Smt V. Shiva Ranjani

Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: HUSNABAD::

Present: Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani,

Magistrate of First Class

Husnabad.

Thursday, the 17th day of October, 2024.

C.C.No. 346 of 2022

Between:

State: The Sub-Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station …Complainant.

And

A1.Vemunuri Ranjith, S/o. Swamy, Age: 25 years, Caste: Vadrangi, R/o. H.No. 10-2-625, Vidhyanagar, Karimnagar.

A2.Vemunuri Rajamani, w/o. Swamy, Age: 40 years, R/o. H.No. 10-2-625, Vidhyanagar, Karimnagar.

A3.Viswanathula Raju @ Balaraju, S/o. Sathyanarayana @ Sattaiah, Age: 27 years, R/o. H.No.2-89, Banjeupally.

A4. Vishwanathula Padma, W/o. Janardhan, Age: 40 years, R/o. H.No.2-63, Ragudu village of Sircilla Mandal.

… Accused A1 to A4

This case is coming on 17-10-2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of the Learned A.P.P.O Sri M.K. Nagaraju for the prosecution and of Sri K. Shiva Shankar Goud, Counsel for the accused and after having perused the evidence adduced, exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

1of 7

Fair

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Husnabad Police Station filed charge sheet in Crime No. 119 of 2022 against the accused A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec 3 and 4

DP Act.

2.The case of prosecution is as follows: -

i)That on 08-06-2022 at 18:30 hrs, LW.1/complainant/Vemunuri

Ramya @ Swapna came to PS Husnabad and lodged a complaint stating that her marriage was performed with A1 on 17-11-2021 in RB Garden, near Yellamma temple Husnabad, at the time of their marriage on the demand of A1 to A4 her parents gave net cash of Rs.2,00,000/-, 4 tulas of gold, 12 tulas silver and other household articles to accused A1 to A4 as dowry. After their marriage her husband/A1 looked after her amicably for 1 month. Later, A1 to A5 abused her as she was not looking pretty and was black colour and thin and also started harassing PW.1 physically, mentally and threatened her by demanding to bring additional dowry amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- from her parents and evicted her from their house on 24-05-2022. On 30-05-2022 night hours, her husband/A1 and 3 others came to her mothers house at Husnabad and her husband/A1 abused her in filthy language and beat her with hands mean while her elder brother tried to rescue her then the accused also beat her brother and threatened 2of 7

Fair them with dire consequences to kill them. Therefore, she requested to take necessary action.

ii)Basing on receipt of above complaint, the LW-9/Y. Ashok HC 629,

SHO of PS Husnabad has registered a case in Cr.No.119/2022 U/sec.

498(A), 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Sec. 3 & 4 of DP Act and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW.9 examined and recorded the statements of LW.1. On 09-06-2022 LW.9 visited the scene of offence situated at Shivajinagar, Husnabad and secured the presence of panch wintesses LW.7/Aggoju Ramesh and LW.8/Aggoju Kanukaiah.

observed the scene of offence minutely and incorporated the details in crime detail form and drew a rough sketch and secured the presence of

PW.2, PW.3, LW.4/Aggoju Raju, LW.5/Thiparapu Gopal, LW.6/Poloju

Sadanandam examined and recorded their statements.

Subsequently, LW.10/S. Sridhar, SI of police, PS Husnabad took up the investigation from LW.9 and verified investigation done by LW.9 found it correct on proper lines. Later LW.10 summoned witnesses and re examined them who reiterated the same facts as stated before LW.9 as such LW.10 did not re record their statements.

Later on 11-06-2022 LW.10 has served notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C to

A1 to A4 with instructions to appear before the Hon’ble Court when they were summoned in this case. During course of interrogation A1 to A4 voluntarily confessed the guilt of committing the offences. After 3of 7

Fair completion of entire investigation LW.10 filed charge sheet against A1 to

A4.

3.The case was taken on file against the accused A1 for the offence

U.secs. 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and sec 3 and 4 DP Act and against the A2 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ans Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act. On appearance of accused A1 to A4, copies of documents on which the prosecution intended to rely were furnished to them as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C).

