Currently Serving

Vijay Kumar Reddy

Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli

II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli · Guntur · Andhra Pradesh

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY, Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli, is posted at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. 416 court orders on record since 2025. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles H, OS, EP cases.

416

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

SC/1233/2025 Acquitted

SHO Amaravathi vs Pipineni Chandra Shekhar

15 May 2026

APGU1C0003862025

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli. Friday, the 15th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.1233 / 2025

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, Amaravathi.

...Complainant.

Vs.

1. Manchineni Naresh, S/o. Rajaiah, 38 years, R/o. H.No.2-154, Didugu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District. (A1)

2. Papineni Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged 33 years, R/o. H.No.1-137, Didugu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District. (A2) * Case against A1 was abated on 18.10.2025.

...Accused Nos.1 and 2.

This case came before me on 13.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri B.L.Chinnaiah, learned advocate for the Accused No.2 and upon perusing the material on record, 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the A1 and A2 alleging that they committed offences punishable under Section 307, 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 2 S.C. No.1233/2025 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) in Crime No.330/2020 of

Amaravathi Police Station.

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

a) The PW.1, Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, S/o. Chandra

Sekhara Rao, is an inhabitant of Didugu village, Amaravathi Mandal,

Guntur (now Palnadu District), is unmarried, and works at DIVI’s

Laboratories, Vizag. In fact, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) and

Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3) are the parents of PW.1, Manchineni

Venkata Harinadh, and they were blessed with PW-1, Manchineni

Venkata Harinadh, and two daughters as offspring. Manchineni Chandra

Sekhar (L.W..2) and Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3) performed the marriages of their two daughters. In view of the widespread outbreak of the coronavirus, a global pandemic, PW.1, Manchineni Venkata Harinadh returned to Didugu village and was staying with Manchineni Chandra

Sekhar (L.W.2) and Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3).

b) In the past history, one Manchineni Suraiah and

Seshagiramma were the parents of Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) and they were blessed with three sons namely Manchineni Gangaiah,

Rajaiah, and Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2). Among them,

Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) is the youngest. During his lifetime,

Manchineni Suraiah shared his properties equally among his siblings, besides keeping a remaining 6 acres of agricultural land under his own control and maintenance. After the demise of Manchineni

Seshagiramma, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) and his elder brothers namely Manchineni Gangaiah and Manchineni Rajaiah each took one acre of agricultural land for cultivation.

c) In the year 2006, Manchineni Suraiah also died. During his lifetime (prior to his death), Manchineni Suraiah, who had a close attachment to his younger son, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2),

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 3 S.C. No.1233/2025 orally informed him to take his remaining 3 acres of agricultural land after his demise. However, Manchineni Gangaiah and Rajaiah, the senior paternal uncles of PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, sought to divide the share of the 3 acres equally. Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2), denied sharing the 3 acres and proclaimed that the land belonged to him alone, as their deceased father had allotted it solely to him. Since then, they kept the said land idle without cultivation for up to 15 years, based on an understanding not to enter the land until the dispute was solved.

d) Meanwhile, in the year 2008, Manchineni Rajaiah died, but the dispute pertaining to the 3 acres continued between PW.1

Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.-2) and

Manchineni Naresh (A-1), the son of the deceased Rajaiah. Thereupon,

Manchineni Gangaiah (the senior paternal uncle of PW.1 Manchineni

Venkata Harinadh) and A-1 began cultivating the said land and raised a mirchi (chili) crop on it. Though PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh,

Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.-2) advised them not to cultivate the land until the dispute was solved, they did not heed the same. At this juncture, A-1 and Gangaiah both raised a mirchi crop on the said land.

e) Having come to know about the cultivation, on the morning of 31-10-2020 at about 10:00 A.M., PW.1 Manchineni Venkata

Harinadh, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) went to the disputed agricultural land. They found A-1 and Manchineni Gangaiah at the disputed land, and the driver of a tractor was cultivating the land. Upon seeing this, PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh informed the tractor driver that the land was in dispute and asked him to stop cultivation.

Consequently, the tractor driver left the agricultural land. Then, A-1 grew wild with anger against PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh and proclaimed that he had been waiting for an opportunity to kill him, stating that this was the right time and he would not leave without killing him.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 4 S.C. No.1233/2025

Saying so, A-1 pounced upon PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, drew a knife from his waist with the intention to kill him. When A-1 tried to stab

PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh on his chest, PW.1 Manchineni

Venkata Harinadh swiftly bent backward, because of which the knife stabbed the left side of his chest, causing PW.1 Manchineni Venkata

Harinadh to sustain a bleeding injury. Seeing this, Manchineni Chandra

Sekhar (L.W.2) obstructed A-1; A-1 then beat Manchineni Chandra

Sekhar (L.W.2) with his hands and warned him not to cross his path, as he had no intention of killing him. Meanwhile, Papineni Chandrasekhar (A-2) caught hold of PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh to prevent him from absconding and urged A-1 to kill PW.1 Manchineni Venkata

Harinadh. Somehow or another, PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh rescued himself from the clutches of the accused. In the meantime, noticing the commotion, Gali Venkata Siva Reddy (L.W.4), Neelam

Venkateswara Rao (L.W.5), Bandlamudi Raghuramaiah (L.W.6) and

Dunna Ambraham (L.W.7), who were present in the surrounding fields, rushed toward A-1 and A-2. Upon seeing them, A-1 and A-2 fled from the place of occurrence. Later, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) also escaped and approached PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh.

Subsequently, they shifted PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, who had sustained bleeding injuries, to the Community Health Centre, Amaravathi on a motorcycle, where he was rendered treatment by the Medical

Officer. On receipt of the Hospital Intimation, P. Srinivasa Rao, Head

Constable (PW.2), Amaravathi Police Station recorded the statement on 31-10-2020, commencing at 12:10 P.M. and concluding at 01:10 P.M.

Later, the doctors referred PW.1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh to the

Government General Hospital, Guntur. Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) and Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3) then shifted PW.1

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 5 S.C. No.1233/2025

Manchineni Venkata Harinadh to Sri Krishna Super Specialty Hospitals,

Guntur, for better treatment.

f) Upon receipt of the statement of PW.1 Manchineni

Venkata Harinadh, on 31.10.2020 at about 1.45 PM, PW.3 M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station registered case in Crime No. 330/2020 for offences under Sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of the IPC of Amaravathi Police Station and submitted the original First

Information Report to the Court, sent copies to the concerned officers, and took up investigation. He also, registered a case in Cr.No.329/2020 of Amaravathi Police Station, basing on the report of A1 against the PW- 1 Manchineni Venkata Harinadh and Manchineni Chandra Sekhara Rao (L.W-2) and submitted the original First Information Report to the Court, sent copies to the concerned officers, and took up investigation.

g) During the course of the investigation, PW-3/Sub-

Inspector of Police, left the Police Station, secured the presence of PW-1

Manchineni Venkata Harinadh, Manchineni Chandra Sekhara Rao (L.W.2) and Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3) examined and recorded their statements, on 07.11.2020, secured the presence of mediators and inspected the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene offence, secured the presence of witnesses cited in the memo of evidence at the scene examined and recorded their statements. On 10.11.2020, at about 07.00 PM, he arrested the A1 at his house at

Diduguvillage,recordedhisconfessionalstatement.

