Smt.V Madhavi Latha

SC.No.415 of 2019 1 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: SMT.V.Madhavi Latha VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Dated this the 10 th day of May, 2022

SC.No.415 of 2019

Name of the The State of Telangana. through the Sub- Complainant Inspector of Police, P.S.Ghatkear.

Name of the Accused 1. Somani Sudhakar, S/o.S.Kistaiah, age 25 years, Occ: Labour, Vamsharaj, R/o.H.No.10- 18/1, Marripallyguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

2. Somani Bikshapathi @ Buchaiah, S/o. Chandraiah, age 45 years, Occ:Labour, R/o.H.No.10-25,MarripallygudaVillage, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

3. Somani Ramesh, S/o.Kistaiah, age 34 years, Occ:Labour,R/o.H.No.10-18/1, Marripallyguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

4. Somani Balamma, W/o.Kistaiah, aged 51 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.10-18/1, Marripallyguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

5. Somani Kistaiah, S/o.Late Narsimha, aged 55 years, Occ: Labour, R/o.H.No.10-18/1, Marripallyguda Village, Ghatkesar Mandal, Medchal District.

Charge U/Sec. U/s.306, 498-A r/w.34 IPC.

Crime No.479 of 2018

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1 to A5 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/ w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 2 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled as per Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period. Prosecution Sri S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by

Defence conducted Sri.P.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for Accused byNo.1,3 to 5 and of Sri.Uday Shanker, Advocate

for Accused No.2.

This case was committed by IV Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate, cum IV-Addl Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar vide PRC.No.27 of 2019.

This case having come before me on 04.05.2022 in the presence of the Sri.S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.P.Venkateshwar Rao, Advocate for Accused No.1,3 to 5 and of Sri.Uday Shanker, Advocate for Accused No.2 and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Ghatkesar filed charge sheet in crime No.479 of 2018 against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/s.306 and 498-A, r/w.34 of IPC.

2. The marriage of the deceased Balamani was performed with accused No.3 and out of their wedlock they were blessed with two children. For some days A1 and A2, who are the brother-in-law and younger father-in-law of the deceased were harassing the deceased by raising false allegations against the deceased. A1 used to sold the deceased unnecessarily and harass her physically and mentally. A3 to A5 also used to scold her and encourage A1 to harass her. While so, on 3-8-2018 in the evening hours, on the 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 3 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

birthday function organized at the house of a2, A2 used filthy language about the deceased infront of all the relatives. On knowing this, the deceased, on the next day morning i.e., on 4-8-2018 at about 7-00 a.m. went to the house of A2 and asked him as to why he used unparliamentary language towards her, for which A2 replied in a negligent manner. Then the deceased returned back home in agony. On her return to her house, A1 and

A3 to A5 abused the deceased in filthy language, beat her with hands on her head, due to which the deceased felt insult and having felt ashamed, at about 7-50 a.m. she poured kerosene on her and set herself ablazed to commit suicide. Immediately she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. On the requisition of LW14/Ch.Shekar, Sub-Inspector of police PS

Ghatkesar LW11/B.Sridevi, XIII Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate recorded dying declaration of the deceased. That while undergoing treatment, on 5-8-2018 the deceased succumbed to injuries.

Basing on the report lodged by LW1/Bandari Narsimha, LW13/

P.Raghuveer Reddy, Inspector of police, PS Ghatkesar registered a case in crime No.479/2018 under Woman burns and issued FIR and entrusted the investigation to LW14/Ch.Shekar, Sub-inspector of police, PS Ghatkesar, During the course of his investigation, LW14 has visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators, seized two liters plastic bottle containing kerosene and one match box from the scene of offence under a cover of panchanama. On 5-8-2018 he 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 4 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

received death intimation from Gandhi Hospital. Basing on the statement of the victim, he has altered Section of law from Woman

Burns to Sections 498-A and 306 r/w.34 of IPC, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators.

LW12/Dr.P.Vanisree, Asst,Professor, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and issued postmortem examination report. He has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 5/Narsimha, Satyanarayana, Babu,

Swamy and Laxmi, arrested A1 and A2 on 7-8-2018 and sent them to the court for their remand to judicial custody. A3 to A5 surrendered before the Hon’ble Addl. MSJ, Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar and obtained anticipatory bail. On completion of investigation,

LW14 filed charge sheet against A1 to A5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w.34 of Indian Penal

Code. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3.This case was committed by the IV Addl.Metropolitan

Magistrate cum IV Addl Junior Civil Judge Cyberabad at L.B.Nagar

vide PRC.No.27 of 2019. It was made over to this court alleging offences under Sections 306, 498-A R/w.34 of IPC against accused

No.1 to 5 are triable by Sessions Court. On hearing the accused

No.1 to 5, the court framed charge against her for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A R/w.34 of IPC. The charges were read over and explained to them in vernacular, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such matter was posted for trial.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 5 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

4.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Material objects MO1 and 2 are marked.

5.After closure of trial, accused No.1 to 5 are examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them in vernacular for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard, arguments of both sides and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 306 and 498-A, r/w.34 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

8. POINT :

a)The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.3 is the husband of the deceased Somani Balamani. A1 is the brother of

A3. A2 is the relative of A3. A4 and A5 are the parents of A3. That the marriage of the deceased was performed with A3 about six years back and out of their wedlock they were blessed with two children. For some days prior to the death of the deceased, A1 and

A2 were harassing the deceased mentally by raising false allegations against the deceased, for which A3 to A5 also harassed the deceased and encouraged A1 in such harassment. While so, on 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 6 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

3-8-2018 in the evening hours, on the birthday function organized in the house of A2, A2 used filthy language about the deceased in front of all the relatives. On knowing the same, the deceased went to the house of A2 and questioned him, for which A2 replied to the deceased in negligent manner. Then the deceased returned to home in agony and after she reached home, A1, A3 to A5 abused the deceased in filthy language and A1 beat her on her head with hands, due to which unable to bear the insult, around 7-50 a.m,.

the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set ablazed and immediately she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

She succumbed to injuries on 5-8-2018 while undergoing treatment.

b) In order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution shall establish that the accused subjected the deceased to harassment, physically and mentally. Further, in order to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution shall establish that all the accused by their words, acts or gestures or in any other manner aided or abetted the deceased in her act of committing suicide.

c)To prove the above offences, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant, who is the father of the deceased as PW1, the brother of the deceased as PW2, eye witnesses to the incident 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 7 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

as PWs 3 to 5, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence as PWs 6 and 7, the panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama as PWs 8 and 9, the MRO who said to have conducted inquest panchanama as PW10, the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased as PW11, the learned

Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased as

PW12 and the investigating officer as PW13.

d) Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that he performed the marriage of his deceased daughter on 29-11-2012 with A3 and at the time of marriage, he has presented net cash of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry to A3. Both his daughter and A3 lived happily for five years. That on 3-8-2018 there was function in the house of A2 and the deceased along with her relative namely

Indira went to the said function. In the said function A2 abused and threatened the deceased on the pretext that the deceased has developed illicit affair with his son, but however the deceased kept quite in the said function and returned back to home. On the next day A2 and his family members along with the deceased went to the house of A2 and questioned him, for which A2 denied that he has abused the deceased. Then A3 and the deceased returned back to their home and after that A1, A3 to A5 abused the deceased suspecting her character and A1 even beat her. That immediately the deceased made a call to him and told him the entire episode and therefore, he asked the deceased to be stronger and he will be coming within low time, but however, 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 8 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

within 15 minutes A3 made a phone call and informed him that the deceased has doused kerosene and committed suicide and on knowing the same he rushed to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where the deceased was undergoing treatment. The hospital authorities did not permit him to meet his daughter. That on 5-8-2018 the deceased succumbed to injuries.

e) PW2, the brother of the deceased deposed that on 4-8-2018 when he was at his house, he received a phone call from A1 that his sister Balamani doused kerosene on herself and she is in hospital and immediately he rushed to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad and there his sister informed him that a day before i.e., on 3-8-2018 she went to the house of A2 to celebrate birthday, on that day A2 abused his sister a lot and that on the next day she again went to the house of A2 to clarify as to why he abused her, but A2 told that he is unable to recollect as to what he said to her. That when she returned back to her in-laws house, at that time all her inlaws, A4 and A5 and her husband/A3 started shouting at her and in the meantime A1 came and hit on her head and unable to bear the insult she doused kerosene on herself and took the extreme step. On the next day his sister succumbed to burn injuries on 5-8-2018.

f) PWs 3 to 5, who are projected as eye witnesses to the incident and PWs 6 and 7, the panch witness for the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama did not supported the 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 9 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

prosecution case. PWs 3 to 5 stated, except that the deceased doused kerosene on herself and set herself ablazed, they do not know anything. PWs 6 and 7 stated, no such panchanama was conducted in their presence and that their signatures were obtained on white blank papers.

g) PW8, the panch witness for the inquest panchanama deposed that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in her presence in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and through MRO she came to know that the deceased who is her relative set fire for herself as there was a quarrel between her and her in-laws. PW9, another panch witness to the inquest panchanama deposed that the police conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in Gandhi Hospital aad she came to know that there was a quarrel in between her and her in-laws.

h) PW10, the Tahasildar deposed that on 5-8-2018 on receipt of phone call from SHO of P.S.Ghatkesar to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased, on the same day he conducted inquest in the presence of two mediators. He stated that the deceased sustained burn injuries from her face to stomach and to her hands and legs and died with burn injuries and he learned that she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and set herself ablazed unable to bear the insult caused by her in-laws.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 10 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

i) PW11, the medical officer deposed that on 5-8-2018 on receipt of requisition from PW1 to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, he has conducted postmortem examination on the same day and issued

Ex.P7 PME report opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to burns.

