexual desires and the Accused No.2 & 4 supported the same. For which, a panchayat also held, but in vain. When the same was asked by the complainant’s family to accused persons, they beat complainant’s elder sister with their hands by stating that to fulfill the sexual desires of Accused No.1 & 2, otherwise instigated her to drink poison and die.

10.On marshaling of the evidence and considering the material placed

before this Court, it would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by

the parties / prosecution for just conclusion of the case. The PW1 at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion, during the course of his

Page No. 6 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 testimony before this Court had turned hostile by specifically stating that he does not know the reasons for the death of his sister and Police obtained his signature on some blank paper, but he do not know its contents.

11.PW2 to PW4 who are the relatives of deceased have categorically stated that they do not know the reasons for the death of deceased and police did not examined them and did not recorded their statement and turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.The prosecution in their efforts to bring home the guilt of Accused have examined PW5, who was the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 4. PW5 during the course of his chief-examination have testified about the process and procedure followed by him while investigating the case. However, during his cross-examination, nothing much could be elicited by the defense and he denied the suggestions as to the innocence of Accused No.1 to 4.

13.On analysis of the entire evidence, there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In fact, there is no evidence against Accused No.1 to 4 to connect them with the alleged commission of the offence and so far as the testimony of PW5 is concerned, it is also of no value as the conviction of Accused No.1 to 4

Page No. 7 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 cannot be based on the sole testimony of PW5 / Investigating Officer in the absence of there being sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. In view of the the above testimony of the witnesses, there is lack of evidence against Accused No.1 to 4 as to their involvement in the alleged commission of the offence and the Accused No.1 to 4 cannot be penalized in the absence of sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. As such, Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for the benefit.

14.The learned counsel for Accused argued that there is no iota of evidence against Accused No.1 to 4 and the Police had registered a fake case and falsely implicated them for their statistical purpose and that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged to have committed by Accused

No.1 to 4 are not proved and there is no evidence to prove the guilt of them. In these circumstances and in view of hostility of material witnesses, the prosecution also did not show much interest in leading further evidence and accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not choose to examine remaining witnesses. When, the prosecution itself lifted its hands from proving its case against Accused No.1 to 4 by giving up the remaining witnesses and when the material witnesses themselves did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court do not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against Accused No.1 to 4 and therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point

Page No. 8 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024 is answered.

15.From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of Accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, Accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 354-A and 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal

Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted for the offence under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 09 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, MANTHANI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution:

PW1 (LW1)Undati Raj Kumar Complainant

PW2 (LW2)Undati Sathish Father of the deceased

PW3 (LW3)Undati RajammaMother of the deceased

PW4 (LW5)Lokini Madhu Husband of the deceased

Page No. 9 of 9 S.C.No.19/2024

PW5 (LW16)M. Chandra Shekar Investigating Officer

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1is the signature of the complainant on his complaint

Ex.P2is the 161 Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P3is the 161 Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P4is the 161 Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P5is the 161 Cr.P.C. of Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P6is the complaint

Ex.P7 is the First Information Report

Ex.P8is the inquest report

Ex.P9is the crime details form

Ex.P10 is the rough sketch

Ex.P11 is the postmortem report

Ex.P12 is the R.F.S.L. report

Ex.P13 is the final opinion given by LW15

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Material Objects Marked:

- Nil -

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, MANTHANI.

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT : Smt. V. Bhavani,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Peddapalli.

Tuesday, on this the 5th day of May, 2026

H.M.O.P. No.95 OF 2024

Between:

Akunuri @ Kondra Kavya, W/o. Akunuri Satyanarayana, D/o. Kondra Kumar, Age: 31 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.1-3- 42/1, Besides Priyadarshini Petrol Pump, Shanthi Nagar, Peddapalli Town and District. … Petitioner A N D

Akunuri Satyanarayana, S/o. Nagaiah, Age: 36 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o.H.No.23-224/6, Near Naga Devatha Temple, Sunnambatti wada, Mancherial Mandal and District.

… Respondent

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Srikanth, Advocate for Petitioner and Sri L.Sharath Babu, Advocate for Respondent and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court made the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the petitioner seeking dissolution of her marriage dated 06.12.2015with the respondent.