LW-10/Dr.A.Srinivasa Rao, Orthopedic Surgeon, Sri Krishna Institute of

Medical Sciences, Guntur, who treated the PW-1 Manchineni Venkata

Harinadh, issued a wound certificate opining that the injuries to the PW-1

Manchineni Venkata Harinadh were “Simple in nature.” PW-3/Sub-

Inspector of Police forwarded the seized material objects to the Assistant

Director, R.F.S.L. Guntur and obtained the expert report from the

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 6 S.C. No.1233/2025

Assistant Director, R.F.S.L. Guntur, who analyzed and examined the material object found that the human blood was detected on item No.1, but the blood group could not be determined. The A2 was released on anticipatory bail as per the orders of Hon’ble Principal Sessions Judge,

Guntur in Crl.M.P.No.1422/2023 dt.28.12.2023. After the completion of the investigation, LW-13/D.Venkateswarlu, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Amaravathi Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the A1 and A2, as they committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet and connected documents, the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, took up the case on file as PRC No.13/2025. Upon the appearance of A2 before the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, copies of case documents were furnished to him as envisaged under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since A1 died, the case against him was abated on 18.10.2025. When examined regarding A2’s means to engage counsel to defend his case, the A2 stated before the Court that he has the capacity to engage counsel in the Court of Sessions. As the offence under Sections 307, 323 r/w 34 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Guntur, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure for trial. In turn, the Hon’ble Principal Court of Sessions,

Guntur, numbered the case as Sessions Case No.1233/2025 and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon the appearance of the A2 before this Court, he was examined. After careful consideration and upon hearing of A2, this Court framed charge under Sections 307 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. against A2. The

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 7 S.C. No.1233/2025 charge was read over and explained to him in the Telugu language. The

A2 pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 3 and marked Exs. P1 to P10 and MO.1. PW.1 is the victim; Pws.2 and 3 are the Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the statement given to the police; Ex. P2 is the Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.1; Ex.P3 is the statement of PW-1; Ex.P4 is the First

Information Report in Crime No.330/2020 of Amaravathi Police Station;

Ex.P5 is the attested copy of scene observation report; Ex.P6 is the

Rough Sketch; Ex.P7 is the confessional statement of A1; Ex.P8 is the seizure mediatornama; Ex.P9 is the wound certificate of PW-1; and

Ex.P10 is the R.F.S.L. report. MO.1 is the blood stained T-Shirt.

6.After the prosecution evidence was completed, A2 was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whatever incriminating material was found in the prosecution evidence was explained to him, and his explanation was called for. During this examination, the A2 denied the entire prosecution case. The A2 did not adduce oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned counsel for the A2. Perused the material available on record, including both oral and documentary evidence.

8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that there was a long-standing dispute existing in between the accused and

PW-1 with regard to their lands, and they kept the disputed agricultural

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 8 S.C. No.1233/2025 land without cultivation with an understanding until the dispute was solved. However, A-1 and Gangaiah both raised a mirchi crop on the said land. Having come to know about the cultivation, on the morning of 31-10-2020 at about 10:00 A.M., PW-1, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) went to the disputed agricultural land. They found A-1 and

Manchineni Gangaiah at the disputed land, and the driver of a tractor was cultivating the land. Upon seeing this, PW1 informed the tractor driver that the land was in dispute and asked him to stop cultivation.

Consequently, the tractor driver left the agricultural land. Then, A-1 grew wild with anger against PW-1 and proclaimed that he had been waiting for an opportunity to kill him, stating that this was the right time and he would not leave without killing him. Saying so, A-1 pounced upon PW-1, drew a knife from his waist with the intention to kill him. When A-1 tried to stab PW-1 on his chest, PW-1 swiftly bent backward, because of which the knife stabbed the left side of his chest, causing PW-1 to sustain a bleeding injury. Seeing this, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) obstructed A-1; A-1 then beat Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) with his hands and warned him not to cross his path, as he had no intention of killing him. Meanwhile, Papineni Chandrasekhar (A-2) caught hold of PW-1 to prevent him from absconding and urged A-1 to kill PW-1. Somehow or another, PW-1 rescued himself from the clutches of the accused. In the meantime, noticing the commotion, Gali Venkata

Siva Reddy (L.W.4), Neelam Venkateswara Rao (L.W.5), Bandlamudi

Raghuramaiah (L.W.6) and Dunna Ambraham (L.W.7), who were present in the surrounding fields, rushed toward A-1 and A-2. Upon seeing them,

A-1 and A-2 fled from the place of occurrence. Later, Manchineni

Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) also escaped and approached PW-1.

Subsequently, they shifted PW-1, who had sustained bleeding injuries, to the Community Health Centre, Amaravathi on a motorcycle, where he

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 9 S.C. No.1233/2025 was rendered treatment by the Medical Officer. On receipt of the Hospital

Intimation, P. Srinivasa Rao, Head Constable, Amaravathi Police Station recorded the statement on 31-10-2020, commencing at 12:10 P.M. and concluding at 01:10 P.M. Later, the doctors referred PW-1 to the

Government General Hospital, Guntur. Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) and Manchineni Gowri Kumari (L.W.3) then shifted PW-1 to Sri

Krishna Super Specialty Hospitals, Guntur, for better treatment. On the other hand, the case of the defence is one of total denial, stating that the accused did not commit any offence. Therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case against the A2 beyond a reasonable doubt.

10.To bring home the guilt of the A2, the prosecution examined

PWs.1 to 3 and placed reliance Exs.P1 to P10 and MO.1.

11. POINT:

The specific case of the prosecution is that on the morning of 31-10-2020 at about 10:00 A.M., PW-1, Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.-2) went to the disputed agricultural land. They found A-1 and

Manchineni Gangaiah at the disputed land, and the driver of a tractor was cultivating the land. Upon seeing this, PW-1 informed the tractor driver that the land was in dispute and asked him to stop cultivation.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 10 S.C. No.1233/2025 (L.W.2) obstructed A-1; A-1 then beat Manchineni Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) with his hands and warned him not to cross his path, as he had no intention of killing him. Meanwhile, Papineni Chandrasekhar (A-2) caught hold of PW-1 to prevent him from absconding and urged A-1 to kill PW-1. Somehow or another, PW-1 rescued himself from the clutches of the accused. In the meantime, noticing the commotion, Gali Venkata

Siva Reddy (L.W.4), Neelam Venkateswara Rao (L.W.5), Bandlamudi

Raghuramaiah (L.W.6) and Dunna Ambraham (L.W.7), who were present in the surrounding fields, rushed toward A-1 and A-2. Upon seeing them,

A-1 and A-2 fled from the place of occurrence. Later, Manchineni

Chandra Sekhar (L.W.2) also escaped and approached PW-1.

Subsequently, they shifted PW-1, who had sustained bleeding injuries, to the Community Health Centre, Amaravathi on a motorcycle, and then to

Sri Krishna Super Specialty Hospitals, Guntur, for better treatment.

12. To prove its case that A2, in furtherance of common intention of A1, made an attempt to kill PW-1, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3, in addition to the documentary evidence of Exs. P1 to P10 and MO.1. However, the evidence of PW-1 who is stated to be a victim and against whom the accused made an attempt to kill, is quite contrary to the prosecution’s version of the alleged incident.

13.PW.1 deposed in his evidence that he was doing a private job in Hyderabad and his father had three brothers. On 31.10.2020, at about 10.00 AM, while he was going to his fields on a motorcycle, he met with an accident due to his motorcycle skidding, as a result of which he sustained an injury to the left side of his chest. Then, he was taken to

Government Hospital, Amaravathi, for treatment. While he was undergoing treatment in the hospital, the Police came and obtained his

Ex.P1 signature on a written paper but he does not know why they

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 11 S.C. No.1233/2025 obtained his signature or the purpose of it. He further stated that he was not examined by the police.

14.Since PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined him with the permission of the Court. However, nothing could be elicited from his evidence except the marking of PW-1's signature as

Ex. P1 in the statement said to have been given by him to the police, and the Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement as Ex. P2. Since it is evident from the evidence of PW-1 that he himself stated that he did not give any statement to the police and that the police obtained his signature on a written paper without reading the said content, the mere marking of the

Ex. P1 signature of PW-1 is of no avail to the prosecution to prove that

A1 and A2, in furtherance of their common intention, made an attempt to kill PW-1. Since PW-1 has categorically stated in his evidence that he sustained an injury to his chest due to an accident and turned hostile, thereby failing to support the prosecution's case, the mere marking of the

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1 as Ex. P2 is also of no avail to the prosecution, as that statement is not substantive evidence and is meant only to contradict its maker.

15.As can be seen from the records, the material witnesse PW- 1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case. The evidence of PW-2 pertains to the recording of the Ex.P3 statement of Pw-1. But, his evidence is of no avail as PW-1 categorically stated in his evidence that the Police obtained his Ex.P1 signature on a written paper without reading the contents of it. The evidence of PW-3 pertains to the registration of the crime, observation of the scene of the offense, preparation of a rough sketch, recording of witness statements, the arrest of A1, and filing of the charge sheet after completion of the investigation.