j) PW11, the then XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at

Hyderabad deposed that on 5-8-2018 on receipt of requisition from

PW10 for conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, he has conducted autopsy on the same day and issued Ex.P7 postmortem examination report, opining that the cause of death fo the deceased was due to burns.

k) PW12, the then XIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad deposed that on 4-8-2018 on receipt of requisition from

SHO of P.S.Ghatkesar to record the dying declaration of the deceased at Gandhi Hospital, she proceeded to the said hospital and recorded the dying declaration. She stated that the deceased in her statement given to her stated that she herself doused kerosene on herself and lit fire in her house, during the said time, her family members were outside the house and she poured kerosene without any specific reason.

l) PW13, the investigating officer stated that, basing on the statement given by the deceased Balamani to the Head Constable 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 11 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

namely D.Srinivas Reddy, P.S.Ghatkesar, a case in crime

No.479/2018 under Woman Burns and issued FIR. That during the course of his investigation, he has conducted scene of offence panchanama by securing the presence of PWs 6 and 7, seized one empty two liters plastic bottles consisting of kerosene smell and one match box from the scene of offence under a cover of panchanama. That on 5-8-2018 on receipt of death intimation of the deceased from Gandhi Hospital, he altered Section of law to

Sections 498-A and 306, r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code from Woman burns, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, arrested A1 and A2, produced them before the court for their remand to judicial custody. That A3 to A5 obtained anticipatory bail and surrendered before the court. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A, r/w.34 of Indian Penal

Code.

m)Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, there is no dispute that the deceased doused kerosene on herself and lit fire and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. To establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code the prosecution shall establish that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty physically and mentally and they abetted her to commit suicide.

To substantiate the same, the prosecution placed reliance on the evidence of PWs 1 to 13. PWs 1 and 2 are the father and brother 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 12 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

of the deceased respectively, PWs 3 to 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident, PWs 6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, PWs 8 and 9 are the panch witnesses for the inquest panchanama, PW10-the Tahasildar, who said to have conducted inquest, PW11 the medical officer, PW12-who said to have recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and PW13 the investigating officer.

n) PWs 3 to 5, the eye witneses to the incident and PWs 6 and 6, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama did not supported the prosecution case. PWs 3 to 5 stated, except that the deceased doused kerosene and committed suicide, they did not state the reason for the death of the deceased. PWs 6 and 7, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama also stated, no such panchanama was conducted in their presence.

Thus, the only evidence remained is the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 8 to 13.

o) It is according to PW1, at the time of the marriage of his daughter with accused No.3, on 29-11-2012 he had given

Rs.5,00,000/- towards dowry. That his daughter and A3 lived happily for five years. That on 3-8-2018 there was a function in the house of A2, who is their relative. That his daughter along with her relative Indira went to the said function, in the said function A2 abused his daughter and threatened his daughter that his daughter has developed illicit affair with his son, but however, his 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 13 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

daughter kept quite in the said function and returned back to home. That on the next day A3 and his family members along with his daughter went to the house of A2 and questioned him as to how he concluded that his daughter had illicit affair with his son, however A2 denied about the same. Then they all including A3 and the deceased returned back home and at the home of A3, his brother A1, his mother A4, his father A5 all started questioning his daughter and even A1 suspected his daughter and beat him, therefore, his daughter committed suicide. PW2, the brother of the deceased also stated that on 3-8-2018 the deceased also went to the house of A2 for birthday function and on that day A2 abused the deceased a lot and on the next day she again went to the house of A2 and questioned him.

p) Thus, it is according to both PWs 1 and 2, the deceased went to the house of A2 on 3-8-2018 to the birthday function and in the birthday function, A2 abused the deceased, but Ex.P9 statement given by the deceased to PW13, so also the Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statements of both PWs 1 and 2 are contradicting with the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2. As per Ex.P9 statement given by the deceased, she did not state that she also went to the birth day function to the house of A2 and that A2 abused her directly. In the said statement, the deceased stated clearly that her co-sister and her junior aunt Indiramma only went to the house of A2 to attend the birthday function and she came to know that before her co- sister and her aunt Indiramma, A2 abused her in filthy language.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 14 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

Even in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements given to the police, PWs 1 and 2 stated the same that only the co-sister and the aunt of the deceased Indiramma went to the birthday function to the house of

A2 on 3-8-2018 and the deceased did not went to the said function. It is according to PW2, his sister informed him that she went to the house of A2 on 3-8-2018 and A2 abused her, whereas in Ex.P9, the deceased herself told that only her co-sister and aunt went to the house of A2 and she did not go to the house of A2.

Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 suffers from exaggeration.

q) Further, according to the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of both PWs 1 and 2, so also Ex.P9 statement of the deceased, the deceased alone went to the house of the deceased on 4-8-2018 and questioned A2 for abusing her in the birthday function on 3-8- 2018, whereas coming over to the evidence proper, both PWs 1 and 2 stated, as if the deceased, her husband and all their family members went to the house of A2 on 4-8-2018 to question A2.

Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is contradicting with their own statements given to the police.

r) Further, it is according to PW1, after returning back from the house of A2 on 4-8-2018, A1, A3 and A4 suspected the character of his daughter, but the same does not find its place in his 161

Cr.P.C. statement given to the police. Except that A1, A3 and A4 abused and insulted the deceased, PW1 did not state in his 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 15 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

statement given to the police that the said accused suspected the character of the deceased.

s) PW1 stated that he has given Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry to A3 in the marriage, but the same is not spoken by him in his statement given to the police and in his cross examination he admitted the same that he has not stated about giving of dowry to A3, to the police. He stated the same for the very first time in his evidence

before this court. Admittedly, the deceased and her husband and

in-laws were residing separately, they are not living together. PWs 1 and 2 stated in their cross examination that six years prior to the incident i.e., after one year of their marriage, the deceased and her husband were not residing under one roof. PW2 further stated that the deceased and her husband were also residing separately from the accused.

t) PW2 stated in his cross examination that, her sister, except in

Gandhi Hospital on 4-8-2018, prior to it did not disclose anything about the alleged harassment caused to her by her in-laws and her husband. He stated that he has never seen the husband and in- laws of his sister harassing his sister. It is according to him, before his sister was shifted to intensive care unit, she spoke to him and disclosed the fact. But, the own evidence of PW1 created suspicion as to whether PW2 had got such an occasion to speak with the deceased, before the deceased was shifted to intensive care unit, owing to the cross examination of PW2, wherein he stated that 10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 16 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

when he visited Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, his sister was at intensive care unit in the hospital, which goes to show clearly the

PW2 had no such occasion to speak to the deceased and he is deposing false. Though PW1 stated that his daughter called him and informed about the incident that took place at the house of A2 and also about the remaining accused beating her, coming to his cross examination he state that he did not state the same to the police, while giving down his statement.

u) Ex.P9 statement shows that the thumb impression was obtained on the said statement, whereas in Ex.P8 dying declaration, there is right leg tow impression and in this connection, the learned counsel for the accused, submitted that the thumb impression on Ex.P9 does not belong to the deceased and the said statement was the created one. Admittedly PW13 has not examined D.Srinivas, who said to have recorded Ex.P9 statement of the deceased and not cited him as a witness to the charge sheet. Ex.P9 statement shows that the deceased has given statement of one D.Srinivas that she committed suicide because of the accused, whereas Ex.P8 dying declaration shows that she committed suicide on her own without their being any reason.

Thus, in the circumstances, non examination of said Srinivas, who said to have recordd Ex.P9 statement of the deceased is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 17 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

v) Though PWs 1 and 2 found fault with all the accused stating that all the accused insulted the deceased and A1 also beat her, unable to bear the insult, the deceased committed suicide, such evidence stood falsified owing to the statement given by the deceased herself in her Ex.P8 dying declaration stating very clearly that she poured kerosene without any specific reason. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are none other than the father and brother of the deceased and interested witnesses is clouded with suspicion. There is every possibility about PWs 1 and 2 who are the family members of the deceased exaggerating and deposing against the accused. Except the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 2 that the accused harassed the deceased and instigated the deceased to commit suicide, absolutely there is no independent evidence on record which establishes that the accused harassed the deceased or the accused had done any such act which driven the deceased Somani Balamani to commit suicide.

w) The sum and substratum of the above discussion is that, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is ridden with omissions, contradictions and replete of variations and infirmities. Their evidence is relatively weak, vague and generated reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w.34 of Indian

Penal Code and accordingly, they are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly against th prosecution.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 18 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

9. In the result, A1 to A5 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled as per

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10thday of May, 2022.

VIII ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW1: B.Narsimha -None- PW2: B.Sathyanarayana PW3: Sivarathri Babu PW4: Sivarathri Swamy PW5: S.Lakshmi PW6: M.Suresh PW7: Ch.Lakshmaiaha PW8: B.Lakshamma PW9: S.Venkatesh PW10: Padma Priya PW11:Vani Shree PW12: B.Sreedevi PW13: G.Shaker Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement by PW3 Ex.P2: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement by PW4 Ex.P3: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement by PW5 Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on Crime detail form along with rough sketch. Ex.P5: Signature of PW7 on Crime detail form along with rough sketch.

10.05.2022

SC.No.415 of 2019 19 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

Ex.P6:Inquest panchanama Ex.P7:Postmortem examination report Ex.P8:Dying declaration Ex.P9:Statement of deceased dt:04.08.2018 Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Crime details form along with rough sketch Ex.P12: Section alteration memo dt:05.08.2018. FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

MO1 is empty two liters plastic bottle MO2: One match box

VIII ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

10.05.2022

S.C.No.213 of 20221IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: Smt.V.Madhavi Latha, IV Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated, this the 14th day of November, 2023

SC.No.213 of 2022

Name of the Complainant The State of Telangana, through the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Rajendranagar.