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 2 of 12

2. The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner and respondent are the wife and husband and their marriage was solemnized on 06.12.2015 in Reddy Function Hall,

Raghavapur Village of Peddapalli Mandal and District as per

Hindu rites and customs. Their marriage was arranged marriage. At the time of marriage, the parents of the petitioner handed over an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and 7 tulas of gold, one two wheeler i. e., Pulsar bike and other household articles worth of Rs.1,00,000/- i. e., refrigerator, color TV etc., 2(a).Both the petitioner and the respondent lead their marital life happily for a period of one year. Thereafter, the respondent started harassing the petitioner physically and mentally for additional dowry amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and he is severely addicted to regular alcohol consumption. During that time they are blessed with a daughter namely Akunuri Akheera

Pournika on 19.09.2016, now aged (8) years, who is under care and custody of her mother and next friend i. e., the petitioner.

2(b).It is further submitted that the petitioner after her delivery, when taking rest at her parental home, the respondent

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 3 of 12

had been there and beat her mercilessly without any reason and committed domestic violence against her and also the respondent and his parents treated the petitioner with severe cruelty, physically assaulted, tortured her and caused emotional distress since marriage. The petitioner is the victim of domestic violence, mental torture and emotional distress since marriage.

2(c).The respondent started domestic violence along with his parents by taking alcohol and also developed illicit intimacy with another woman. On one day, the respondent along with his friend has drunk liquor severely and he sent his friend to his wife's bed room intentionally to blame her and the respondent poured food poison in prepared chicken curry and the petitioner without knowing of this fact taken the food and became ill- health and she was hospitalized. Till date the petitioner suffering with the incident. In this regard, so many panchayaths were conducted and respondent has accepted his guilty in front of panchayaths elders and they advised him not to repeat this kind of harassment. Thereafter, both the petitioner and respondent lead their marital life happily for a short period of two months. Thereafter, the respondent started again domestic

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 4 of 12

violence and necked out the petitioner along with their daughter from his house. On that several panchayaths were held, but in vain. Since then, the petitioner and her daughter are residing at the house of the parents of the petitioner at

Peddapalli.

2(d).Finally on 08.01.2024 a panchayath was held in

Peddapalli Town, in the said panchayath also the elders found fault with the respondent and advised him to allow the petitioner and to lead a happy marital life with her. But, the respondent has bluntly refused to receive the petitioner into his society unless and until the petitioner bring an additional dowry amount. Therefore, the petitioner came to a conclusion and decided to take divorce from the respondent and filed this petition for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent.

3.On the contrary, the respondent filed counter by denying the allegations made in the petition, except admitting the marriage of the respondent with the petitioner. It is also admitted by the respondent that they are blessed with a daughter namely Akunuri Akheera Pournika on 19.09.2016, who is under the custody of the petitioner.

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 5 of 12

3(a).It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner and respondent lived for a period of (4) years, during that period the petitioner behaved with him cruelly, the petitioner avoided the old aged parents of the respondent. Further, the petitioner not arranged food to the respondent even though he arranged and provided all the vegetables and kirana items.

3(b).Further, it is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner used to talk closely with the cousin brother of the respondent namely Enagandula Kumar by making phone calls regularly unnecessarily with an intention to illegal relationship with her, the respondent has phone call records of the same, the respondent warned her not to chat, and the same is informed to the father of the petitioner, he requested the respondent not to tell anywhere and assured that he will tell to her daughter not to talk closely and continuously.

3(c).The petitioner demanded the respondent for separation of parents by avoiding them for living separately, and went to her parents house in the month of September’2020 and living along with her parents. The petitioner so many times

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 6 of 12

insulted the respondent as he has low income, and the petitioner harassed with cruelty towards the respondent.

3(d).It is further submitted that the respondent gave a report in the month of November, 2020 to the police, CCC

Naspur by requesting them to give counseling to the petitioner, even the police called her to come for counseling, the police could not refer to SAKHI Center as the reason the petitioner not cooperated for the same, even the respondent is ready to join in counseling.