4.Accused A1 to A4 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C against the A1 for the offence U.secs. 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and sec 3 and 4 DP Act and against the A2 to A4 for the offence punishable U/Secs. 498-

A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ans Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act and charges are framed, read over and explained in Telugu to which the accused A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined witnesses PW.1 to PW.3 and exhibited documents P1 to P3 are marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence and learned APPO has given up the evidence of LW.4/Aggoju Raju, LW.5/Thipparapu Gopal, LW.6/Poloju

Sadanandam (who are neighbours of PW.1), LW.7/Aggoju Ramesh, 4of 7

Fair

LW.8/Aggoju Kanukaiah (Panch witnesses for CDF), LW.9/Y. Ashok, HC 629

SHO of PS Husnabad (Ist I.O), LW.10/S. Sridhar (2nd I.O).

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, since no incriminating evidence is found against accused A1 to A4. examination Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with and the accused A1 to A4 did not chose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

7.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution established guilt of the accused

for offences under section 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

sec 3 and 4 DP Act against A1 and for the offence punishable

U/Secs. 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ans Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act

against the A2 to A4 beyond all reasonable doubts?”

8.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the entire evidence on record.

9.Answer to point basing on Evidence on record:

(i)The P.W.1 who is the victim and material witness when testified she did not support the case of prosecution in toto by simply stating that her marriage was performed with A1 about three years ago and due to petty issues between herself and accused persons on the advise of village elders she put her signature on written papers before police Husnabad 5of 7

Fair without knowing its contents. The other witness examined PW.2 to 3 they too did not support the case of prosecution in toto and resiled from their earlier statements by giving inconsistent version. As the PW1 to PW.3 turned unfavorable to the case of prosecution, the learned APP declared them as hostile. Upon questioning by learned A.P.P. as in cross examination under the provision of section 154 of Indian Evidence Act R/w

Sec. 162 Cr.P.C proviso, nothing could be elicited from their mouth which in itself creates doubt as to the actual happening of the alleged offence.

10. From the entire evidence that is brought on record there is no witness whose evidence conclusively spoke about the involvement of the accused A1 to A4 in the incident and further none of the material witnesses examined have stated any iota of evidence and have resiled from their earlier statements by giving inconsistent versions and moreover there is no corroboration among the witnesses. Hence nothing incriminating against the accused A1 to A4 came in. Since as the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, so the learned APP has given up the rest of the witnesses as no purpose would be served in examining them and hence this court feels that the prosecution has left many gaps unfilled. Hence, this court feels that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused A1 to A4.

11.In view of the above discussion, this Court feels that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and this point is answered against the prosecution.

6of 7

Fair

12. In the result, the accused A1 to A4 are found NOT GUILTY for the offences punishable U/Secs. 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and sec 3 and 4

DP Act against A1 and for the offence punishable U/Secs. 498-A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC ans Sec. 3 and 4 of DP Act against A2 to A4 and are acquitted under Section 248 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal period. No order as to the property as none was deposited before this court.

(Typed on my diction by stenographer on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 17th day of October, 2024)

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: PW1- V. Ramya- NIL – PW2- A. Sulochana PW3- A. Sadanandam

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P1 Is the Signature of PW.1 on Report- NIL - Ex.P2 Is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P3 Is the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge cum JFCM Husnabad 7of 7

CCNo 174of 2016

IN THE COoURT OF THE I ADDL. JUDICIAL. MAGISTRATE OF PIRST CLASS : AT:

HUSNABAD

Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani Present:

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

HUSNABAD.

TUESDAY, ON THIS THE 11h DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

CALENDAR CASE No.174 of 2016

Between: Mokidi Rathna, W/o. Ashok, Age: 38 years, Caste: Are, R/o. Mutharam Village of Bheemadevarapally Mandal.

...Complainant

AND

1. Mokidi Shivaji,S/o. Rajeshwarrao, Age: 55 years, Caste; Are, R/o. Mutharam village

2. Mokidi Kuladeep, S/0. Shivaji, Age: 30 years, Caste: Are, R/o. Mutharam village 3.Mokidi Sandeep, S/o. Shivaji, Age: 28 years, Caste: Are, R/o. Mutharam village Mokidi Sunitha,W/o. Kuladeep, Age: 23 years, 4. Caste: Are, R/o. Mutharam village

5. Mokidi Sai Priya, W/o. Sandeep, Age: 20 years, Caste: Are, R/o. Mutharam village.

.. Accused Al to A5

This case is coming on 09-11-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. learned Asst. Public Prosecutor Sri. P.Ravi Kiran Advocates for the complainant and of Sri. D. Nagaraju Advocate for the accused Al to AS and after having perused the evidence adduced, on either side and the exhibits marked and material papers available on record and having stood over for consideration til1 day, this court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT:

***** The Sub inspector of police Mulkanoor filed the charge sheet for the offences 1. punishable U/Sec. 354 -B,324,323,506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code( herein after called as IPC) against the accused A1 to A5.