Name of the Accused A1- Mohd Abdul Wahab @ Ashraf, S/o.Mohd Mahaboob, Age:55 years, Occ: Pickle Business, R/o.H.No.17-8-246/28, Hafeez Baba Nagar, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

A2- Devdas Sarkar, S/o.Shivapathi Sarkar, Age:25 years, Occ:Private Job, R/o.Sirpur Kagaznagar, Adilabad District.

A3- Mohammed Faiyaz Ansari, S/o.Mohd Iliyas, Age:27 years, Occ:Teacher, R/o.Langer House, Mehidipatnam,Hyderabad. N/o.H.No.7, Maskhnad, Bhanjpur Godda, Jharkhand State.

A4- Mohammed Shafi, S/o.Mohd Pasha, Age:26 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.19-4-8/45,Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.

A5- Mohammed Yaqoob, S/o.Mohd Noor, Age:24 years, Occ:Driver, R/o.H.No.19-4-8/146,Hashamabad, Chandrayangutta, Falaknuma, Hyderabad.

A6- Shaik Shamshuddin Ahmed, S/o.Shareef, Age:52 years, Occ:Social Worker, R/o.H.No.9-8-158/B/3, Saleh Nagar, Golconda, Hyderabad.

Charge U/Sections 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956.

Crime No.836 of 2019

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20222IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Finding of the CourtIn the result, A1 to A6 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. MO2 shall be destroyed and MOs 1, 3 to 7 shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution conducted by Smt.S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted bySri.Syed Shabbir Hussain, counsel for A1 to A6.

This case was committed by the XIV Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar vide PRC.No.130 of 2021

against A1 to A6.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 07.11.2023 in the presence of the Smt.S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.Syed Shabbir Hussain counsel for A1 to A6 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar has filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 in Crime No.836 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, on 20.06.2019 LW16/K.Kanakaiah, Inspector of Police, P.S. Rajendranagar received credible information in the night hours about running of brothel house by some persons in Flat No.C-11, Hussaini heights, near

Pillar No.207, Upperpally, Rajendranagar. Accordingly he has obtained permission from ACP, Rajendranagar to raid the above premises and by accompanying two mediators, he along with his staff raided the said 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20223IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar premises and found A1 to A6 and LW7/Sunitha, LW8/Syeda Rahema,

LW9/Tulasi and LW10/Kamar Begum in the said premises, recorded their confessional statements, seized Samsung J-8 mobile phone, net cash of

Rs.4,000/-, two condoms from the possession of A1; Samsung J-5 mobile phone and net cash of Rs.4,000/- from the possession of A2;

Samsung J-5 mobile phone and cash of Rs.1,000/- from the possession of A3; One Opp white color mobile phone and cash of Rs.1,000/- from the possession of A4; One Samsung gold colour mobile phone and cash of Rs.1,600/- from the possession of A5 and one Samsung white colour mobile phone and net cash of Rs.1,000/- from the possession of A6 under a cover of panchanama in the presence of the mediators and thereafter he brought them to the police station along with the seized property.

Basing on the said confessional-cum-seizure panchanama, LW14/

D.Balraj, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Rajendranagar has registered a case in Crime No.836/2019 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act. Subsequently LW15/N.Bose Kiran, Addl Inspector of Police, P.S.Rajendranagar has taken up further investigation of the case and during the course of his investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of LW3/K.Anjaneyulu, P.C of P.S.Rajendranagar,

LW4/Keshavulu, P.C of P.S.Rajendranagar, LW5/Kum.S.Jaya, W.P.C of

P.S.Rajendranagar, LW6/V.Shekar, H.G of P.S.Rajendranagar,

LW7/Suitha, LW8/Syeda Rahema, LW9/Tulasi and LW10/Kamar Begum, he has served notice on the accused under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C and on 21.06.2019 since the accused did not complied the said notice, he 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20224IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar has arrested them and produced them before the court for their remand to judicial custody. He has sent LW7/Sunitha, LW8/Syeda

Rahema, LW9/Tulasi and LW10/Kamar Begum to rescue home, Kasturba

Gandhi National Memorial Trust, Hydershakote, Rajendranagar for safe custody.

On requisition, the DCP, Shamshabad Zone, Cyberabad has addressed a letter to the Nodal Officer of Idea service provider to furnish the hard copies and CAF and CDRs in respect of phone Nos (1)9553955550 and (2) 9515666908 from 19.06.2019 to 21.06.2019.

LW12/Smt.Jayalakshmi Nodal Officer has furnished CAF and CDR details in respect of phone No.9553955550 and as per the said details the said phone number belongs to A6. LW12 has furnished a report that mobile

No.9515666908 does not belongs to their network. On requisition of the

DCP, Shamshabad zone, LW13/Jitender, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio has furnished CAF and CDRs in respect of 8688845916 that it was registered in the name of A2. On completion of investigation

LW16/K.Kanakaih, Inspector of Police, P.S.Rajendrangar filed charge sheet against A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Section 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956. Hence, the prosecution case in nutshell.

3.This matter was committed from the court XIV Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar vide PRC.No.130 of 2021

against A1 to A6.

14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20225IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

4.On hearing A1 to A6, the court framed charges against them for the offence punishable under Section 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956.

The charges were read over and explained them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17 and MOs 1 to 7.

6.After closure of trial, A1 to A6 were examined under Section 313(b) of Cr.P.C by putting incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to them, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Section 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956, beyond reasonable doubt?”

9.POINT :

a)To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 10.

PWs 1 and 2 are the panch witnesses for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of the accused. PWs 3 to 5 are the police personnel, who said to have assisted PW10 in detecting the crime. PWs 6 and 7 are the nodal officers. PWs 8 to 10 are the investigating officers.

b)Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 testified that on 20.06.2019 at 9.00 p.m. the Sub Inspector of Police called him to P.S.Rajendranagar 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20226IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar to flat No.C11, pillar No.207 situated near Diary farm in Budwel. That one boy opened the door. He stated that he cannot identify the said person. They found some money and phone in the possession of the said person. That the S.I has obtained his signature on the panchanama. The said witness was declared hostile and during the cross examination by the Addl. Public Prosecutor, PW1 admitted that A1 and A2 confessed the commission of the offence in his presence in flat

No.C11 and the police has seized cash, cell phones and condoms from the possession of A1 to A6 in his presence. In his cross examination he has stated that he cannot identify the accused by their names. He cannot say the flat number to which he was called by the police

Rajendranagar. That his signatures were obtained on the panchanama in the police station. He stated that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and that at the instance of the police he has affixed his signatures on the panchanama.

c)PW2, another panch witness deposed that on 6th date in the year 2019 the police Rajendranagar called him to pillar No.208 situated in

Golden heights apartment at Upparpally and informed him that prostitution was going on in the said apartment near pillar No.208. On the request of the police he went to the said apartment and found three women and six men in the said apartment. The police took them into custody and seized mobile phones and cash from their possession in his presence. He stated that he do not remember as to how much cash and how many cell phones were seized from them and from which of the accused they were seized and he cannot identify the said 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20227IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar persons if shown to him. At the instance of the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, he was declared hostile and in his cross examined by the public prosecutor, he stated that panchanama was conducted in flat

No.C11, pillar No.207 of Hussaini heights apartment. He do not know whether the cell phone seized from the possession of A1 is a samsung phone, but some amount was seized from his possession. The police seized cash and cell phones from the remaining accused. In his cross examination he stated that he was taken to pillar No.208 and the distance between pillar No.207 and 208 is around 200 meters. The flat where panchanama was conducted is in 5th floor. After the stairs, there are two flats and this is the 3rd flat. He do not remember how many rooms are there in the said flat. He do not know the names of the individual accused persons. He cannot say from which of the accused which mobile is seized and the amount of cash seized from them. He found all the persons in the hall. He has not seen the search proceedings with the police.

d)PW3 is the constable who said to have assisted PW9 in conducting raid. He deposed that on 20.06.2019 at 8.00 p.m. when he was doing patrolling duty along with LW6/HG at Attapur, he along with PWs 4 and 5 and PW9 accompanied by two mediators went to flat No.C11, 5th floor situated at Pillar No.207, Hussaini heights. On knocking the door of the said flat, A1 opened the door. They all entered the house and found six male persons and four female persons in the said house total seven.

PW9 enquired them and recorded their confessional statement and 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20228IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar seized cash of Rs.12,600/-, six cell phones and two condom packets from their possession and took them to the police station.

e)PW4 is the constable, who said to have assisted PW9 in detecting the crime. He deposed that on 20.06.2019 around 8.00 p.m. on the request of PW9, he along with PW3, PW5 and LW6 and the mediators accompanied PW9 to the scene of offence i.e., flat No./C11, 5th floor,

Hussaine heights situated at pillar No.207. They found six male and four female persons in the said house. All the six persons confessed the commission of the offence and PW9 has seized cash of Rs.12,600/-, six cell phones and two condom packets from their possession in the presence of the mediators.

f)PW5 is the police constable and he deposed that on 20.06.2019 at the request of PW9, he along with PWs 3 and 4 and LW6 and two mediators accompanied PW9 to flat No.C11 situated at Hussaini heights apartments near pillar No.207 of Attapur. They found six male persons in the said flat. A1 confessed that he has been running brothel house and A2 confessed that he has been assisting A1, A6 and three others came there as customers, at the instance of A1. He stated that he cannot say the names of the other three persons. In pursuance of their confession, PW9 has seized cash of Rs.12,600/-, six cell phones and four condom packets from their possession under a cover of panchanama.

g)PWs 6 and 7 are the nodal officers. PW8 is the Inspector of Police and he deposed that on 28.01.2021 on receipt of CD file from the 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 20229IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Inspector of Police namely Suresh, he has taken up further investigation of the case, verified the investigation done by PWs 9 and 10 and on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 to A6.