3(e).The respondent further submitted that on the demand of the petitioner, the petitioner and respondent lived separately from the old aged parents lived at Food Colony,

Naspur for a period of (3) months in a rented house, even though the petitioner has not changed her attitude and behaved closely with the cousin brother of the respondent and left away from the matrimonial life herself without intimating to the respondent, as the respondent offered the petitioner to join in matrimonial life, but the petitioner refused for the same.

Further, the respondent issued a legal notice through his counsel and asked the petitioner to join the conjugal society of

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 7 of 12

the respondent, on that she issued a reply notice by denying to join with the petitioner. The respondent is still having love and affection on the petitioner and also on his daughter and ready to join with the petitioner in matrimonial life if the petitioner is ready and willing to rejoin in the matrimonial life. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.During the course of enquiry, the petitioner filed her evidence affidavit in-lieu of her examination-in-chief as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 and P2.

5.On the other hand, the respondent did not choose to adduce evidence on his behalf despite giving several adjournments, hence respondent’s evidence is closed.

6.Heard arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and arguments of learned counsel for respondent are treated as heard. Perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point that emerges for consideration is:

“Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty as prayed for?”

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 8 of 12

P O I N T :-

8.The petitioner in order to prove her contention filed evidence affidavit in-lieu of examination-in-chief as PW.1. The contents of her evidence affidavit is the reiteration of contents of the petition. She got marked Exs.P1 and P2. Ex.P1 is

Wedding Invitation Card, dated 06.12.2015 and Ex.P2 is

Marriage Photos with C.D.

9.On the other hand, the respondent filed counter. In his counter, the respondent contended that the petitioner and respondent lived for a period of (4) years, during that period the petitioner behaved with the respondent with cruelty, the petitioner avoided the old aged parents of the respondent.

Further, the petitioner not arranged food to the respondent even though the respondent arranged and provided all the vegetables and kirana items.

9(a).Further, it is submitted by the respondent that the petitioner used to talk closely with the cousin brother of the respondent namely Enagandula Kumar by making phone calls regularly, unnecessarily with an intention to illegal relationship

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 9 of 12

with her, the respondent has phone call records of the same, the respondent warned her not to chat, and the same is informed to the father of the petitioner, he requested the respondent not to tell anywhere and assured that he will tell to her daughter not to talk closely and continuously.

To that effect, no oral or documentary evidence produced by the respondent before this Court.

9(b).It is also attributed by the respondent that the petitioner left away from the matrimonial life herself without intimating to the respondent, as the respondent offered the petitioner to join in matrimonial life, but the petitioner refused for the same. Further, the respondent issued a legal notice through his counsel and asked the petitioner to join the conjugal society of the respondent, on that she issued a reply notice by denying to join with the petitioner.

In order to prove the said contentions, the respondent has not filed any document to show that he issued a legal notice to the petitioner by asking her to join the conjugal society of the respondent.

10.The petitioner adduced her evidence by way of

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 10 of 12

affidavit in-lieu of examination-in-chief. On the other hand, the respondent did not choose to tender any evidence on his behalf, despite availing reasonable opportunities, hence respondent’s evidence was closed.

11.It is borne out of record that the contentions of the petitioner/PW.1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing patent on record to disprove or discard the evidence of the petitioner. In order to prove the allegations of the petitioner as false, the respondent neither chose to cross- examine the petitioner nor tendered any evidence on his behalf.

Hence, whatever is filed, stated or deposed before this Court assumes significance and becomes the evidence and it is evident that PW.1 evidence on record remained unchallenged and unrebutted.

12.From the discussion supra, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, this Court holds that the respondent maintained a cruel attitude towards the petitioner, although valid marriage is in subsistence between the petitioner and the respondent. From the evidence brought on record, the petitioner successfully established that the

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 11 of 12

respondent harassed her, as such, she is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Moreover, the respondent did not choose to rebut or deny the evidence of the petitioner, as such, the evidence of the petitioner on record is unshaken. Hence, this

Court is of view that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken and there is no ray of hope for their reunion. Hence, the petitioner by way of her ocular and documentary evidence, the petitioner established her case that she is entitled to take divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner.

13.IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed, granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of petitioner and respondent that was solemnized on 06.12.2015, as dissolved with effect from 05.05.2026.