Since Pws.2 and 3 are not eyewitnesses to the incident, their evidence is

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 12 S.C. No.1233/2025 also of no avail to the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused. In the absence of direct evidence against the accused, this

Court is of the view that the mere marking of Exs. P3 to P10 and MO.1 through Pws.2 and 3 is also of no avail to the prosecution, as there is no oral evidence on record to substantiate the contents of the said documents and material object. Hence, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused with cogent and convincing evidence that the A2, in furtherance of common intention of A1 made an attempt to kill the PW-1.

16.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against A2 for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the A2 is entitled to acquittal on the benefit of the doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of A2 and against the prosecution.

{{

17.In the result, the A2/Papineni Chandra Sekhar is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

Accordingly, the A2 is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence. The bail bonds of the A2 and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 15.05.2026.

The non-valuable property i.e. MO.1 (vide in CPR.No.13/2026) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 13 S.C. No.1233/2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :-

PW1: Manchineni Venkata Harinadh. PW2: M.Srinivasa Rao, the then Head Constable, Amaravathi Police Station. PW3: M.Sivaiah, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station (Investigating Officer).

FOR DEFENCE :- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1/PW.1: Signature of PW.1 in the statement given to the police. Ex.P2/PW.1: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3/PW.2: Statement of PW-1. Ex.P4/PW.3: First Information Report in Crime No.330/2020 of Amaravathi Police Station. Ex.P5/PW.3: Attested copy of scene observation report. Ex.P6/PW.3: Rough Sketch. Ex.P7/PW.3: Confessional statement of A1. Ex.P8/PW.3: Seizure mediatornama. Ex.P9/PW.3: Wound certificate of PW-1. Ex.P10/PW.3:R.F.S.L. report.

FOR DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1 is the blood stained T-Shirt.

Sd/- V.VKR,

A.S.J, SAP.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 14 S.C. No.1233/2025

Copy Submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Registar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, through the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

3. The Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

The II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Sattenapalli.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 15 S.C. No.1233/2025

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::SATTENAPALLI.

1.Number of Sessions Case:S.C. No.1233/2025.

2.Name of the complainant and : Sub-Inspector of Police, it’s Cr. No. Amaravathi Police Station. Cr.No.330/2020.

3.Name of Committal Court and :II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First PRC Class, Sattenapalli. PRC No.13/2025.

4. Description of the accused:

1. Manchineni Naresh, S/o. Rajaiah, 38 years, R/o. H.No.2-154, Didugu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District. (A1)

2. Papineni Chandra Sekhar, S/o. Subba Rao,Aged 33 years, R/o. H.No.1-137, Didugu village, Amaravathi Mandal, Palnadu District. (A2) * Case against A1 was abated on 18.10.2025.

5.Date of

a) filing : 31.10.2020.

b) Apprehension of A1: 10.11.2020.

c) Commencement of Trial: 11.05.2026.

d) Close of Trial: 12.05.2026.

e) Judgment: 15.05.2026.

6.Charge:Sec. 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

7.Plea of accused :Not guilty.

8.Finding of Court :Found not guilty.

9.Sentence or Order:

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 16 S.C. No.1233/2025

In the result, the A2/Papineni Chandra Sekhar is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the A2 is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offence.

The bail bonds of the A2 and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 15.05.2026. The non-valuable property i.e. MO.1 (vide in CPR.No.13/2026) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

10. Explanation for the Delay:

This case was received from the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Guntur, on 25.11.2025. and summons were issued to the A2 to appear

before this Court on 07.01.2025; and on the appearance of the A2 and

after hearing both sides, charge under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPCwere framed on 11.03.2026; and as the A2 pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial and the trial of this case commenced on 11.05.2026 and was closed on 12.05.2026 and on 13.05.2026, the A2 was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and arguments on both sides were heard on same day. On 15.05.2026, Judgment was pronounced.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

SC/1273/2025 Acquitted

SHO Atchampeta vs Tellamekala Veeraiah

14 May 2026

APGU1C0003872025

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

Thursday, the 14th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.1273 / 2025

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station, Atchampet.

...Complainant.

Vs.

Tellamekala Veeraiah, S/o. Subba Rao, 32 years, R/o. Chamarru Village,

Atchampet Mandal....Accused.

This case came before me on 12.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri Ch.Bala Kotaiah, learned advocate for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record, 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed offences punishable under Section 363, 364 and 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) in Crime No.11/2019 of

Atchampet Police Station.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 2 S.C. No.1273/2025

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

a) The PW-1, Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi, W/o. Ravi, got married about 10 years ago to one Gajji Srinivasa Rao. After one year of marriage, her husband died. Subsequently, PW-1 Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi had a love affair with Ponnuru Ravi, a resident of Kodali village, Krishna

District, and they got married in a temple. In 2014, she gave birth to a female child, Siva Durga @ Pandu at the Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam, who was 5 years old at the time of the incident. After 8 years of marriage with the said Ravi, misunderstandings arose between them. Consequently, she left him and began residing at her parents’ house in Atchampet since 5 months. Then, she started cohabitating with the accused four months ago, residing in a rented house at Veerabadra

Colony.

b) The accused and PW-1 Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi used to quarrel frequently regarding money for house hold expenses. On 22.01.2019, at about 1.00 PM, the accused came home, and PW-1

Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi questioned him about not working and failing to fulfill house hold needs. Following this, the accused picked up a quarrel with her. Upon seeing this, the LW-3 Shaik Adambi asked them to vacate the house. PW-1 Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi then took her daughter,

Siva Durga @ Pandu/PW-2, to her parents’ house, for which the accused threatened her, stating that he would kill her daughter if she went to her parents’ house without living with him. On the same day, at about 5.15

PM, the accused took the said Siva Durga @ Pandu/PW-2 toward the bushes situated by a water tank and slit her throat with a blade with the intention to kill her. At about 5.30 PM, PW-1 Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi and other witnesses went toward the water tank in search of the missing girl and heard her cries from the bushes. They saw the accused running

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 3 S.C. No.1273/2025 toward the fields and found the girl bleeding from her throat. The victim girl, Siva Durga @ Pandu/PW-2 informed them that the accused took her near the bushes and slit her throat with a blade. Subsequently, PW-1

Ponnuri Rajyalakshimi went to the Police Station and lodged a report against the accused for necessary action.

c) Upon receipt of the report from PW.1/Ponnuri

Rajyalakshmi on 22.01.2019, PW.3/P.Kiran Kumar, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station, registered a case in Crime

No. 11/2019 for offences under Sections 363 and 307 of the IPC of

Atchampet Police Station and submitted the original First Information

Report to the Court, sent copies to the concerned officers, and took up investigation.

d) During the course of the investigation, PW-3/Sub-

Inspector of Police, forwarded the injured girl to the Area Hospital,

Sattenapalli, along with a woman Police Constable through a hospital memo. He then left the Police Station, visited the Area Hospital,

Sattenapalli, and found that the injured girl was undergoing treatment and was unable to speak due to the treatment of her throat. Then, he secured the presence of PW-1/Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi, examined and recorded her statement, and seized the blood stained cloths of the victim girl under a cover of seizure mediatornama in the presence of mediators.