h)PW9 deposed that on 20.06.2019 at 8.00 p.m. on receipt of credible information that prostitution was going on in an independent house situated at Hussaini Heights area, pillar No.207, Upparpally,

Rajendranagar, immediately he secured the presence of the mediators

PWs 1 and 2 and proceeded to the scene of offence along with the mediators and his staff i.e., PWs 3 to 5 and LW6 and found A1 to A6 in the said house, recorded their confessional statements and seized cash, cell phones and condom packets from their possession under a cover of panchanama and brought them to the police station and basing on the said panchanama he has registered the case and issued

FIR.

i)PW10 is the investigating officer and he deposed that on 21.06.2019 on receipt of CD file from PW9, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs 3 to 5, LW6/PC, LWs 7 and 8/victims of the offence, served notice on A1 to A6 under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C.

arrested them on the same day and produced them before the court, for their remand to judicial custody and subsequently he has handed over the CD file to PW8 for further investigation.

j)Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is the case of the prosecution that on receipt of credible information, PW9 along with 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202210IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar his staff i.e., PWs 3 to 5, to PW9 and the mediators i.e., PWs 1 and 2 visited flat No.C11 situated in 5th floor of Hussaine heights apartments at pillar No.207 and found A1 to A6 and on enquiry by PW9, they confessed the commission of the offence and accordingly PW9 has recorded their confessional statements in the presence of the mediators PWs 1 and 2 and seized MOs 1 to 7. PWs 3 to 5 and PW9 stated in their evidence that they visited Hussaine heights apartments situated near pillar No.207, whereas PW2 stated that the place which they visited is Golden heights apartment. Further, it is according to

PWs 3 to 5 and PW9, the apartment which they raided is situated at pillar No.207, whereas PW2 stated that it is situated at pillar No.208 and in his cross examination he has stated that the distance between pillar No.207 and 208 is 200 meters. PWs 3 and 4 stated that on entering the flat they found six male and four female persons, but PW5 except stating that they found six male persons in the scene of offence, he did not state about the presence of four female persons also in the alleged scene of offence. While that being so, PW2, the panch witness stated that they found only three women along with six male persons.

PW2, the mediator stated that the flat which they visited is in fifth floor and after the stair, there are two flats and this is the third flat, whereas contrary to the evidence of PW2, PW3 stated that the said flat is just beside the lift. Surprisingly, PW9 who alleged to have raided the premises stated that he do not know as to how many floors are there in the said building and he cannot say as to where the house is situated in the fifth floor. PW2,the mediator stated that they found all inmates of the house sitting in the hall of the house, whereas PW3 stated that all 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202211IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar the male persons were sitting in one room and all the female persons were sitting in another room. While that being so, PW4 stated that they found one person in the hall of the house and all the six male and five female persons together in the rooms. Whereas PW5 stated that they found six male and four female persons sitting in the hall of the house.

PW9 stated that he has seen some of the people in the hall and some in the bed room. Admittedly PW9 has also not mentioned the same in the panchanama recorded by him. Further, it is according to PWs 2 to 5, the said premises is an apartment, whereas PW9 stated that it is an independent house. PW2 stated that he do not know as to how many rooms are there in the said flat. PW3 stated that it is a double bed room house. PW5 stated that there are only two rooms in the said flat.

PW9 stated that the said flat is consisting of two bed rooms, one hall and one kitchen. The prosecution also did not chose to file search proceedings for conducting raid. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and

PW9 is contradicting with each other.

k)Coming to the evidence as regards the seizure of the material objects from the possession of the accused, PW2, the mediator to the panchanama stated that he do not know the names of the individual accused persons, he cannot say from which of the accused, which mobile is seized and the amount of cash seized by them. PW3 also stated that he has not sated about the seizure of the material objects in his statement given to PW10. He stated that he cannot say as to how much amount was seized from which of the accused, how many cell phones were seized from which of the accused by the name of the 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202212IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar accused and by seeing the accused present in the dock of the court.

PW4 stated that he cannot identify A1 to A6 present in the dock of the court, he cannot say how much amount was seized from which of the accused, how many cell phones were seized from which of the accused by the name of the accused. PW5 also stated that he cannot say from which person which objects were seized, he cannot say the company names of the mobile phones seized by PW9. Further, it is according to

PW3, PW9 has seized two condoms in the scene of offence, whereas

PW5 stated that the seized condoms from the scene of offence is four condoms. Admittedly PW9 has not pasted panch chits on each and every mobile phone and MO.2 condom packets also does not contain the panch chits. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 and PW9 is contradicting in material aspects and it creates doubt over the veracity of PWs 1 to 5 and PW9 that they ever visited the scene of offence.

l)In such circumstances, the evidence of the panch witnesses, in whose presence, the accused said to have confessed the commission of the offence and in whose presence PW9 said to have seized the material objects assumes importance, but it is pertinent to note that

PW1, one of the mediator did not support the prosecution case, he stated that his signatures were obtained on the panchanama in the police station. PW2 though stated that the police conducted panchanama in his presence, he stated that the said panchanama took place in golden heights apartments situated near pillar No.208, which is altogether a different place and in his cross examination he stated that he do not know the names of the accused persons, he cannot say 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202213IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar from which of the accused which of the material object was seized and he has also not seen the search proceeding with the police. Thus, the evidence of PWs 3 to 5 and PW9 is contradicting with the evidence of

PW2 and the evidence of PWs 2 to 5 and PW9 does not inspire confidence of the court.

m)The prosecution did not chose to examine LWs 7 to 10, who are cited as victims of the offence, so also LW11, who is cited as owner of the premises. Non examination of the victims of the offence is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

n)Moreover, admittedly in this case, no independent person lodged complaint before the police, but the police themselves registered the case suo-moto. It is a settled law that the police officer who detected the offence and arrested the accused gave a report which was registered as FIR, same officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet and conviction based on such investigation cannot be sustained. In this case, PW9 himself detected the crime and himself registered the case suo moto.

o)There are inherent improbabilities and serious infirmities. The evidence on record is relatively weak, vague, inconclusive and generated reasonable doubt.

10.From the sum and substratum of the above discussion, I hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offences punishable under Sections 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and 14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202214IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act, beyond reasonable doubt, as such, they are entitled to be acquitted.

11.In the result, A1 to A6 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 370(2)(A) of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act and accordingly they are acquitted of the same under Section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal period. MO2 shall be destroyed and MOs 1, 3 to 7 shall be confiscated to the State, after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of November , 2023.

IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW1: S.Ramesh. -None- PW2: P.Mahender. PW3: K.Anjaneyulu, P.C of P.S. Rajendranagar. PW4: S.Jaya, W.P.C of P.S. Rajendranagar. PW5: Keshavulu, P.C of P.S. Rajendranagar. PW6: P.Jaya Lakshmi, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Idea Ltd, Hyderabad. PW7: G.Jithendar, Nodal Officer, Reliance Jio, Somajiguda. PW8: K.Kanakaiah, Inspector of Police, P.S. Intelligence, Lakdikapul. PW9: B.Balaraju, Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.Narsingi. PW10: N.Bose Kiran, Inspector of Police, P.S.Rajendranagar.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: The signature of PW1 on the panchanama. Ex.P2: The signature of PW1 on the rough sketch map. Ex.P3: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A6 dated 20.06.2019. Ex.P4: The customer application. Ex.P5: The call data record.

14-11-2023.

S.C.No.213 of 202215IV Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Ex.P6: The covering letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad zone dated 15.11.2019. Ex.P7: Section 65-B certificate dated 15.11.2019. Ex.P8: The customer application. Ex.P9: The call record. Ex.P10: The covering letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Shamshabad Zone dated 28.08.2020. Ex.P11: Section 65-B certificate dated 28.08.2020. Ex.P12: First information report. Ex.P13: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 dated. 21.06.2019. Ex.P14: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A2 dated. 21.06.2019. Ex.P15: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A3 dated. 21.06.2019. Ex.P16: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A4 dated. 21.06.2019. Ex.P17: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A5 dated. 21.06.2019.

FOR DEFENCE :-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:- Mo-1: Cash of Rs.12,600/- deposited vide FDR.No.40294136129

dated 15.07.2021.

Mo-2: Two condom packets. Mo-3: One samsung J8 mobile phone. Mo-4: One samsung duos mobile phone. Mo-5: One oppo white colour mobile phone. Mo-6: One samsung gold colour mobile phone. Mo-7: One white color samsung mobile phone.

IV ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

14-11-2023.

SC.No.429 of 2017 1 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present: SMT.V.MADHAVI LATHA VIII Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District

Dated this the 9 th day of May, 2022

SC.No.429 of 2017

Name of the The State of Telangana. through the Sub- Complainant Inspector of Police, P.S.Moinabad.

Name of the Accused1) Gopigari Alivela, W/o.Manohar, age 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.H.No.5-58, Appojiguda Village, Moinabad Mandal, R.R.District.

2) Boddula Renuka, W/o.Srikanth, age 33 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.PVR Colony, Flat No.26, Saheb Nagar, Vanasthalipuram, Hyderabad.

Charge U/Sec. U/s.498-A, 306 of IPC.

Crime No.185 of 2016

Plea of the accusedNot Guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 498-A and 306 IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C. MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. Prosecution Sri S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor conducted by

Defence conducted by Sri.E.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for Accused

This case was committed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Rajendranagar vide PRC.No.10 of 2017.