CC No.174 of 201,

2

2 The case of prosecution in a nut shell is as follows:

On 08-03-2016 at 17.15 hrs,Sub Inspector of P.S Mulkanoor received

1.

complaint from PW1/Mokidi Ratna, stating that she is a residenct of

Mutharam village and there are previous grudges existing between complainant and her brother-in-law/Mokidi Shivaji, due to some land

disputes. On 06-03-2016 at about 15:00 hrs, while the complainant and her

borther-in-law/Mokidi Shivaji along with his sons were present before the

panchayat elders the panchayat elders advised them to maintain good

relation ship with each other, at that time Mokidi Shivaji and his sons /A1 to

A3 took stones, sticks in their hands and beat her on chest,stomach and

crushed her blouse . The daughter-in-laws of Shivaji i.e., A4,A5 also beat the

complainant, then the sons of complainant i.e., Mokidi Varun/PW2 and

Mokidi Omprakash/PW3 interfered in between to rescue the PW1. Then the

accused persons beat PW2 and PW3 with hands and caught hold of their

necks, at that time the village elders LW4/More Vijapa, LW5/ Basiri Suheela,

LW6/Enugu Eshwar, LW7/Myaka Swamy, LW8/Matla Mogili witnessed the

same and thereafter PW1 requested to take action against the said accused persons Al to A5 by giving a report to the police.

I. On receipt of the report alleged by the PW1/LW13/M. Srinivas Head

Constable 1846 of P.S Mulkanoor registered the case in Cr. No. 29 of 2016

U/Sec. 354 -B,324,323,506 1/w 34 Indian Penal Code and investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation he examined LW1 and got recorded her statementby a LW12/M.Premalatha, WPC-10 of P.S Husnabad. Later 3/M.Srinivas HC-1846 of P.S Mulkanoor, visited the scene of offence and the presence of PW2,PW3, LW4/More Vijapa, LW5/ Basiri Suheela,

Secired

u

No.174 o f 2016

O

CC No.174 o 2

4

WPC, PS Husnabad(who recorded the statement of LW1), LW13/ M. Srinie

niva

HC-1846 of PS Mulkanoor( first 1.0), LW14/K. Sathish, SI of Police Ps.

Mulkanoor( second I.0, who filed charge sheet). On every hearing he did not

produce the said witnesses and he has given up their evidence.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence as there is no incriminatingg

evidence available against the accused Al to A5 the examination U/Sec. 313

Cr.P.C is dispensed withand accused Al to A5 did not choose adduce anyy

oral documentary evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard arguments on both sides and perused entire evidence on record.

The point for determination is "Whether the prosecution is able to

9.

bring home the guilt of accused A1 to A5 for the offences punishable U/Sec.

354 -B,324,323,506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called IPC) beyond all

reasonable doubts "?

10. Point:

a). To prove the offences the prosecution has to bring on record that the Accused

Al to A5 have used criminal force against the PW1 with an intention to disrobe her and have voluntarily caused to hurt by beating her with sticks and also threatened her and PW2, PW3 with dire consequences. In the instant case the prosecution has examined PW1,PW2,PW3 who are the complainant cum victim and the sons of victim and the injured persons.

b). As per the evidence of PW1 she did not support the case of prosecution by simply deposing that there were some petty disputes existing between herself and the accused persons and upon the advise of village elders she lodged a complaint anahave put her signature on the report and that the police neither examined her

S,

ni.

CC No.174 of 2016

nor recorded her statement. PWI did not whisper anything about the offences she completely resiled from her carlier committed by the accused Al toA5, and complaint and statement and made before the police, hence she did not support the case of prosecution in toto.

The learned APPO cross examined PW1 she has not elicited anything against 11. the accused Al to A5 ,hence the evidence of PW1 is not at all useful to say that the accused Al to A5 have committed the alleged offences.