Dictated to the Stenographer directly on Computer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5 th day of May, 2026.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Petitioner : For the Respondent :

PW.1Akunuri @ Kondra Kavya - None -

HMOP No.95/2024 Page 12 of 12

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Petitioner :

Ex.P1 is Wedding Invitation Card, dated 06.12.2015

Ex.P2 is Marriage Photos with C.D.

For the Respondent :

- Nil-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

Page No. 1 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE :: AT :: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SMT. V. BHAVANI,

Senior Civil Judge-cum-

Assistant Sessions Judge,

MANTHANI.

Monday, this the 08th day of December, 2025.

SESSIONS CASE No.95 of 20 23

1.Name & description of : The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. the ComplainantGodavarikhani II Town (Cr.No.71/2023).

2.Name & description of : Ponnam Shiva Krishna Goud S/o Shankar, aged the accusedabout 34 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o.H.No. 1-63/1, Candanapur Village, Ramagiri Mandal. … Accused

3.Crime No.: 71/2023

4.Offence with which : Under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code charged

5.P.R.C. No.: 12/2023

6.Plea of the accused: Not Guilty

7.Finding of the Judge: Not Guilty

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The marked case properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

9.Prosecution conducted by : Learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

10. Accused defended by: Sri K. Sadan Kumar, Advocate for accused. *** This case coming before me for disposal on 08.12.2025 in the presence of learnedAdditional Public Prosecutorand Sri K. Sadan Kumar, Advocate

for accused, upon hearing both sides, upon perusing material papers on

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

Page No. 2 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023

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

1. The Inspector of Police, P.S. Godavarikhani II Town filed charge sheet against accused in the Court of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Manthani for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian

Penal Code in Cr.No.71 of 2023 of P.S. Godavarikhani II Town.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 07.05.2023 at 0700 hours, the complainant / Md. Safiya came to P.S. and lodged a report stating that she is the 4th ward member of Chandanapur village and her husband Hymad running a Tent House in the village. On 06-05-2023 at night hours her villagers roaming in their village outskirts in view of Bodrauth Idol installation. As a part of it her husband Hymad / Victim along with his friend Ponnam Shivakrishna Goud / Accused also roaming in the village outskirts. On 07-05-2023 at 0400 hours in the morning, her husband Hymad made a phone call to her and informed that at Old Grinding Mill of

Chandanapur Village his friend Shivakrishna / Accused stabbed him in his stomach as well as in his left jaw with a knife. Immediately, the complainant along with her family members rushed to the spot and found that her husband shirt completely stained with blood. Later, she came to know that her husband/victim and Shivakrishna/Accused together while roaming in the village outskirts on 07-05-2023 at about 0300 hours at

Chandanapur main road they both quarreled with each other, at that time

Page No. 3 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023 their villagers namely Dasari Saikumar / LW9, Shyamsundar / LW8 and some others persons stopped the said quarrel. Thereafter, her husband while walking with villagers in the part of village deity, the said Shivakrishna /

Accused went to his home and at about 0400 hours while her husband proceeding towards Bodrauthu from Gollawada at three bazaars, all of sudden the said Shivakrishna / Accused came there and stabbed the complainant’s husband in his stomach and his left shoulder blade with a knife by keeping earlier incident in his mind, the same was witnessed by their villagers namely Chiguru Ramchander, Mekala Prashanth/LW5,

Masipedhi Sunderrao / LW3, Mekala Kranthi / LW4, Deva Anjaneyulu / LW6.

Later, the complainant shifted her husband to the Government Hospital,

Godavarikhani. As such, the Complainant requested to take action against the above said person as per law. Based on the above report, LW17 / Sayyad

Afzaluddin registered a case vide Cr.No.71 of 2023, under Section 307 of

Indian Penal Code and investigated upon.

3.The learned I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani taken cognizance of the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code in

Cr.No.71 of 2023 against accused following committal procedure, committed the accused to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Manthani along with case records vide P.R.C.No.12/2023. The Hon'ble Court of Sessions,

Peddapalli took cognizance of the offence against accused and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

Page No. 4 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this

Court framed the charges for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal

Code against accused, read over and explained the same to him in his vernacular language, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked EX.P1 to P15 and M.O.1 to M.O.4.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

Hence, the defence side evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments.