This case having come before me on 09.05.2022 in the presence of the Sri.S.Shobha Rani, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.E.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused and upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 2 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

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

The Inspector of Police, P.S.Moinabad filed charge sheet against the sole accused in crime.No.185 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that,

LW1/O.Basavaiah is the father of the deceased. LW2/O.laxmi is the mother of the deceased and LW3/O.Balakrishna is the brother of the deceased. A1 is the mother-in-law and A2 is the sister-in-law of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnized with

LW4/G.Ganesh on 28-10-2012 and out of their wedlock, they were blessed with two children. For few days prior to the death of the deceased, both A1 and A2 started harassing the deceased physically and mentally on petty issues. A2 used to humiliate the deceased and she used to instigate A1 over phone to harass the deceased. In this regard the husband of the deceased convinced the deceased. Due to the continuous torture, the deceased disgusted on her life and accordingly on 10-6-2016 in the evening hours, she poured kerosene on her body and set ablaze herself. She succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment on 3-7-2016.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW12/G.Srinivasu, Inspector of

Police, P.S.Moinabad registered a case in crime No.185 of 2016 under

Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, issued FIR and entrusted the investigation to LW13/B.Laxminarayana, Sub Inspector of Police,

P.S.Moinabad for further investigation. During the course of his investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 4/Basavaiah, Laxmi, Balakrishna and Ganesh, conducted scene of 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 3 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

offence panchanama, seized kerosene tin and burnt saree pieces from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, visited Century

Hospital, Hyderabad to record the statement of the victim Santhosh, but she was not able to give statement. On receipt of death intimation of the deceased on 3-7-2016, LW13/B.Laxminarayana, SI of Police,

PS.Moinabad filed requisition before LW11/Ananth Reddy, Tahasildar,

Moinabad Mandal for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased and to LW10/Dr.Laxman, Asst. Professor, OMC Koti, OGH,

Hyderabad to conduct autopsy, recorded the statements of

LW5/Nimmaraju, basing on the death of the deceased and statements of the witnesses, altered Section of Law from Section 498-A of Indian

Penal Code to Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. A1 and A2 surrendered before XXIII MM. Rajendranagar court. LW10 held autopsy and issued postmortem examination report, opining that the cause of death of the deceased was due to burn injuries. On completion of investigation, LW13 filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal

Code. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

3.This case was committed by the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad at Rajendranagar Nagar vide PRC.No.10 of 2017. It was made over to this court alleging offences under Sections 306, 498-A of

IPC against accused No.1 and 2 is triable by Sessions Court. On hearing the accused No.1 and 2, the court framed charges against them for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC. The charge was read over and explained to them, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such matter was posted for trial.

09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 4 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

4.At the time of trial, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. Material objects MO1 and 2 are marked.

5.After closure of trial, Accused No.1 and 2 are examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C and the incriminating material available against them in the evidence of prosecution witness is read over and explained to them in vernacular for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6.Heard, arguments of both sides and perused the material on record.

7.Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

8. Point :

a)To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12.

PW1 is the defacto complainant and father of the deceased Santhosh.

PW2 is the mother of the deceased. PW3 is the brother of the deceased. PW4 is the husband of the deceased. PW5 is the circumstantial witness. PWs 6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama. PWs 8 and 9 are the panch witness for the inquest. PW10 is the Tahasildar, who said to have conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. PW11 is the medical officer, who said to have conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and PW12 is the investigating officer.

b)Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 deposed that he performed the marriage of his deceased daughter Santhoshi with PW4. That at th 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 5 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

time of the marriage, an amount of Rs.8.5 lakhs was given to PW4 as dowry. Both the deceased and PW4 lived happily for four years, they were blessed with two children. During the fourth year of their marriage, there were disputes between the deceased, her mother-in- law and sister-in-law, who are none other than A1 and A2. They used to harass the deceased physically and mentally. When the deceased used to make a call, both A1 and A2 used to break the phone. PW4 used to request the deceased not to disclose the said fact either to

PW1 or his family members. That one day he received a call from PW4 that the deceased is admitted in hospital and she is unwell. He rushed to the house of PW4 and thereafter to Century Hospital and there he found his daughter who was not in a condition to speak out. Then he went to the police station to give Ex.P1 report.

c)PW2, the mother of the deceased deposed that four years after the marriage of her deceased daughter with PW4, A1 and A2 started harassing her. Through her deceased daughter she came to know that whenever her daughter used to inform about the harassment to them, her husband used to stop her. During the fourth year of her marriage, on one day her elder daughter by name Balamani made a phone call and informed them that the deceased doused kerosene on her and lit fire herself, as such herself and her family members rushed to Century

Hospital.

d)PW3, the brother of the deceased deposed that in the beginning of the marriage, the deceased led a happy life and after the birth of girl child A1 used to harass the deceased. A2, whenever she visited the house, used to instigate A1, on which A1 used to harass the deceased.

09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 6 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

Once the deceased made a call to him and informed him that both A1 and A2 are harassing her a lot and he told her the matter has to be placed before elders, if not the matter may turn into a big issue, however, the deceased subside the issue telling that her husband has assured her that everything will be fine. That on the next day when he made a call to her and advised to place the matter before the elders, she did not accept for the same. After some days the deceased visited his house and stayed for a period of 13 days, later PW4 made a call to the deceased and assured that A2 has promised that she will not cause any harassing and believing the words, the deceased returned back and joined the company of PW4. One day PW4 made a phone call to him and informed him that the deceased doused kerosene on herself and lit fire for herself and she is admitted in Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad and immediately they rushed to the hospital and on the advise of the doctors, the deceased was shifted to Century Hospital for better treatment. That his sister underwent treatment for a prior of 21 days and later she died on 3-7-2016.

e)PW4 is the husband of the deceased and he did not supported the prosecution case. He has stated that after the birth of second child, the deceased had severe stomach pain and he regularly used to take her to hospital for treatment. On 28-7-2016 while he was at his work place, he received a call from his neighbor by name Raju and he informed him that the deceased has doused kerosene on her own and set fire for herself, on hearing the same, he rushed to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad and found his wife with burns and when he asked 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 7 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

her, she informed that she has taken such a step, unable to bear the stomach pain.

f)PW5 also did not supported the prosecution case, he stated that he do not know how the deceased died and the reason for her death.

g)PWs 6 and 7, the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama did not supported the prosecution case. They stated, no panchanama was conducted in their presence.

h)PWs 8 and 9, the panch witnesses to the inquest panchanama stated that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in their presence in Osmania General Hospital and that the deceased died by dousing kerosene on herself.

i)PW10 stated that on 4-7-2016 on receipt of requisition from SHO,

P.S.Moinabad to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased

G.Santhosha, on the same day he conducted inquest in the presence of

PWs 8 and 9 and issued Ex.P8 inquest report. He stated that the deceased died by committing suicide by setting herself ablazed, unable to bear the harassment of A1 and A2.

j)PW11, the medical officer stated that on 4-7-2016 he has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P9 report opining that the cause of death was due to burns and its complications.

k)PW12 is the investigating officer and he deposed that on 11-6-2016 on receipt of Ex.P1 report from PW1, LW12/Inspector of

Police registered a case in crime No.185/2016 under Section 498-A of 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 8 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

Indian Penal Code, issued Ex.P10 FIR and entrusted the investigation to him. That during the course of his investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3, conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized five liter kerosene tin containing some quantity of kerosene and burnt saree pieces from the scene of offence under a cover of pachanama. That he was not able to record the statement of the deceased, as she was totally burnt and not able to speak. On receipt of death intimation on 3-7-2016, he filed requisition before

PW10 for conducting inquest over the dead body. That PW11 conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued

Ex.P9 PME report. That A1 and A2 surrendered before XXIII MM,

Rajendranagar court on 19-9-2016. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A1 and A2.

l)Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, there is no dispute that the deceased doused kerosene on herself and lit fire and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. To establish the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of

Indian Penal Code that both A1 and A2 subjected the deceased to cruelty physically and mentally and they abetted her to commit suicide, the prosecution placed reliance mainly on the evidence PWs 1 to 5. PW4, the husband of the deceased and PW5, who is cited as circumstantial witness and independent witness to the incident did not supported the prosecution case. Thus, the only evidence remained is the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are the father, mother and brother of the deceased.

09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 9 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

m)It is according to PWs 1 to 3, during fourth year of the marriage of the deceased with PW4, A1, who is the mother-in-law and A2 who is the sister-in-law of the deceased started harassing the deceased physically and mentally. It is according to PW1, he had given Rs.8.5 lakhs as dowry to the husband of the deceased. He stated that whenever the deceased used to make call to him, both A1 and A2 used to break the phone and the husband of the deceased used to request the deceased not to disclose the said fact either to him or his family members. But, admittedly, PW1 did not mention either in his

Ex.P1 report or in his statement given to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. that he has given dowry of Rs.8.5 lakhs to PW4. Having stated in his chief examination that both A1 and A2 used to break the phone, whenever the deceased used to make a call to them, in his cross examination, PW1 stated that he cannot tell the date when A1 and A2 broke the phone. He has stated in his cross examination that he has not specifically mentioned or in his report or stated to the police that after four years of the marriage, there were disputes between the deceased and both the accused and he has also not mentioned that A1 and A2 broke the phone of the deceased when she was trying to make a call to them. He also admitted in his cross examination that he has not mentioned in Ex.P1 report so also in his statement given to the police that the husband of the deceased requested the deceased not to disclose any matter to him or to his family members.

n)PW2 in her chief examination stated that after four years of the marriage, A1 and A2 started harassing her daughter and the deceased informed her, whenever she was trying to inform the harassment to 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 10 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

them, her husband used to stop her, but the same is not stated by PW2 in her statement given to the police. In her cross examination she admitted that she has not stated to the police that the husband of the deceased stopped the deceased whenever the deceased tried to inform the harassment to them.

o)It is according to PW3, his deceased sister made a call to him and informed him that A1 and A2 were harassing her a lot and therefore, he advised to place the matter before the elders and in this connection, the deceased came to his house and stayed for 13 days and it is only after the husband of the deceased called him and assured that A2 promised that she is not going to harass her, she went back to the house of her husband, but none of the said statements find its place in his statement given to the police. PW3 stated the same, for the very first time before this court. Surprisingly, PW3 introduced altogether and new factor stating that on the birth of the girl child to the deceased, both A1 and A2 started harassing her, which is not spoken by PWs 1 and 2 and even it is not stated by PW3 himself to the police. Falsifying the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the investigating officer stated that none of the witnesses stated to him that at the time of marriage, any dowry was presented or dowry was demanded by the accused or any demand was made for dowry after the marriage. He stated, none of the witnesses stated the reason for the accused to harass the deceased. He stated that PW1 did not state to him that the deceased made a phone call to him and informed him that A1 and A2 were harassing her. He stated that PW3 also did not state to him that 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 11 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

on the birth of the girl child to the deceased, A1 and A2 started harassing her. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 suffers exaggeration.

p)The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 does not disclose any fact which clearly establishes that the victim Santhosh suffered cruelty in the hands of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 did not give any proper reasons as to why there was dispute between the deceased and both the accused.