The prosecution then examined PW2 and PW3 who are sons of PW1 to 12. corroborate the evidence of PW1 but invain they too have resiled from their statement made before the police by saying that they do not know anything about the case and moreover they have not whispered anything about the commission of the offences by the accused, the learned APPO has declared the PW1 PW2,Pw3 has hostile and nothing much could be elicited from their mouths during their cross examination by the learned APPOo.

From the entire evidence brought on record , it is clear that the PW1 to PW3 13. are none other than mother and sons in relation and are direct witnesses to this case who have alleged to have sufered the injuries by use of criminal force by the accused Al toA5 against them and have not elicited any incriminating evidence against the accused Al toA5 and have turned hostile. Moreover as there is no corroboration between PW1 to PW3 and as there is no incriminating evidence brought on record against the accused Al to A5 by the prosecution to prove the commission of alleged offences by the accused persons Al to A5, the prosecution has given up the rest of the witnesses as no purpose would serve in examining them since the material witnesses of this case have not supported their case.

Therefore the prosecution have utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

A5 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354-B,324,323,506,r/w 34 Indian

oaoAs

peal Code.

CC No.174 of 201

14. In view of the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed prove its case against the accused Al toA5 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 354

B,324,323,506,r/w 34 Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt and this

point is answered against the prosecution.

15. In the result: The accused A1 toA5 are found not guilty for the offences

punishable U/Sec. 354-B,324,323,506,r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and are acquitted

for the said offences U/Sec 248(1) Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of accused Al to A5 shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after the expiry of appeal period.

No order as to the property as none was produced by the police before this

Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.lll, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 11" day of November, 2021.

JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

Husnabad.

SI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

PW1 Mokidi Rathna PW2- Mokidi Varun Kumar PW3- Mokidi Omprakash

FOR THE DEFENCE

-Nil- of 20

CC No.174 of 2016

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.P1-Signature of the complainan/PW1

Ex.P2-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P3-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P4-161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3

FOR THE RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

-Nil

HuspabasABAD

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE FOR

HUSNABAD :: 

Present: Smt. V. Shiva Ranjani, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad. FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

Wednesday, on this the 27th day of October, 2021.

O.S.NO. 58 OF 2020

Between:

Pandilla Laxmi Narayana @ Laxmaiah Ayyagaru S/o Kistaiah, aged: 54 years, Occu: Purohitham, R/o Husnabad town and mandal of Siddipet distirct. ….Plaintiff.

AND

I. Kokkula Vijaya Krishna S/o Rajender , aged: 24 years, Occu: Business,

2. Veldandi Raghuramulu S/o Venkatadri , aged: 40 years, Occu: Medical Shop business,

3. Kokkula Kavitha W/o Rajender , aged: 50 years, Occu: House wife, All are R/o Husnabad town and mandal of Siddipet district.

….. Defendant

This suit coming before me on 26­10­2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri CH.Ravinder, Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant was set ex parte and after having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:­ : J U D G M E N T :

1.Plaintiff filed this suit for recovery of money basing on promissory note’s.

2. The averments of the Plaint is that Defendent No.3 is the mother of

Defendent No.1 and 2 and that the Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are known

Page 2 of 5 to each other since long time and out of that acquaintance the defendant

No.1 requested him to lend an amount of Rs 2,00,000/­(two Lakh only) to meet his financial necessities and the plaintiff considering his necessities gave the money to the defendant No.1 on 09­03­2017. The defendant

No.1 executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the above said amount in the presence of witnesses namely M.Naveen and K.Ramesh with a promise to pay an interest of 18% per annum. Later the defendant

No.1 again approached the plaintiff and requested for hand loan of Rs 3,00,000/­(Three Lakhs) for meeting his financial necessities and considering his request he gave the said amount on 24­06­2019 in his house in the presence of the witnesses namely K.Kavitha (defendant No.3),

K.Ramesh and M.Naveen by executing a Promissory note with a promise to pay an interest of 18% per annum and he further promised to pay the total amount of Rs 5,00,000/­within six months at the rate of 18% per annum but failed to repay the amount as promised and also dodge the matter on one or other pretext . After some time plaintiff again demanded the defendant No 1 to repay his amount to which defendant No.1 made defendant No.2 to stand as surety for the said amount of Rs.3,00,000/­ in the original promissory note and that the defendant No.3 also executed an agreement(oppanda Pathram) infavour of the plaintiff on 24­06­2019 on a