He then visited the scene of the offence, prepared a scene observation report and a rough sketch in the presence of mediators, and seized blood stained Super Max blade at the scene. On that, he secured the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence, examined them, and recorded their statements. On 23.01.2019, at about 11.00 AM, he arrested the accused, recorded his confessional statement, and sent him for judicial remand. LW-12/Dr.M.Manthur Naik, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 4 S.C. No.1273/2025

Area Hospital, Sattenapalli, who treated the victim girl, issued a wound certificate opining that the injuries to the victim girl were “Simple in nature caused by a sharp object". PW-3/Sub-Inspector of Police obtained the expert report from the Assistant Director, R.F.S.L. Guntur, who analyzed and examined the material objects found that the human blood was detected on item Nos.1 and 2, but the blood group could not be determined. After the completion of the investigation, PW-4/Ch.Mani

Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchapet Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused, as he committed the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364, 307 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet and connected documents, the learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, took up the case on file as PRC No.12/2024. Upon the appearance of accused

before the learned I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli,

copies of case documents were furnished to him as envisaged under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When examined regarding his means to engage counsel to defend his case, the accused stated before the Court that he has the capacity to engage counsel in the

Court of Sessions. As the offence under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Court of Sessions, Guntur, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for trial. In turn, the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Guntur, numbered the case as Sessions Case No.1273/2025

and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon the appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined. After careful consideration and upon hearing of accused, this Court framed charge under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of the I.P.C.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 5 S.C. No.1273/2025 against accused. The charge was read over and explained to him in the

Telugu language. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and marked Exs. P1 to P10 and Mos.1 to 3. PW.1 is the mother of the victim girl and informant; PW.2 is the victim girl; and Pws.3 and 4 are the Investigating Officers. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW.1 in the report given to the police; Exs. P2 and P3 are the Section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

statements of Pws.1 and 2; Ex.P4 is the report given to the police by the

PW-1; Ex.P5 is the First Information Report in Crime No.11/2019 of

Atchampet Police Station; Ex.P6 is the seizure mediatornama; Ex.P7 is the scene observation report; Ex.P8 is the Rough Sketch; Ex.P9 is the confessional statement of the accused; and Ex.P10 is the wound certificate of PW-2. MO.1 is the blood stained gown; MO.2 is the Super

Max company blade; and MO.3 is the Peace company keypad mobile phone.

6.After the prosecution evidence was completed, accused was examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Whatever incriminating material was found in the prosecution evidence was explained to him, and his explanation was called for. During this examination, the accused denied the entire prosecution case. The accused did not adduce oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record, including both oral and documentary evidence.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 6 S.C. No.1273/2025 8. Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that the PW-1 and and accused had been cohabitating for four months prior to the incident, having taken a rented house at Veerabadra Colony. They used to quarrel frequently regarding money for house hold expenses. On 22.01.2019, at about 1.00 PM, the accused came to home, and PW-1 questioned him about not working and failing to fulfill house hold needs, for which, the accused picked a quarrel with PW-1, and subsequently, the owner of the house had them vacated. Then, the PW-1 took her daughter/PW-2 to her parents’ house, for which the accused threatened her, stating that he would kill PW-2 if she went to her parents’ house instead of living with him. On the same day, at about 5.15 PM, the accused took PW-2 toward the bushes situated by a water tank and slit her throat with a blade with the intention to kill her. At about 5.30 PM,

PW-1 and other witnesses went toward the water tank in search of PW-2 and heard her cries from the bushes. They saw the accused running toward the fields and found the PW-2 bleeding from her throat. The PW- 2 informed them that the accused took her near the bushes and slit her throat with a blade. Then, the PW-1 went to Atchampet Police Station, where she gave Ex.P4 report to the Police for necessary action against the accused. On the other hand, the case of the defence is one of total denial, stating that the accused did not commit any offence. Therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 7 S.C. No.1273/2025

10.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and placed reliance Exs.P1 to P10 and Mos.1 to 3.

11. POINT:

The specific case of the prosecution is that on 22.01.2019, at about 5.15 PM, the accused with an intention to kill PW-2 kidnapped her from her mother and took her toward the bushes situated by a water tank at Atchampet and slit her throat with a blade. At about 5.30 PM,

12. To prove its case that the accused kidnapped PW-2 and slit her throat with the intention to kill her, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Pws. 1 to 4, in addition to the documentary evidence of

Exs. P1 to P10 and Mos.1 to 3. However, the evidence of PW-1 (the mother of the victim girl) and PW-2 (victim girl) is quite contrary to the prosecution’s version of the alleged incident.

13.PW.1/Ponnuri Rajyalakshimi, the mother of PW.2/Ponnuri

Siva Durga @ Pandu, deposed in her evidence that she was a mason by occupation. Her marriage took place about 9 years ago, but her husband subsequently died. She gave birth to PW-2. About 7 years ago, a quarrel occurred between her and the accused, after which their landlord asked them to vacate their rented house. While they were vacating the house, PW-2 fell on to a chopper knife, as a result of which, the PW-2

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 8 S.C. No.1273/2025 sustained a neck injury. They then shifted PW-2 to the Government

Hospital in Sattenapalli for treatment, where doctors sutured her wound.

At that time, the Police obtained her Ex.P1 signature on a blank paper, but she was unaware of its contents or purpose. She further stated that she was not examined by the Police.

14.The PW-2, the victim, deposed in her evidence that she was the only daughter of her parents. When she was aged about 5 years old, she was playing in their house and fell onto a chopper knife, as a result of which, she sustained an injury to her neck. She was then taken to hospital for treatment by her mother. She further stated that she was not examined by the Police.

15.Since Pws. 1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined them with the permission of the Court. However, nothing could be elicited from their evidence except the marking of PW.1's signature as

Ex.P1 in the report said to have been given by her to the police, and the

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements of Pws. 1 and 2 as Exs.P2 and P3.

Since it is evident from the evidence of PW.1 that she herself stated she did not give any report and that the police obtained her signature on blank papers, the mere marking of the Ex.P1 signature of PW.1 is of no avail to the prosecution to prove that the accused kidnapped PW.2 and slit her throat with the intention to kill her. Similarly, the evidence of

PW.2, who is the victim girl, is also of no avail to the prosecution as she categorically stated that she fell onto a chopper knife and sustained a neck injury. Since PWs 1 and 2, who are the material witnesses, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case, the mere marking of

Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 1 and 2 as Exs.P2 and P3 is

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 9 S.C. No.1273/2025 also of no avail to the prosecution, as those statements are not substantive evidence and are meant only to contradict their makers.

16.As can be seen from the records, the material witnesses

Pws. 1 and 2 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.

The evidence of PW.3 pertains to the registration of the crime, observation of the scene of the offense, preparation of a rough sketch, recording of witness statements, and the arrest of the accused. The evidence of PW.4 pertains to the filing of the charge sheet after completion of the investigation. Since Pws.3 and 4 are not an eyewitness to the incident, their evidence is also of no avail to the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the accused. In the absence of direct evidence against the accused, this Court is of the view that the mere marking of

Exs. P4 to P10 and MOs 1 to 3 through PW.3 is also of no avail to the prosecution, as there is no oral evidence on record to substantiate the contents of said documents and material objects. Hence, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused with cogent and convincing evidence that the accused, with an intention to kill PW.2, kidnapped her and slit her throat with the MO. 2 blade.

17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against accused for the offences punishable under Section 363, 364 and 307 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the benefit of the doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of Accused and against the prosecution.

18.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 10 S.C. No.1273/2025 accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this

Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from 14.05.2026. The non-valuable property i.e. MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed and the valuable property i.e., MO.3 shall be confiscated to the

State, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 14th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :-

PW1: Ponnuri Rajyalakshmi. (informant). PW2: Ponnuri Siva Durga @ Pandu (victim/eye witness). PW3: P.Kiran, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station (Investigating Officer). PW4: Ch.Mani Krishna the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Atchampet Police Station (Investigating Officer).

FOR DEFENCE :- -None-

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 11 S.C. No.1273/2025

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1/ PW.1: Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 in the report given to the police. Ex.P2/PW.1: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P3/PW.2: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P4/PW.3: Report given to the police by the PW-1. Ex.P5/PW.3: First Information Report in Crime No.11/2019 of Atchampet Police Station. Ex.P6/PW.3: Seizure mediatornama. Ex.P7/PW.3: Scene observation report. Ex.P8/PW.3: Rough Sketch. Ex.P9/PW.3: Confessional statement of the accused. Ex.P10/PW.3 Wound certificate of PW-2.

FOR DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO.1/PW.3 : Blood stained gown. MO.2/PW.3: Super Max company blade. MO.3/PW.3 Peace company keypad mobile phone.

Sd/- V.VKR,

A.S.J, SAP.