PWs 1 to 3 merely deposed a stray line about the deceased Santhosh being harassed by A1 and A2. This stray line deposed by PWs 1 to 3 is not sufficient to believe their version. As they being the parents and brother of the deceased, out of emotion they are speaking false. There is every possibility about PWs 1 to 3 exaggerating and deposing against the accused.

q)PW1 stated that he has never witnessed the accused harassing the deceased Santhoshi. In such circumstances, the best persons to speak of the same either that there is any such harassment and both the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide, will be the neighbours to the house of the deceased, but admittedly PW12, the investigating officer did not chose to examine any such neighbours, for the reasons best known to him.

r)On perusal of the entire prosecution evidence, there is no single piece of evidence, which establishes that A1 and A2 caused harassment both physically and mentally or accused had done any such act which driven the deceased Santhosh to commit suicide.

Though the prosecution got marked Ex.P8 inquest panchanama and

Ex.P9 postmortem examination report, which establishes the death of 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 12 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

the deceased Kavitha, there is no evidence which shows that the accused have abetted the deceased Kavitha or instigated her or aided her or engaged themselves and conspired to commit an illegal act which laid to the death of the deceased Kavitha.

9.The sum and substratum of the above discussion is that, the prosecution failed to bring out any case against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal

Code and accordingly, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. Point is answered accordingly against the prosecution.

10.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC and they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand cancelled as per Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

MOs 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of May, 2022.

VIII ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW1: O.Baswaiah -None- PW2: V.Lakshmi PW3: Oruganti Balakrishna PW4: G.Ganesh PW5: G.Nimma Raju PW6: T.Yadaiah PW7: K.Sriramulu PW8: K.Agamaiah 09.05.2022

SC.No.429 of 2017 13 VIII AASJ, R.R DIST.

PW9: G.Vasanthi PW10:K.Anantha Reddy PW11: Dr.K.Lakshman PW12: B.Lakshminarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Report Ex.P2: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P3: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on Scene cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on rough sketch Ex.P6: Signature of PW7 on Scene cum Seizure panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW7 on rough sketch Ex.P8: Inquest panchanama Ex.P9: Postmortem examination report dt:04.07.2016 Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Scene of offence panchanama dt:11.06.2016 Ex.P12: Rough Sketch Map Ex.P13: Certificate issued by Dr.Rajesh Vasu, dt:17.08.2016.

FOR DEFENCE : -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-

MO1 : Five liter Kerosene tin containing some quantity of kerosene MO2 : Burnt saree pieces.

VIII ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

09.05.2022

S.C.No.671 of 20231II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT AT L.B. NAGAR

Present:Smt.V.Madhavi Latha, I Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge FAC II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 4th day of April, 2024

SC.No.671 of 2023

Name of the Complainant The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S.Vanasthalipuram.

Name of the Accused A1-Varadha Vani, W/o.Achyutharamaiah, Age:50 years, Occ:Brothel Business, R/o.Plot No.30, Road No.2, Phase-III, Sharada Nagar, Vansthalipuram, R.R.District. N/o.H.No.28-3-8, Tippani Vari Street, Tanuku Town, West Godavari District.

A2-Buddi Bhagavan, S/o.Mallikarjun, Age:62 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.5-1-83, near Vegetable Market, Vemulawada, Rajanna Sirisilla District.

Charge U/SectionsSections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006.

Crime No.985 of 2022

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtFound not guilty

Sentence or Order In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a),

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20232II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006 and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stands canceled. MOs 1 to 3 shall be confiscated to the State and MO4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Prosecution conducted by Sri.G.V.Rama Krishna Rao, Addl.Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted bySri.P.Gund Reddy counsel for A1

Sri.M.Shiva Shankar counsel for A2

This case was committed by the court of Additional Junior Civil

Judge-Cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar

vide PRC.No.51 of 2022 against A1 and A2.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 03.04.2024 in the presence of the Sri.G.V.Rama Krishna Rao, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of P.Gund Reddy counsel for A1 and Sri.M.Shiva Shankar counsel for A2 and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Inspector of Police, P.S.Vanasthalipuram has filed charge sheet against A1 and A2 in crime No.985 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of

Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006.

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20233II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as follows:-

For the past twelve years A1 was organizing brothel house by taking different houses for rent. Earlier in the year 2013, 2015 and 2016 three cases were registered against A1 in P.S.Chaitanyapuri.

After the above cases A1 went to her native village and again returned back to Hyderabad in the end of 2021 and stayed in different localities. For the past six months A1 has been staying in

Plot No.30, Road No.2, Phase-III, Sharada Nagar, Vanasthalipuram and again started organizing brothel house for her financial needs.

She induced LW5/Kaveti Laxmi who is working as Tailor to indulge in prostitution activities. While so, on 27.07.2022 A1 called A2 to her house in the morning hours and on the same day at 3:15 a.m A2 who is native of Vemulavada came to the house of A1 for having sexual pleasure, paid Rs.1,500/- to A1 and went inside the bed room for compromising with LW5/K.Laxmi and A1 was waiting in the hall. In the meanwhile LW1/B.Venkat, Detective Inspector of Police along with LW2/A.Madhava Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, LW3/S.Srinivas,

Police Constable, LW4/Bhushanam Divya, LW7/Nethikar Shiva and

LW8/Madasu Shivamani came to the house of A1, arrested A1 and A2 and rescued LW5, recorded the confession statements of A1 and A2,

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20234II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar seized net cash of Rs.1,500/-, one vivo mobile phone, one Jio keypad mobile pone from the possession of A1 and one vivo mobile phone from the possession of A2 under a cover of panchanama and also seized four condoms under the bed from the bed room in the presence of the mediators i.e. LWs 7 and 8. After that LW1 lodged a report before LW9/K.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police

Basing on the report of LW1, LW9 registered a case in crime

No.985 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)

(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006 and issued F.I.R. During the course of his investigation he has examined and recorded the statements of LWs 1 to 4, arrested A1 and A2 produced them before the court for their remand to judicial custody, produced LW5 before the rescue home for women for rehabilitation. On completion of his investigation he filed charge against A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)

(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006. Hence the prosecution case in nutshell.

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20235II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

3.This matter was committed from the court of II Additional Junior

Civil Judge – Cum – XIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga

Reddy District vide PRC.No.76 of 2023 against A1 and A2.

4.On hearing A1 and A2, this court framed charge against them for the offences punishable underSections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal

Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of

Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006. The charges were read over and explained them in vernacular, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7, got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MO1 to MO4.

6.After closure of trial, A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313(b) Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence of prosecution in question form to them, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 370(A)

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20236II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006.. beyond reasonable doubt?”

9. P O I N T :

a)To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7.

PWs 1 and 3 are the police personnel who said to have assisted PW7 in detecting the crime. PW2 is the owner of the premises. PWs 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence cum confession cum seizure panchanama. PW6 is the investigating officer and PW7 is the Detective Inspector of Police, who said to have detected the crime.

b)Unfolding the prosecution case, PW1 testified that on 27.07.2022 when he was in blue court duty in the limits of

Vanasthalipuram, PW7 made a phone call to him in the afternoon hours and asked him to come to the police station. Immediately he went to the police station and on the instructions of PW7, he along with LW2/SI and PW3 accompanied PW7 to the house situated at

Kamalanagaar. He stated that he cannot say the house number.

They found A1 in the said house. PW3 checked the rooms in the said house and found A2 and LW5/K.Laxmi in one of the room. PW7 enquired A2 and LW5, for which they stated that they were indulging

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20237II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar in prostitution. They took two mediators with them to the scene of offence. In pursuance of the confession of A1 and A2, PW7 has seized three mobile phones from the possession of A1, A2 and LW5, he also seized cash of Rs.1500/- and condoms from them under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators and later they brought them to the police station. In his cross examination he stated that he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence.

c)PW2 deposed that his brother namely Anil Kumar own a house in plot No.30, Sharadhanagar, Vanasthalipuram. He cannot say its house number. His brother let out the above house to A1 in the year 2022 on a monthly rent of Rs.6000/-. A1 used to pay rents through google pay or by way of cash. She told him that she intend to run a pickle business in the said house. In the month of July or

August, 2022, the neighbors informed him that the police arrested

A1 and subsequently the police also called him to the police station and informed him that A1 has been running brothel house in the above house.

d)PW3 deposed that on 27.07.2022 when he was in the police station on his duty, PW7 informed him that prostitution was going

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20238II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar on in Sharadanagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram. On the instructions of PW7, he along with LW2/A.Madhava Reddy and two mediators proceeded to the scene of offence. He sated that he cannot say its house number. After going to the said house he found A1 sitting in the hall of the house. She told him that A2 and LW5 are in the bed room in compromising condition. She called A2 and LW5 to the hall. He enquired A1, A2 and LW5 and they stated that they were indulging in prostitution. He has seized cash of Rs.1500/-, two cell phones and four condoms from the possession of A1, A2 and LW5.