Rs 20/­ Non Judicial Stamp in the presence of the said witnesses with a promise to repay total amount of Rs 5,00,000/­ within six months and deposited the registered sale deed vide doc no. 3281/2013 dated : 24­12­ 2013 pertaining to RCC building bearing H.No.7­70 constructed in sy.No 603 situated in Husnabad Town and Mandal. Further defendant No.3 agreed to repay the total loan amount of defendant No.1 within six months

Page 3 of 5 and incase of failure she will relinguish her legal rights over RCC Building and handed over the building to the plaintiff. The plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and demanded him to repay the total amount and being vexed of the defendant’s attitude and having no other option he approached the court for necessary action against the defendant.

3. In this suit, though the summons were served on the defendents, they failed to appear before the court and hence were set exparte on 04­08­2021. 

4.In the plaintiff side evidence, plaintiff was examined as PW­1 and he produced Ex.A­1 to A­10. 

5.Heard arguments. Perused the record. 

6.Now the point for determination is;

Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claimed amount as 

prayed? 

7.POINT:

(i)PW­1/Pandilla Laxmi Narayana is plaintiff himself. He deposed that out of acquaintance, defendant No.1 approached him and borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/­(Two Lakh only) on 09­03­2017 as hand loan for his necessities and accordingly executed Ex.A1. Again the defendant’s borrowed Rs 3,00,000/­ (Three Lakh only) on 24­06­2019 towards hand loan at the house of plaintiff in Husnabad for personal needs by executing

Ex.A­2, A­3 and defendant No.3 executed Ex.A­4 on the same day I.e,24­ 06­2019 and also handed over Ex.A5 to the plaintiff with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 18% per annum on demand either to him or to his order. 

(ii)Despite several oral demands made by plaintiff/PW­1, the defendant

No.1 dodged repayment so Plaintiff got issued Ex.A6 on defendents and the acknowledgement due are marked as Ex.A7 to A10. Hence, he filed this suit. 

Page 4 of 5

(iii)The oral evidence of PW­1 stood unchallenged. The oral evidence of

PW­1 coupled with Ex.A­1 to A­5 proved the borrowing transaction and execution of Ex.A­1 to A­5 by defendants. It was scribed by the defendants themselves in the presence of M.Naveen and K.Ramesh, defendant executed the same.

(iv)When execution is duly proved, this court is duty bound to invoke the legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this case, defendant remained ex­ parte. He either did not deny or contest the suit claim. He did not choose to rebut the presumptions against him. In the considered circumstances, the suit is entitled to be decreed. 

(v)This court is satisfied with proof of Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­10 and hence the liability of defendant accordingly is being decreed. 

(vi)RATE OF INTEREST: 

In this case agreed rate of interest is Rs.1/­ per one hundred rupees per one month. Same rate on annual basis may be awarded towards pendente lite period. This court is of the considered opinion that agreed rate of interest in this case is not excessive and not usurious. 

8.In the result, this suit is decreed with costs for Rs.6,72,500/­ (Rupees six lakhs Seventy two thousand five hundred) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree. Further entitled @ 6% per annum on the principal amount Rs 5,00,000/­(Five Lakhs only) from the date of decree till its realization .

(Typed to my dictation by the typist on the computer corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of October,

2021.)

 Prl. Junior Civil judge, Husnabad. FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

Page 5 of 5 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

PW­1: Pandilla Laxmi Narayana (Plaintiff),

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:: ­ NIL ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF::

Ex.A­1: The Original Promissory Note, dated 09­03­2017.

Ex.A­2: The Original Promissory Note, dated 24­06­2019.

Ex.A­3: Is the bond in the promissory note dated: 24­06­2019.

Ex.A­4: Undertaking (Oppanda Pathram) given by the mother of D1 on 

N.J.Stamp of Rs.20/­ dated 24­06­2019.

Ex.A­5: The registered sale deed vide document No.3281/2013, dated 24­ 12­2013 given to the plaintiff to be kept as security for the loan amount.

Ex.A­6: The office copy of legal notice, dated 05­02­2020

Ex.A­7: Postal receipt dated 05­02­2020

Ex.A­8: Postal receipt dated 05­02­2020

Ex.A­9: Acknowledgment card

Ex.A­10: Acknowledgment card

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT::

­ NIL ­

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad. FAC: I Addl Junior Civil Judge, Husnabad.