Copy Submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Registar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, through the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

3. The Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Sattenapalli.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 12 S.C. No.1273/2025

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::SATTENAPALLI.

1.Number of Sessions Case:S.C. No.1273/2025.

2.Name of the complainant and : Sub-Inspector of Police, it’s Cr. No. Atchampet Police Station. Cr.No.11/2019.

3.Name of Committal Court and :I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First PRC Class, Sattenapalli. PRC No.12/2024.

4. Description of the accused: Tellamekala Veeraiah, S/o. Subba Rao, 32 years, R/o. Chamarru Village, Atchampet Mandal.

5.Date of

a) filing : 22.01.2019.

b) Apprehension of accused: 23.01.2019.

c) Commencement of Trial: 28.04.2026.

d) Close of Trial: 05.05.2026.

e) Judgment: 14.05.2026.

6.Charge:Sec.363, 364 and 307 of IPC.

7.Plea of accused :Not guilty.

8.Finding of Court :Found not guilty.

9.Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties executed earlier shall be treated as bail bonds in view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

in respect of any appeal or petition filed against the Judgment of this

Court and the same shall be in force for a period of 6 months from

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 13 S.C. No.1273/2025 14.05.2026. The non-valuable property i.e. MOs.1 and 2 shall be destroyed and the valuable property i.e., MO.3 shall be confiscated to the

State, after expiry of appeal time.

10. Explanation for the Delay:

This case was received from the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Guntur, on 05.12.2025. and summons were issued to the accused to appear before this Court on 05.01.2026; and on the appearance of the accused and after hearing both sides, charges under Sections 363, 364 and 307 of IPCwere framed on 21.04.2026; and as the accused pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial and the trial of this case commenced on 28.04.2026 and was closed on 05.05.2026 and on 11.05.2026, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and arguments on both sides were heard on 12.05.2026. On 14.05.2026,

Judgment was pronounced.

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

SC/842/2026 Acquitted

SHO Amaravathi vs Yepuri Veera Srinu alias Vinayakudu

19 May 2026

APGU1C0001212026

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE :: SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri V. VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY, Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.842 / 2026

State: Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, Amaravathi.

...Complainant.

Vs.

Yepuri Veera Srinu @ Vinayakudu, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged 50 years, R/o. Lingapuram Village, Amaravathi Mandal.

...Accused.

This case came before me on 18.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri B.Amaraiah Naik, learned legal aid counsel

for the Accused and upon perusing the material on record, 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 Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that he committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for brevity) in Crime No.59/2023 of

Amaravathi Police Station.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 2/13 S.C. No.842/2026

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

a) The PW-1, Yepuri Venkata Suseela, is a resident of

Lingamguntla village, Palnadu District, and earns a living by doing coolie work. About 30 years ago, her marriage was performed with the accused, and they were blessed with a son and a daughter, namely Yapuri

Venkateswara Rao (LW-2) and Vusa Sowjanya (LW-3). About 14 years ago, a dispute arose between PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) and the accused. Consequently, they got separated, and PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata

Suseela) started residing with her son, LW-2 (Yepuri Venkata Koteswara

Rao), while the accused resided at his parents' house. However, the accused resided with PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) for one year during the interim. About 6 months prior to the incident, the accused went to his mother's house. About 6 days prior to the incident, PW-1's (Yapuri

Venkata Suseela) daughter-in-law was delivered in the hospital.

b) The accused, taking advantage of the situation, came to the house of PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) and had been eating food at their house for three days. In this connection, on 10-06-2023, in the afternoon, the accused came to PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) and asked her to serve him a meal. She served the meal to the accused, and after completing his meal, he asked her to give him a sum of Rs. 500/- or

Rs. 1,000/- for his expenses, to which PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) replied that she had no money. Due to that, the accused attributed an illegal relationship with others to PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela), bore a grudge against her, questioned her about what she was doing with the coolie amount, and quarreled with her.

c) On 10-06-2023, at about 3:30 PM, the accused, with the intention to kill PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela), drew a cock-cutting knife from his belly, caught hold of PW-1's (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) saree that was hanging from her shoulder, and dragged it to stab her. When

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 3/13 S.C. No.842/2026 she tried to raise her left hand to escape from the stabbing, the accused stabbed her left hand from the palm to the elbow four or five times. As a result, she sustained injuries to her left palm, left hand little finger, ring finger, and thumb finger. The accused came again and made an attempt to murder her, but PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) shouted huge cries, and then the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence came to her. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of offense. On that, the LW-6 (Yepuri Appa Rao) shifted PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata Suseela) to the Community Health Center, Amaravathi, by an auto, where she was given first aid treatment and then shifted to Viswabharathi Super

Specialty Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. Then, she gave a statement to the Police of Kotha Police Station, Guntur in the hospital regarding the incident and then, the said Police sent the same statement to Amaravathi Police Station on point of the jurisdiction.

d) Upon receipt of the statement of PW-1 (Yepuri Venkata

Suseela), on 16.06.2023, at about 8.00 PM, LW-11 (D.Venkateswarlu)

Sub-Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No. 59/2023 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 of the

IPC of Amaravathi Police Station and submitted the original First

Information Report to the Court, sent copies to the concerned officers, and took up investigation.

e) During the course of the investigation, LW-11/Sub-

Inspector of Police, examined PW-1, LW-2 Yepuri Venkata Koteswara

Rao, LW-3 Vasa Sowjanya, LW-4 Gowrava Audilakshmi, LW-5

Chalamchalam Manga and LW-6 Yepuri Appa Rao and recorded their statements. He then visited the scene of the offence, inspected the scene and drafted a rough sketch in the presence of mediators, and seized the knife under cover of mediatornama. On 22.06.2023, at about 11.25 AM, he arrested the accused in the presence of mediators and

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 4/13 S.C. No.842/2026 recorded his confessional statement, and sent him for judicial remand.

LW-9/Dr.Bindesh, Viswabharathi Super Specialty Hosopital, Guntur, who treated the PW-1 Yepuri Venkata Suseela, issued a wound certificate opining that the injuries to the PW-1 were grievous in nature.

LW-11/Sub-Inspector of Police obtained the expert report from Scientific

Officer, R.F.S.L. Guntur who analysed and examined the material objects stating that human blood was detected on item No.1 i.e., crime weapon.

After the completion of the investigation, LW-11/D.Venkateswarlu, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Amaravathi Police Station, filed a charge sheet against the accused, as he committed the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC. Hence, the charge.

3.After perusing the charge sheet and connected documents, the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli, took up the case on file as PRC No.14/2025. Upon the appearance of accused

before the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Sattenapalli,

copies of case documents were furnished to him as envisaged under

Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since, the accused failed to appear before the learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I

Class, Sattenapalli in further adjournments, he issued a non bailable warrant to secure his presence. On producing the accused upon execution of non bailable warrant, he was remanded to the judicial custody. When examined regarding his means to engage counsel to defend his case, the accused stated before the Court that he has the capacity to engage counsel in the Court of Sessions. As the offence under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, this case has been committed to the Court of

Sessions, Guntur, under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

for trial. In turn, the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, Guntur, numbered the

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 5/13 S.C. No.842/2026 case as Sessions Case No.842/2026 and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon producing the accused before this Court, he was examined whether he has capacity to engage a counsel to defend his case, for which he replied that he has no capacity to engage a counsel.

Therefore, Sri B.Amaraiah Naik was appointed as a legal aid counsel to the accused to defend the accused. After careful consideration and upon hearing of accused, this Court framed charges under Sections 498-A and 307 of the I.P.C. against accused. The charges were read over and explained to him in the Telugu language. The accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 and marked Ex. P1. PW.1 is the informant Ex.P1 is the Section 161 (3)

Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1.