7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused.

8. Now the point for determination is:-

w hether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the

offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable

doubt?

POINT:

9.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on the part of Bodrauth

Idol installation, the Hyman / Victim and Ponnam Shivakrishna Goud /

Page No. 5 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023 accused were roaming in their village. At that time a quarrel took place between them, but their villagers stopped them. Thereafter, keeping the same in his mind the said accused stabbed the victim in his stomach as well as in his left shoulder. As a result, the victim sustained severe bleeding injuries.

10.On marshalling of the evidence and considering the material placed

before this Court, it would be appropriate to refer the evidence adduced by

the parties / prosecution for just conclusion of the case. PW1 at whose instance the criminal law was set into motion, during the course of her testimony before this Court had turned hostile by specifically stating that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and Police also never examined her nor recorded her statement.

11.PW2 to PW5 who are said to be eye witnesses and including PW6 who is the victim in this case have categorically stated that they do not know anything about the facts of this case, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

12.The prosecution in their efforts to bring home the guilt of accused have examined PW7, who is the Investigating Officer, who conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against accused. PW7 during the course of his chief-examination have testified about the process and procedure followed by him while investigating the case. However, during his cross-

Page No. 6 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023 examination, nothing much could be elicited by the defense and he denied the suggestions as to the innocence of accused.

13.On analysis of the entire evidence, there are contradictions and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses when compared with their earlier statements recorded by the Police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In fact, there is no evidence against accused to connect him with the alleged commission of the offence and so far as the testimony of PW7 is concerned, it is also of no value as the conviction of accused cannot be based on the sole testimony of PW7 / Investigating Officer in the absence of their being no sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. In view of the the above testimony of the witnesses, there is lack of evidence against accused as to his involvement in the alleged commission of the offence and the accused cannot be penalized in the absence of sufficient independent testimony to corroborate and arrive at a conclusion. As such, accused is entitled for the benefit.

14.The learned counsel for accused argued that there is no iota of evidence against accused and the Police had registered a fake case and falsely implicated him for their statistical purpose and that the essential ingredients of the offence alleged to have committed by accused are not proved and there is no evidence to prove the guilt of him. In these circumstances and in view of hostility of material witnesses, the prosecution also did not show much interest in leading further evidence and

Page No. 7 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023 accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not choose to examine remaining witnesses. When, the prosecution itself lifted its hands from proving its case against accused by giving up the remaining witnesses and when the material witnesses themselves did not support the case of the prosecution, this Court do not have any hesitation to hold that the prosecution failed to establish its case against accused and therefore, he is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

15.From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted for the offence under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The marked case properties i.e., M.O.1 to M.O.4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation directly on computer by Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 08 th day of December, 2025.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, MANTHANI.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Prosecution: PW1 (LW1)Md. Safiya Complainant

PW2 (LW3)Masipeddi Sunder Rao Eye witness

Page No. 8 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023

PW3 (LW4)Mekala KranthiEye witness

PW4 (LW5)Mekala PrashanthEye witness

PW5 (LW6)Deva Anjaneyulul Eye witness

PW6 (LW10)Mohd. HymanVictim

PW7 (LW17)Sayyad Afzaluddin Investigating Officer

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Exhibits marked

For the Prosecution:

Ex.P1is the signature of the complainant on her complaint.

Ex.P2is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1

Ex.P3is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2

Ex.P4is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P5is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4

Ex.P6is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P8is the complaint

Ex.P9is the original F.I.R.

Ex.P10 is the Crime Details Form

Ex.P11 is the rough sketch

Ex.P12 is the scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P13 is the confession-cum-recovery panchanama

Ex.P14 is the medical certificate

Ex.P15 is the R.F.S.L. report

For the Defence:

- Nil -

Page No. 9 of 9 S.C.No.95/2023 Material Objects Marked:

M.O.1 is the blue colour jeans

M.O.2 is the maroon colour full T Shirt

M.O.3 is the blue handle steel knife

M.O.4 is the victim white colour full hand shirt

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, MANTHANI.