O.S. 116 of 20241Fair

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HUSNABAD

PRESENT :: SMT. V. SHIVA RANJANI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUSNABAD.

Friday, the 18th day of October, 2024

O.S. No.116 OF 2024

Between :

Gotte Yadaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 61 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Akkannapet village and mandal of Siddipet district.

…Plaintiff.

And

1.Bhukya Bapunaik S/o. Lachiram, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Bodaravagu thanda h/o. Akkannapet village and mandal of Siddipet district.

2. Bhukya Sammaiah, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 37 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Choudu thanda, h/o. Akkannapet village and mandal of Siddipet district.

...Defendants.

This suit coming up before me for final hearing on 17-10-2024 in the presence of Sri K. Jagathpal, Advocate for Plaintiff, and Defendants remained Exparte and upon perusing the material on record and having the matter stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff praying the court to grant permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the

O.S. 116 of 20242Fair

defendants no.1 and 2, their agents, workmen, acting on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and to award cost of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint are that:-

I)The plaintiff submits that he is the sole, absolute and lawful owner of Ac.1.14 guntas of land in Sy. No.436 situated at

Akkannapet village and mandal of Siddipet Dist (herein after referred as the suit schedule property) which property has been allotted to the plaintiff under poor quote vide file No. 576/2011 dt.

13-2-2011 (GO Ms. No:840 (Rev. Government for his livelihood under landless Assigned-I dt. 4-12-1999) and since the date of such allotment the plaintiff has been in peaceful, uninterrupted from any one same and has been cultivating the same without any interference from anyone. That the Government has issued pattadar pass book bearing No. 590 in respect of the suit infavour of plaintiff and also issued the recent Digital pass book bearing No:

T10010100435 with Khata no: 590 infavour of the plaintiff and his name was also entered in the Dharani Portal. Further submit that the defendants have no right, title or interest of any kind and they have also no land in the vicinity but without any reason they developed a sore eye over the plaintiff land and wanted to grab the

O.S. 116 of 20243Fair

land of plaintiff by dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land and they started interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit land and sensing their unlawful intention, the plaintiff asked them not to disturbance his peaceful possession over the suit land but the defendants paid deaf ear and continued their illegal attempts. That on 20-4-2024 again the defendants in the company of unsocial elements came upon the suit land and tried to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff but the plaintiff could resist their illegal acts with the help of his neighbour land owners and well wishers but while leaving the suit land the defendants threatened the plaintiff to come again and dispossess him by force hence he has no other go except to approach this

Hon’ble Court with this suit seeking justice.

3. The summons were served on the defendants no.1 and 2 and they did not appear before the court hence they were set exparte on 08.08.2024. Subsequently defendants No.1 and 2 did not come forward to take any steps for contesting the suit.

4.Based on the contentions, this court framed the following points for consideration :

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of

perpetual injunction, as prayed for?

ii. To what relief?

O.S. 116 of 20244Fair

5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined as PW1 and documents marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 on his behalf.

6.The documents marked areEx.A1 is the Original Assignment order, Ex.A2 is the Old pattedar pass book vide patta No. 590, Ex.A3 is the Original New pattedar pass book vide Khatha No. 590

7.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the record.

8.It is settled law that the party claiming relief has a burden to prove and establish his/her case by filing the necessary documents as on the date of filing the suit and the burden would not be lessen just because the defendants are set exparty. Hence, with the legal position on hand, this court now proceeds to examine and evaluate the validity and relevancy of the documents filed by the plaintiff.

9.Point no.1:-

Perused the entire evidence of the plaintiff i.e, PW1 and documents marked I.e, Ex.A1 to Ex.A3. The plaintiff filed the examination in chief affidavit of himself as PW1 and he reiterated the averments of the plaint. The documents marked. Ex.A1 to A3

Ex.A1 is the Original Assignment order, Ex.A2 is the Old pattedar pass book vide patta No. 590, Ex.A3 is the Original New pattedar pass book vide Khatha No. 590, clearly shows that the suit land is

O.S. 116 of 20245Fair

held in the name of the plaintiff since 2011 and also shows that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the said suit property and since his possession is established, without interference from anyone, he has right to hold and continue the peaceful possession without interference from anyone. Further the evidence adduced by PW1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted as the defendants remained ex-party. Hence, the evidence of PW1 coupled with the documents

Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly proved that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of suit and also established that there is prime facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants No.1 and 2.