6.As the material witnesse PW-1 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor gave up the evidence of remaining witnesses cited in the memo of evidence stating that no purpose would be served, even they were examined. Since, no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of PW-1, his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Heard the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the complainant and the learned Legal Aid counsel for the accused. Perused the material available on record both oral and documentary evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 6/13 S.C. No.842/2026

Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.The gravamen of the allegations against the accused is that the PW-1 is a resident of Lingamguntla village, Palnadu District, and earns a living by doing coolie work. About 30 years ago, her marriage was performed with the accused, and they were blessed with a son and a daughter, namely Yapuri Venkateswara Rao (LW-2) and Vusa Sowjanya (LW-3). About 14 years ago, a dispute arose between PW-1 (Yapuri

Venkata Suseela) and the accused. Consequently, they got separated, and PW-1 started residing with her son, LW-2 (Yepuri Venkata

Koteswara Rao), while the accused resided at his parents' house.

However, the accused resided with PW-1 for one year during the interim.

About 6 months prior to the incident, the accused went to his mother's house. About 6 days prior to the incident, PW-1's daughter-in-law was delivered in the hospital. The accused, taking advantage of the situation, came to the house of PW-1 and had been eating food at their house for three days. In this connection, on 10-06-2023, in the afternoon, the accused came to PW-1 and asked her to serve him a meal. She served the meal to the accused, and after completing his meal, he asked her to give him a sum of Rs. 500/- or Rs. 1,000/- for his expenses, to which

PW-1 replied that she had no money. Due to that, the accused attributed an illegal relationship with others to PW-1, bore a grudge against her, questioned her about what she was doing with the coolie amount, and quarreled with her. On 10-06-2023, at about 3:30 PM, the accused, with the intention to kill PW-1, drew a cock-cutting knife from his belly, caught hold of PW-1's saree that was hanging from her shoulder, and dragged it to stab her. When she tried to raise her left hand to escape from the stabbing, the accused stabbed her left hand from the palm to the elbow four or five times. As a result, she sustained injuries to her left palm, left

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 7/13 S.C. No.842/2026 hand little finger, ring finger, and thumb finger. The accused came again and made an attempt to murder her, but PW-1 shouted huge cries, and then the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence came to her. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of offense. On that, the LW-6 (Yepuri Appa Rao) shifted PW-1 to the Community Health

Center, Amaravathi, by an auto, where she was given first aid treatment and then shifted to Viswabharathi Super Specialty Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment. Then, she gave a statement to the Police of Kotha

Police Station, Guntur in the hospital regarding the incident and then, the said Police sent the same statement to Amaravathi Police Station on point of the jurisdiction.

10.To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 and placed reliance Ex.P1.

11. POINT :

The evidence of the PW.1 who set the criminal law into motion reveals that about 33 years back, her marriage was performed with the accused and she blessed with two children out of their wedlock.

About 3 years back, on one day, while she had been cutting the green mangoes, she sustained cut injuries to her left hand wrist. On that, she went to a private hospital, Guntur for treatment. Then, the police called her to their Police Station and obtained her thumb impression on a blank paper, but she does not know as to why they took her thumb impression and the purpose of it. She stated that the Police not examined her.

12.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 10-06-2023, in the afternoon, the accused being the husband of PW-1 came to her and asked her to serve him a meal. She served the meal to the accused, and after completing his meal, he asked her to give him a sum of Rs.

500/- or Rs. 1,000/- for his expenses, to which PW-1 replied that she had

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 8/13 S.C. No.842/2026 no money. Due to that, the accused attributed an illegal relationship with others to PW-1, bore a grudge against her, questioned her about what she was doing with the coolie amount, and quarreled with her. On 10-06- 2023, at about 3:30 PM, the accused, with the intention to kill PW-1, drew a cock-cutting knife from his belly, caught hold of PW-1's saree that was hanging from her shoulder, and dragged it to stab her. When she tried to raise her left hand to escape from the stabbing, the accused stabbed her left hand from the palm to the elbow four or five times. As a result, she sustained injuries to her left palm, left hand little finger, ring finger, and thumb finger. The accused came again and made an attempt to murder her, but PW-1 shouted huge cries, and then the witnesses cited in the memo of evidence came to her. On seeing them, the accused ran away from the scene of offense. On that, the LW-6 (Yepuri Appa Rao) shifted

PW-1 to the Community Health Center, Amaravathi, by an auto, where she was given first aid treatment and then shifted to Viswabharathi Super

Specialty Hospital, Guntur, for better treatment.

13.The prosecution in order to prove that the accused committed offence under Sections 498-A, 307 of IPC, has relied upon the evidence of PW.1 apart from the documentary evidence of Ex.P1. But, the evidence of PW.1 is quite contrary to the version of prosecution and

PW.1 who stated to have been received injuries in the hands of accused and given statement in respect of alleged incident has stated in her evidence that while she had been cutting the green mangoes, she sustained cut injuries to her left hand wrist and then, she was shifted to hospital for treatment. By that time, the police obtained thumb impression of PW.1 in a blank paper, but she does not know as to why they took her thumb impression and purpose of it. Though the PW.1 received injuries, but her evidence is of no avail to prove the fact that the accused harassed her and made an attempt to kill her with the knife.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 9/13 S.C. No.842/2026

14.Since, the PW.1 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross- examined her with the permission of the Court, but nothing could be elicited from her evidence except marking of the Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C.

statement of PW.1 as Ex.P1. As the PW.1 herself stated in her evidence that while she was cutting green mangoes, she sustained injuries to her left hand, and when she was admitted in the Hospital, Guntur for treatment and at that time, the police obtained thumb impression of

PW.1 in a written paper and she does not know the contents of it, the mere marking of Ex.P1 is of no avail to the prosecution to prove that the accused harassed PW.1 and he then with an intention to kill her, he stabbed her with a nife. Since, the Ex.P1 statement is not the substantive evidence and meant for to contradict its makers, this Court is of view that the same statement is of no avail to the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused committed the above said offences. In the absence of cogent and convincing evidence against the accised, it cannot be safe to fasten liability upon the accused that he harassed PW-1 both physically and mentally and stabbed her with an intestion to kill her. In view of the above circumstances, it can be safely held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused with cogent and convincing evidence that the accused committed the above said offences.

15.In view of my foregoing discussion, this court is of view that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of

IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the accused is entitled to acquittal on benefit of doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC. Accordingly, the

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 10/13 S.C. No.842/2026 accused is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The Superintendent, Sub-Jail, Sattenapalli is directed to release the accused forthwith, if he is not required in any case or crime. The unmarked non-valuable case property (Vide in CPR.No.14/2026) shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 19th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- V. Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION :-

PW1: Yepuri Venkata Suseela (informant).

FOR DEFENCE :- -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1/ PW.1: Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

FOR DEFENCE:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Sd/- V.VKR,

A.S.J, SAP.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 11/13 S.C. No.842/2026

Copy Submitted to:

1. The Hon’ble Registar (Judicial), High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi, through the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Director of Prosecutions, D.No.24-19-12/A, Durgapuram, Vijayawada.

3. The Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Guntur.

Copy to:

The II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Sattenapalli.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 12/13 S.C. No.842/2026

CALENDAR

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE ::SATTENAPALLI.

1.Number of Sessions Case:S.C. No.842/2026.

2.Name of the complainant and : Sub-Inspector of Police, it’s Cr. No. Amaravathi Police Station. Cr.No.59/2023.

3.Name of Committal Court and :II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First PRC Class, Sattenapalli. PRC No.14/2025.

4. Description of the accused:Yepuri Veera Srinu @ Vinayakudu, S/o. Kotaiah, Aged 50 years, R/o. Lingapuram Village, Amaravathi Mandal.

5.Date of

a) filing : 16.06.2023.

b) Apprehension of accused: 22.06.2023.

c) Commencement of Trial: 18.05.2026.

d) Close of Trial: 18.05.2026.

e) Judgment: 19.05.2026.

6.Charge:Sec. 498-A and 307 of IPC.

7.Plea of accused :Not guilty.

8.Finding of Court :Found not guilty.

9.Sentence or Order:

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

A.S.J., Sattenapalli 13/13 S.C. No.842/2026

10. Explanation for the Delay:

This case was received from the Hon’ble Court of Sessions,

Guntur, on 21.04.2026 and on producing the accused before the Court on 06.05.2026; and after hearing both sides, charges under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPCwere framed on 13.05.2026; and as the accused pleaded not guilty, the case was posted for trial and the trial of this case commenced on 18.05.2026 and was closed on 18.05.2026 and the examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was dispensed with as no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and arguments on both sides were heard on the same day. On 19.05.2026, Judgment was pronounced.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Sattenapalli.