After that they brought them to the police station and produced

before PW7. He stated that his statement was recorded but he

cannot say who recorded his statement. In his cross examination he stated that he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence. He cannot say how many floors are there in the said building.

e)PWs 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence cum confession cum seizure panchanama. They deposed that they do not know A1 and A2, the police never conducted any panchanama in their presence and that A1 and A2 never confessed the commission of the offence before them. In the year 2022,

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 20239II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar when they went to the police station on their personal works, the police obtained their signatures on some white papers.

f)PW6 is the investigating officer. He deposed that on 27.07.2022, on receipt of report from PW7, he registered a case in crime No.985/2022 and during the course of his investigation, he has examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3, PW7,

LWs 2 and 5, arrested the accused, produced them before the court for their remand to judicial custody, collected the order copy in respect of the duties of PWs 1, 3, and 7 and LW2, deposited the case property before the court and on completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused.

g)PW7 deposed that on 27.07.2022, on receipt of credible information that prostitution was going on in an independent house situated in plot No.30, Sharadnagar Colony, Vanasthalipuram, he obtained search proceedings for raiding the above premises. Later he secured two mediators i.e., Pws 4 and 5 and proceeded to the said premises and found A1 in the said house. With the help of

PW3, he searched the bed room and found A2 and LW5 in the bed room in compromising condition. He called them out and on his

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202310II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar enquiry, they confessed that they were indulging in prostitution and accordingly he has recorded the confession statements of A1 and

A2 and seized cash of Rs.1500/- and vivo mobile phone and Jio keypad phone from the possession of A1 under a cover of panchanama in the presence of mediators. He also seized one vivo mobile phone from A2. He also seized four condoms from the bed room and after that he brought A1, A2 and LW5 along with the seized property to the police station and produced before PW6.

h)Coming to the appreciation of evidence on record, it is according to PWs 1, 3 and 7, they all together went to the scene of offence and raided the premises and hence they are supposed to explain the events in similar fashion, but their evidence is contradicting with each other. PW1 stated that during the confession of A1, A2 and LW5/victim, PW7 has seized three cell phones from the possession of A1, A2 and LW5, whereas it is according to PWs 2 and 7, the cell phones that were seized by PW7 are only two. PW1 having stated that he visited the scene of offence along with PWs 2 and 7, he stated that he cannot say the house number of the house raided by them. In his cross examination he stated that he cannot say even the boundaries of

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202311II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar the scene of offence. PW2 also stated in his chief examination that he cannot say its house number, he cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence and he cannot say how may floors are there in the said building. Thus, the evidence of both PWs 1 and 2 is creating suspicion that they ever visited the scene of offence.

Further, the confession panchanama of A1 and A2 discloses that

PW7 has recorded the said panchanama in the scene of offence at 3.45 pm and 4.50 p.m. on 27.07.2022, whereas admittedly according to PW6, in column No.3 of Ex.P6 FIR it is mentioned that the information of the offence was received on 27.07.2022 at 5.40 p.m. Thus, if according to PW7 he has received information of the offence at 5.40 p.m. it is not known as to how come PW7 has visited the scene of offence before 5.40 p.m. and how he he has recorded the scene of offence cum confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 and A2 and LW5 in the scene of offence before 5.40 p.m. i.e., at 3.45 p.m. or 4.50 p.m. itself. Be that as it may, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that they cannot say the boundaries of the scene of offence, they cannot say as to how many floors are there in the said building is creating doubt over their veracity that they ever visited the scene of offence on the alleged date of

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202312II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar incident. It is according to PW7, he has obtained Ex.P7 search proceedings from ACP for raiding the premises and after that they raided the scene of offence, but the said proceedings does not contain any endorsement that it was served on any of the inmates of the above premises. If according to PW7 he has obtained search proceedings prior to proceeding to the scene of offence certainly he could have served the copy of the same and he could have obtained the signatures of A1, A2 and LW5 on the said proceedings, but that was not done. Further PW7 also might have mentioned about the said proceedings in the panchanama recorded by them in the scene of offence, but admittedly PW7 has not mentioned about the search proceedings in the panchanama. In such circumstances, the evidence of PWs 4 and 5/ independent witnesses, who are cited as panch witness for such panchanama assumes importance, but as noted supra, they did not supported the prosecution case, they stated that no such panchanama was conducted in their presence and they do not know the accused. The prosecution also did not chose to examine LW5/ the victim of the offence. Non examination of the victim is also fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202313II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

i)It is to be stated in this context, PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 are the police personnel and interested witnesses to the prosecution case. It is very difficult to place reliance on the interested testimony of PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 in the absence of independent evidence. Be that as it may, even if their evidence is to be considered, their evidence is ridden with omissions and contradictions, replete with variations and contradictions and such evidence does not inspire confidence of the court. The above contradictions between PWs 1, 2, 6 and 7 throws cloud of suspicion over the story of the prosecution. Conviction cannot be passed on suspicious contradictory and weak evidence.

Hence, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences with which they are charged. Accordingly, point for determination answered.

10.In the result, A1 and A2 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 370(A) (2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(2)(a), Section 4, Section 5(1)(a) and Section 7 of Prevention of

Immoral Traffic (Amendment) Act, 2006 and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code. Their bail bonds, if any, shall stands canceled. MOs

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202314II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar 1 to 3 shall be confiscated to the State and MO4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 4th day of April

2024.

I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC II ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

PW1: S.Srinivas. -None- PW2: Thanigakula Anuradha. PW3: Bhushanam Divya. PW4: Nethikar Shiva. PW5: Madasu Shivamani. PW6: K.Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police. PW7: B.Venkat, Detective Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P1: The signature of PW4 on scene of offence confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A1, dt.27.07.2022. Ex.P2: The signature of PW4 on scene of offence confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A2, dt.27.07.2022. Ex.P3: The signature of PW5 on scene of offence confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A1, dt.27.07.2022. Ex.P4: The signature of PW5 on scene of offence confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A2, dt.27.07.2022. Ex.P5: The report, dt.27.07.2022. Ex.P6: First Information Report. Ex.P7: The search proceedings, dt.27.07.2022

Date.04.04.2024.

S.C.No.671 of 202315II Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

Ex.P8: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A1, dt.27.02.2022. Ex.P9: The relevant portion of recovery in the confession-cum- seizure panchanama of A2, dt.27.02.2022. Ex.P10: The rough sketch map.

FOR DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1: One Vivo mobile phone of A1. MO2: One Jio keypad phone of A1. MO3: One Vivo mobile phone of A2. MO4: Four condoms.

I ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC II ADDL.ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Date.04.04.2024.

OS.No.1033 of 2015 1 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District

IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR

Present:Smt.V.Madhavi Latha, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

Dated, this the 14th day of November, 2023

O.S.No.1033 of 2015

Between:-

Thota Venkat, S/o.T.Somaiah, Aged:40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.6-68/1, Road No.1, Bhavaninagar,

Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ...Plaintiff.

A N D

1. Smt.G.Sridevi, W/o.Late G.Mohan Raj, Aged about:41 years, Occ:Household.

2. G.Rahul, S/o.Late G.Mohan Raj Aged:22 years, Occ:Student.

3. G.Mounika, D/o.Late G.Mohan Raj, Aged:21 years, Occ:Student.

All the defendants are R/o.H.No.12-11-204/4/A, Brahmanabasthi, Warasiguda,

Secunderabad. ...Defendants

This suit is coming on for final hearing before me on 31.10.2023 in the presence of Sri.V.M.Krishna Reddy, counsel for the plaintiff and of Sri.R.Rajkumar, counsel for the defendants and upon hearing and perusal of the material 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 :

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration to declare the registered release deed bearing document No.1643 of 2014 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and for damages from the defendant.

14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 2 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief is as follows :

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property i.e., open plot bearing No.287 admeasuring 200 Sq.Yds., in survey

No.504 situated at Mannemutyalammakunta, Ragannaguda Gram

Panchayat, Thurkayamzal Village, Hayathnagar Revenue Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, having purchased the same from late

G.Mohan Raj, who is none other than the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3 through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5718/2013 dated 25.03.2013 for consideration. The suit schedule property is the self acquired property of G.Mohan Raj. He purchased the same in the year 2001 through registered sale deed bearing document No.2803/2001 dated 17.03.2001 from M/s.Sreemitra Estates Pvt. Ltd., Thereafter said

Mohan Raj sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff during his life time and delivered physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the sale deed itself and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same as its absolute owner. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff is known person to the defendants prior to the purchase of the suit schedule property and purchase of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff from late G.Mohan Raj is well in the notice of the defendants.

It is stated that after purchasing the suit schedule property, in the month of July, 2014 to meet his financial needs, the plaintiff intended to sell the suit property to the purchaser namely M.Krishna

Reddy and while executing the registered sale deed in his favour at 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 3 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

Sub-Registrar office, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendants 1 and 2 had executed a registered release deed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property on 25.03.2014 and the same was registered as document No.1643 of 2014, as a result the said purchaser refused to purchase the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is well known to the defendants and even after the death of late G.Mohan Raj also the plaintiff is in touch with the defendants and helped them in many ways in solving domestic aspects, but the defendants suppressing all these, to grab the suit schedule property got executed the said release deed without having any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff immediately approached the defendants and requested them to cancel the registered release deed, but they bluntly refused for the same, therefore, the plaintiff lodged a police report with P.S.Adibatla on 17.09.2014, upon which a case in crime

No.807 of 2014 was registered against all the defendants under

Section 420 r/w.34 of IPC and the said case is pending for trial

before the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Cyberabad.