Point No 2:- In the result, the suit is decreed with cost, granting permanent injunction infavour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants no.1 and 2, their heirs, workmen, agent, etc from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Typed by me on my laptop, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th day of October, 2024).

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUSNABAD.

O.S. 116 of 20246Fair

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFSF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW1- Gotte Yadaiah -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF :

Ex.A1 Is the Original Assignment order

Ex.A2 Is the Old pattedar passbook vide patta No. 590

Ex.A3 Is the Original New pattedar pass book vide Khatha No. 590

FOR DEFENDANT:

-NIL-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUSNABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE I­ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF F.C. AT HUSNABAD.

PRESENT :­ Smt. V.Shiva Ranjani Prl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., FAC: I­Addl. Judl. Magistrate of F.C., Husnabad.

Monday this the 30th day of March, 2022.

P.R.C. NO. 27 OF 2021.

Between :

The state through Sub­Inspector of Police, Koheda P.S. (Cr. No. 159/2021) … Complainant.

A N D Atla Veerender, S/o Kanukaiah, Age: 33 years, Tenugu, R/o Samudrala village of Koheda mandal. … Accused A1 & A2.

OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 302, 201 OF Indian Penal Code, 1860

This case is coming before, on today for committal in the presence of the Learned APP for the state­complainant, and of Sri P.Satyanaryana, Sri. P. Sravan Kumar and Sri. S. Pradeep, Advocate’s for the accused, having heard and having been stood over for consideration to this day, the court made the following − :: O R D E R ::

1. The Sub­Inspector of Police Koheda filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 in Cr No 159/2021. 

2.The brief facts of the case are that the complainant LW1/Madana Sunitha lodged a complaint stating that they are two daughters and one son to her father ie. deceased/Altla

Kanukaiah. About 5 years ago her mother passed away and her father was having 5 acres of agricultural land at the out skirts of Samudrala village and he is cultivating the said land.

Her younger brother ie. the accused/Atla Veerender who wants to cultivate her fathers land approached the village elders and the elders held a panchayat in the last year and suggested the accused to cultivate their fathers (deceased) land by giving Rs.10,000/­ per year and repay the debts of her father(deceased) for which the accused agreed to do so and started cultivating the said agricultural land about six months ago. On 26­06­2021 at about 000hrs the accused called LW1 and informed her over the phone that her father(deceased) fell down from the mango tree and died. On which LW1 rushed to her fathers(deceased) house at

Samudrala village and found injuries on the head and ear of her father(deceased). Further on enquiry LW1 came to know that as the accused not repaying the debts of her father(deceased), her father warned him not to cultivate land till he repays the debts and took fuses of bore motors and on the same day at 0730 hrs the accused with an intention to grab the lands of LW1’s father(deceased) the accused beat his father/deceased with a spade on his back side of his head and then the accued throttled her father and killed him On the complaint lodged by LW1 this case was registered as in Cr.No. 159/2021 for the offence under section 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

3.The case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/sec. 302, 201 of Indian Penal

Code, 1860 against the accused. On appearance of the accused the copies of documents, on which the prosecution proposed to, rely, were furnished to the accused as contemplated u/sec. 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C).

4.Since one of the offence alleged i.e 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and is exclusively triable by Hon’ble Sessions Court, the case is committed to the Hon’ble Sessions

Court, Karimnagar U/sec. 209 Cr.P.C. Also complied with the below mentioned provisions:

1) Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C by providing the copies to the accused.

2) Since the accused is enlarged on bail,

3) The office is directed to submit the entire case records to the Hon’ble

Sessions Court u/sec. 209 (c) Cr.P.C. The case properties deposited vide

Sl.No. 59/2021 would be given to safe custody of PS Koheda.

4) As per Section 209 (d) Cr.P.C. The Learned Public Prosecutor has been notified about the committal of the case.

5) The accused stated that he has means to engage an Advocate to defend him before the Hon’ble Sessions Judge.

Typed to my dictation corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2022.

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

FAC: I­ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF F.C.,

HUSNABAD.