H.M.O.P/3/2026

Pittu Prasanthi vs Pittu Venkata Gopi Reddy

08 May 2026

APGU1C0000212026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

HMOP No.3 of 2026

Pittu @ Birudula Prasanthi, W/o. Pittu Venkata Gopi Reddy, D/o. Birudula John Samuel, Aged 29 years, Police Constable, R/o. Door No.6-59, Near Andhra Bank, Main Road, Rajeev Colony, Amaravathi Village and Mandal, Palnadu District.

...Petitioner

Vs.

Pittu Venkata Gopi Reddy, S/o. Siva Reddy, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Cealing work and Dance Master, R/o. Near Ramuluvari Temple, Reddypalem Village, Guntur Rural Mandal, Guntur District.

...Respondent

This petition came up before me on 07.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Venkateswara Rao Mekala, Learned Advocates for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::O R D E R::

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent under

Sections 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 20.09.2018, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and for

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 2/8HMOP No.3/2026 costs of the petition and such other reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

a) The petitioner/wife submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was a love and arranged marriage, held on 20-09-2018 according to Hindu rites and customs in the presence of family members, relatives, and friends. The marriage was consummated, and during their lawful wedlock, they were blessed with two children 1) Pittu Hruthika

Reddy (born 26-12-2019) and 2) Pittu Hruthik Reddy (born 02-03-2022). That the petitioner belongs to the Madhiga Community and the respondent belongs to the Reddy Community. In 2017, while the petitioner was studying for her degree at Guntur, the petitioner and respondent fell in love. During this time, she secured a job as a Police Constable. Later, both parties reconciled with their family members and married. Due to the nature of their love and arranged marriage, the ceremony occurred before family members, relatives, and friends. Since the date of marriage, the petitioner has been identified with the

Reddy Community.

b) The petitioner further submittted that she subsequently worked at the Rajupalem Police Station for a few months, during which time they resided together. Later, the petitioner was transferred to Guntur from

Rajupalem. She resided with her husband and his family members specifically his father, Siva Reddy, his mother, Sandyavali, and his only sister, Ganga

Bhavani at Gujjanagundla, Guntur City, for a few months. Afterward, they lived at Nagaraju Colony, Reddypalem Village, Guntur City, for a few months before the family shifted to the police quarters at Nagarampalem, Guntur City. The petitioner was later transferred to Amaravathi and shifted her family there. She resided with her husband in a rented house at Amaravathi. During their wedlock, the couple was blessed with two children. Family members from both sides used to visit the petitioner’s house and stay there; the respondent’s

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 3/8HMOP No.3/2026 family members performed all traditional functions (Srimantham, Barasala,

Namakaranam) for the children. After their marriage, the respondent cared for the petitioner properly for only three months. After this period, the respondent revealed his true character. During their courtship and at the time of marriage, the respondent told the petitioner that his family owned agricultural lands and house sites, and that he was a dance master who earned more than sufficient income to lead a happy marital life. After six months of marriage, the petitioner learned that the respondent possessed no property, worked in house ceiling construction, and his father worked at a goods shed in Guntur. The respondent intentionally cheated and married the petitioner only because she had a police job, deceiving her by stating that he loved her.

c) The petitioner further submitted that the respondent is a chronic alcoholic who would return home late at night. He would neglect the petitioner and spend the midnight hours talking to other women on the phone (via audio and video) while in bed. When the petitioner questioned him about these odd hours, the respondent grew wild, abused her with the slur "Madhigadana," and beat her indiscriminately with his hands and legs. The respondent used to humiliate the petitioner, stating that he would marry a woman of his own caste and that he would get a dowry. Every day, the respondent abused her in filthy language, disparaging her caste, and beat her arbitrarily. When the petitioner informed the respondent's parents, they supported him instead of chastising him. They told the petitioner she had no right to question him as he is a male, and abused her by saying “Meeru madhigavaallu, meeru chepthe memu vinala, memu chippinattu neevu vinaali madhagadaana.” Furthermore, the respondent’s sister, Ganga Bhavani, abused the petitioner, stating “Maa thammudu thaaguthaadu, vaadu magaadu, emaina chestadu, neevu kulam thakkuva dhaanivi, maa mata vinalisindhe,” causing the petitioner immense humiliation.

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 4/8HMOP No.3/2026

d) The petitioner further submitted that from the beginning of the marriage, the respondent led a luxurious life by spending the petitioner’s salary. While residing together, the respondent spent her entire salary on his vices including drinking and debauchery without performing any work himself.

The respondent pressured and harassed the petitioner to purchase luxurious items such as an iPhone, a two-wheeler, a car, and gold ornaments. Due to this unbearable torture, the petitioner obtained a loan. After the loan was sanctioned, the respondent purchased the aforementioned items. The monthly installments are currently deducted from the petitioner’s salary. The respondent’s attitude remained cruel and rustic, involving car accidents and alcohol parties with friends. When the petitioner questioned his illegal and unethical acts, the respondent threatened her, stating that if these matters were disclosed to others, no one could act against him as he is well-connected to known political leaders.

e) The petitioner further submitted that the Government issued a notification for Sub-Inspector (S.I.) posts. The petitioner qualified in the preliminary exam through hard work. When she informed the respondent that she intended to take coaching in Vijayawada and paid an advance to the coaching center, the respondent, on 10-03-2023, intentionally hatched a plan to abscond from the matrimonial home. He deceitfully transferred the entire balance of money from the petitioner’s phone to his own. On that day, he intentionally abused and beat the petitioner without cause, and forcibly evicted her and the children from their rented home in Amaravathi. He openly proclaimed that he would divorce her to marry another woman from his caste who would provide a huge dowry. The respondent deserted the petitioner under the guise that if she went for coaching, she would not receive a salary, and he would be unable to spend it on his vices or look after the children. With no other option, the petitioner reached her mother’s house with the children.

The respondent subsequently vacated the rented house, taking all valuables

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 5/8HMOP No.3/2026 including gold, household articles, and money to his father’s house, and burned all other marriage photos. Since 10-03-2023, the parties have been residing separately at their respective parents' houses. Despite requests from the petitioner and elders for the respondent to rejoin the matrimonial fold, he has bluntly refused. The marriage is irretrievably broken with no scope for reunion.

f) The petitioner further submitted that the intention of the respondent and his family members was only to squeeze money from the petitioner or to obtain a divorce. During her stay with them, they treated the petitioner like a slave. The petitioner endured all the tantrums caused by the respondent and his family for the sake of love, her children, her dignity, and family prestige, while paying all rents where they resided. The petitioner further submitted since 10-03-2023, the respondent has been leading a life of leisure.

He harassed the petitioner physically and mentally without reasonable cause.

He maintains questionable contacts with antisocial elements, which will be elicited during the course of the trial. He has been threatening the petitioner for money through various methods, posing a danger to the lives of the petitioner and her children. As such, she apprehends danger at the hands of the respondent. Vexed with the respondent's attitude, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition to mold her life in a better way by obtaining a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

03.Having received notice, the respondent did not appear before the

Court and remained exparte to the proceedings on 23.03.2026.

04.The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to 7.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record.

06.Now the points for consideration are :

01.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 6/8HMOP No.3/2026 on the grounds of cruelty?

02.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion?

03.To what result?

07.POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

The Petitioner is seeking to dissolve the marriage with the respondent on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Therefore, the burden lies with the petitioner to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent.

Furthermore, she must prove that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and that the respondent deserted the petitioner without any justifiable reason or excuse for a continuous period of more than two years preceding the filing of the petition.