That while the thing stood thus, the plaintiff reliably came to know that the defendants are trying to obtain loans by mortgaging the suit schedule property and also trying to alienate the suit property to third parties for wrongful gain by illegal means basing on the void release deed and if the defendants succeeds in their attempts, it will cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff and further it leads to multiple litigation.

14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 4 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

It is stated that the vendee of the plaintiff namely Krishna

Reddy refused to purchase the suit schedule property from the plaintiff due to adverse entry of the said release deed and demanded to return the sale consideration paid to the plaintiff along with interest, the stamp duty paid for preparing sale deed and other incidental charges. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff had to return the amount to said Krishna Reddy by taking loans at higher rate of interest from private money lenders, as such the plaintiff faced financial problems and it caused mental agony to him.

Besides, the plaintiff also suffered loss of his business and he could not run his auto mobile work shop due to the problems created by the defendants. To solve the problem, the plaintiff had to roam around the defendants, elders, police station, due to which he could not concentrate on his business and suffered loss financially. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff is also claiming an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and damages from the defendants jointly and severally. Hence the suit.

3.The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit, denying the alienation of the suit schedule by G.Mohan Raj for consideration. It is stated that G.Mohan Raj along with defendant

No.1 together purchased the suit schedule property in the year 2001 under a registered sale deed document No.2803/2001 dated 30.03.2001 with an intention to gift the same to defendant No.3 at the time of her marriage. That G.Mohan Raj expired on 09.06.2013 in a road accident, leaving behind the defendants herein as his legal heirs. Thereafter the defendant No.1 obtained the statement of 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 5 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

encumbrance of the above property on 15.07.2013, as she intends to release the same in favour of her daughter, i.e., defendant No.3.

That unfortunately she lost certain documents along with the original registered sale deed vide document No.203/2001 dated 30.03.2001 on 12.11.2013 while travelling in RTC bus from

Chikalguda to Warasiguda. Immediately she approached the police,

Chilkalguda and made a written complaint about the lost document and the police also issued receipt on 23.11.2013 to the said effect and a public notice was also published on 04.04.2014 in the news paper about the lost original registered sale deed and requested the general public to hand over the same if they find. Thereafter, the defendants 1 and 2 got executed registered release deed vide document No.1643/2014 dated 26.04.2014 in favour of defendant

No.3 and delivered vacant possession of the suit property. While the matter stood thus, the defendants received a notice under Section 41-A from the police, Vanasthalipuram and came to know about the suit property sold by G.Mohan Raj through registered sale deed document No.5718/2013 and they obtained certified copy of sale deed and came to know about the said document. It is stated that the husband of defendant No.1 never executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and infact as per the registered sale deed document No.5718/2013 the said document was registered on 05.09.2013, but the husband of defendant No.1 expired on 09.06.2013 i.e., much prior to the registration of the document.

Infact, as per the said document, the same is dated 25.03.2013, but registered on 05.09.2013 after the death of the husband of defendant No.1. The plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 are 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 6 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

friends and after death of the husband of defendant No.1, the plaintiff never approached the defendants and not even attended for his funeral. Taking advantage of the friendship, after his death, with in intention to grab the suit schedule property, the plaintiff by playing fraud with the registration authorities created false sale deed as if the same is executed by late G.Mohan Raj. The said registered sale deed is not having any legal sanctity in the eye of law. By pleading so, the defendants requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare the registered release deed bearing document No.1643/2014 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff, as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages from the defendants, as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.On behalf of the plaintiff, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and

Exs.A1 to A4 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendants, except cross examination of

PWs 1 and 2.

6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff. The counsel for the defendants did not chose to submit arguments inspite of giving many opportunities, hence the arguments of the defendants is treated as heard.

14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 7 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

7.ISSUE NO.1 :

a)It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, having purchased the same from late

G.Mohan Raj, who is none other than the husband of 1st defendant and father of defendants 2 and 3, during his life time through a registered sale deed bearing document No.5718/2013 dated 25.03.2013 and since then he is possession and enjoyment of the same. That the same is within the knowledge of the defendants.

After the death of G.Mohan Raj, during the subsistance of the above sale deed, the defendants 1 and 2 with an fraudulent intention executed released deed bearing document No.1643/2014 dated 25.03.2014 in respect of the suit property in favour of defendant

No.3 and basing on the said document, they are trying to obtain loans from private institutions and trying to alienate the suit property. Hence, if the said release deed is not cancelled, it leads to multiple litigation and irreparable loss to the plaintiff. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW1. The chief evidence of PW1 is the reiteration of the plaint averments. The plaintiff also examined one of the witness to the registered sale deed bearing document No.5718/2013 as PW2. PW2 stated he has witnessed the transaction under the registered sale deed bearing document No.5718 of 2013, which was executed by late G.Mohan

Raj on 25.03.2013 in favour of the plaintiff which took place in his presence and in the presence of one K.Ramesh Yadav, it was executed after receiving the sale consideration from the plaintiff in the office of the Sub Registrar, Hyderabad-East and the said sale deed was presented on the same day to the Sub Registrar for 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 8 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

registration in their presence. The Sub-Registrar also examined

G.Mohan Raj, plaintiff and the witnesses signed on the sale deed.

Ex.A1 is the original registered sale deed bearing document

No.5728/2013 dated 25.03.2013. Ex.A2 is the original registered sale deed bearing document No.2803/2001, dated 17.03.2001.

Ex.A3 is the certified copy of release deed bearing document

No.1643/2014, dated 25.03.2014 and Ex.A4 is the certificate of encumbrance.

b)The defendants cross examined PWs 1 and 2, but nothing is elicited during their cross examination that would impeach their credibility. The defendants not adduced oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention. However, it is the defence of the defendants that the suit schedule property was purchased by the defendant and her husband G.Mohan Raj with an intention to gift the same to defendant No.3 during her marriage, but as could be seen from Ex.A1 sale deed, the suit property was purchased by

G.Mohan Raj alone and it is not purchased by defendant No.1.

Further, it is according to the defendants, the defendant No.1 never executed Ex.A1 sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and as per the said sale deed, the said sale deed is dated 25.03.2013, but it was registered on 05.09.2013, which is after the death of G.Mohan Raj.

On perusal of Ex.A1 sale deed, it clearly discloses that the said sale deed was presented on 25.03.2013 and it was registered on the same day i.e., on 25.03.2013 itself. PW2, one of the witness also stated that the said sale deed was registered on 25.03.2013 in their presence. Thus, the same goes to show that subsequent to the 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 9 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

execution of Ex.A1 sale deed by the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants 2 and 3 namely G.Mohan Raj, the defendants 1 and 2 executed Ex.A3 release deed in favour of defendant in respect of the very same suit property. It is not that, the defendants were not aware of the execution of Ex.A1 sale deed by G.Mohan Raj in favour of the plaintiff, the very averment of the defendants in their written statement that after obtaining the statement of encumbrance in respect of the suit schedule property on 15.07.2013, they have executed Ex.A3 release deed itself shows that they were aware of the execution of Ex.A1 sale deed, since

Ex.A1 sale deed is the registered sale deed and certainly it reflects in the encumbrance certificate. Thus, Ex.A1, which is executed earlier in time prevails over Ex.A3 released deed executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 and the said release deed has no legal sanctity and it is not binding on the plaintiff. If it is left un-cancelled, it will lead to multiplicity of litigation and causes irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Hence, the said document has to be declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

8.ISSUE NO.2 :

It is the further case of the plaintiff that he offered to purchase the suit property to one M.Krishna Reddy in the month of July, 2014 and while executing registered sale deed in the Sub-Registrar office, it came to his notice that the defendants 1 and 2 had executed

Ex.A3 release deed in respect of the suit property in favour of 14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 10 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

defendant No.3, as such the said vendee refused to purchase the suit property from the plaintiff and demanded to return the sale consideration paid to the plaintiff along with interest, stamp duty paid for preparing the sale deed and other incidental charges and under the said circumstances, the plaintiff had to return the amount to said vendee by taking loans at higher rate of interest from the private money lenders and he also could not attend his auto mobile work shop due to the problems created by the defendants and sustained loss in the business, etc., but it is pertinent to note that, except making such averments, the plaintiff did not chose to file any oral or documentary evidence in proof of the same that there was any such sale transaction in respect of the suit property between the plaintiff and the alleged vendee of the plaintiff, if so, the proof of stamp duty paid on the sale deed document etc., He has also not produced any document in proof that he has borrowed amounts at high rate of interest and paid the amounts to the alleged vendee.

The plaintiff also not examined the said vendee in support of the same. He has also not produced any documentary evidence that he has been doing any such auto mobile work shop business and he has sustained loss in his business. Thus, in the absence of any such oral or documentary evidence, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek damages from the defendants as prayed for. Issue is answered accordingly against the plaintiff.

9.ISSUE NO.3 :

In view of my findings on issues 1 and 2, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed, with costs.

14.11.2023

OS.No.1033 of 2015 11 IV Addl.Sr.Civil Judge,

L.B.Nagar, R.R.District.

10.In the result, the suit is partly decreed with costs, declaring the registered release deed bearing document No.1643/2014, dated 25.03.2014 executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff as regards the damages is dismissed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of November, 2023.

IV ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

PW1: T.Venkat - None - PW2: V.Srinivas Reddy.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.5718 of 2013, dt.25.03.2013. Ex.A2:Original registered sale deed bearing document No.2803 of 2001, dt.17.03.2021. Ex.A3:Certified copy of release deed bearing document No.1643 of 2014, dt.25.03.2014.

Ex.A4:Certificate of encumbrance, dt. 30.06.2015.

FOR DEFENDANTS: -Nil -

IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

14.11.2023