08. To prove the same, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and marked Wedding Card, marriage and other photos (6 in number), original birth certificate of 1st child Hruthika Reddy, original birth certificate of 2nd child

Hruthik Reddy, true copy of her Aadhaar card and her children (3 in number), attested notarized copy of ration card of the petitioner’s mother and attested copy of badratha card of the petitioner (showing the name of the respondent as husband) as Exs. P1 to P7, respectively. The evidence of PW.1, coupled with the contents of the Ex. P1 wedding card, goes to show that on 20.09.2018, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed at the respondent’s house in Nagaraju Colony, Reddypalem, Guntur City, according to Hindu caste customs and rites. The evidence of PW.1 further shows that her marriage was consummated and during their marital life, they were blessed with two children.

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 7/8HMOP No.3/2026

Her evidence further shows that although it was a love marriage, the petitioner stated that the respondent deceived her regarding his income and property to exploit her financially. The respondent, a chronic alcoholic with no steady job, spent the petitioner’s entire salary on vices and coerced her into taking loans for luxury items (iPhone, car, gold). The respondent and his family subjected the petitioner to physical violence and verbal abuse, including caste-based slurs and humiliation regarding her community. The respondent neglected the petitioner, spending nights communicating with other women and threatening the petitioner with his alleged political connections. On 10-03-2023, the respondent stole money from the petitioner’s phone, burned their marriage photos, and forcibly evicted her and the children from their home to prevent her from attending Sub-Inspector coaching. Despite mediation attempts, the respondent refuses to reconcile and has threatened the petitioner’s life. Finding the marriage irretrievably broken, the petitioner seeks dissolution of their marriage.

09. Since the evidence of PW.1, coupled with the documentary evidence, remains unchallenged, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. It is needless to say that the aforementioned acts of the respondent, as reiterated by the petitioner (PW.1), amount to treating the petitioner with mental cruelty. All these circumstances clearly show that there is no chance of a reunion and that the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner from his conjugal society on 10-03-2023. The petitioner has been residing separately for a period of more than three years preceding the present petition. In other words, the petitioner has successfully established that the respondent deserted her. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Accordingly, these point

Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the petitioner.

10. POINT No.3:

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli. 8/8HMOP No.3/2026

In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, held on 20.09.2018, is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Sd/- V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

PW.1: Pittu@ Birudala Prasanthi.- Exparte –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: Wedding Card. Ex.P2: Marriage and other photos (6 in number). Ex.P3: Original birth certificate of 1st child Hruthika Reddy. Ex.P4: Original birth certificate of 2nd child Hruthik Reddy. Ex.P5: True copy of petitioner’s Aadhaar card and her children (3 in number). Ex.P6: Attested notarized copy of ration card of the petitioner’s mother. Ex.P7: Attested copy of badratha card of the petitioner (showing the name of the respondent as husband) .

FOR RESPONDENT:

- N I L -.

Sd/ - VVKR,

CJ (SD), SAP.

H.M.O.P/27/2026

Maddireddy alias Induri Nandini vs Maddireddy Sai Krishna Reddy

08 May 2026

APGU1C0000592026

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION): SATTENAPALLI.

Present: Sri V.VIJAYA KUMAR REDDY,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sattenapalli,

Friday, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

HMOP No.27 of 2026

Maddireddy @ Induri Nandini, W/o. Maddireddy Sai Krishna Reddy, D/o. Induri Srinvasa Reddy, Aged 24 years, Parents protection, R/o. 111-Takkellapadu Village, Phringipuram Mandal, Guntur District,

...Petitioner

Vs.

Maddireddy Sai Krishna Reddy, S/o. Sudhakara Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Door No.2-29-17/1, Near Kaviraja Park, Nandulapeta, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District.

...Respondent

This petition came up before me on 06.05.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.V. Subba Reddy, and Sri G.Venkatasiva, Learned Advocates

for the Petitioner and the Respondent remained exparte and upon perusing the

material papers on the record and upon hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

::O R D E R::

This petition is filed by the petitioner against the respondent under

Sections 13 (1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent on 21.08.2022, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, and for costs of the petition and such other reliefs as this Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli.2/6HMOP No.27/2026

02.The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

a) The petitioner/wife submitted that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was performed on 21.08.2022 according to

Hindu marriage law and caste customs, in the presence of elders and relatives at the Radha Madhav Function Hall, near Tirupatamma Talli Temple,

Ganganamma Peta, Tenali Town and Mandal, Guntur District. Soon thereafter, the marriage was consummated. The petitioner joined the respondent to lead a marital life in Tenali Town and Mandal. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner’s parents fulfilled all formalities as per custom and the demands of the respondent’s family. It is further submitted that the couple lived together for a period of only one year. During their cohabitation, no children were born.

Thereafter, the respondent became addicted to various vices and began spending his earnings on them. The respondent would return home late at night in an intoxicated state. When the petitioner questioned his attitude, the respondent quarreled with her, abused her using filthy language, and beat her severely. The respondent frequently abused and beat the petitioner indiscriminately due to her not being blessed with a child, often doing so in front of relatives. He also confined her to a dark room without providing food, causing her immense mental agony. The petitioner spent several days without food or sleep, hoping the respondent would change his attitude and lead a happy marital life with her.

b) The petitioner further submitted that the respondent and his parents harassed the petitioner physically and mentally for additional dowry.

The respondent demanded the petitioner bring additional funds from her parents to fund his bad habits. When the petitioner expressed her inability to obtain said funds, the respondent abused her with filthy language and beat her indiscriminately. In November 2023, the respondent and his family members picked a quarrel with the petitioner, abused her in filthy language, and forcibly evicted her from the matrimonial home. Consequently, the petitioner moved to

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli.3/6HMOP No.27/2026 her parental home and is currently residing there with her parents. The petitioner and her parents attempted mediation through elders named Marpula

Siva Rami Reddy (S/o Rama Chandra Reddy) and Chintalapataui Lakshmi

Narayana (S/o Samba Murthy). They requested the respondent to take the petitioner back and resume their marital life. However, the respondent turned a deaf ear and maintained a grudge against the petitioner without any valid reason. Furthermore, he developed ill will toward the petitioner and demanded a divorce, threatening that otherwise, he will see the end of the petitioner. The petitioner is now afraid of the respondent's actions. The best efforts of the petitioner in this regard have proved futile. From the beginning, the respondent behaved toward the petitioner in a cruel manner and harassed her physically and mentally for additional dowry. He also harassed her for sexual intercourse, which amounts to cruelty. Under these circumstances, the petitioner as a faithful Hindu woman waited in the hope that the respondent would change his attitude and lead a marital life with her. However, these hopes were in vain.

The petitioner has lost all hope for a reunion. Hence, this petition seeking divorce is filed.

03.Having received notice, the respondent did not appear before the

Court and remained exparte to the proceedings on 27.04.2026.

04.The petitioner examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.P1 to 3.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the entire record.

06.Now the points for consideration are :

01.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty?

02.Whether the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of the marriage with the respondent by a decree of divorce on the grounds of desertion?

03.To what result?

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli.4/6HMOP No.27/2026

07.POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

08. To prove the same, the petitioner examined herself as PW.1 and marked Wedding Card, marriage photos (2 in number) and true copy of her

Aadhaar card as Exs. P1 to P3, respectively. The evidence of PW.1, coupled with the contents of the Ex. P1 wedding card, goes to show that on 21.08.2022, the marriage of the petitioner and respondent was performed at Radha Madhav

Function Hall, near Tirupatamma Talli Temple, Ganganamma Peta, Tenali

Town and Mandal, Guntur District. according to Hindu caste customs and rites.

The evidence of PW.1 further shows that her marriage was consummated.

They led a happy marital life for one only, and during their marital life, they were not blessed with any children. Her evidence further shows that although the petitioner’s family fulfilled all customary marriage demands, the respondent subsequently became addicted to vices, returning home intoxicated and physically and verbally abusing the petitioner. He frequently beat and confined her without food, citing her inability to conceive as justification. Additionally, the respondent and his parents harassed the petitioner for additional dowry to fund his habits. In November 2023, the respondent and his family forcibly evicted her from the home, compelling her to return to her parents. Despite mediation attempts by community elders, the respondent refused reconciliation, maintained a grudge, and demanded a divorce under threat of harm. Given this

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli.5/6HMOP No.27/2026 persistent cruelty and the failure of all efforts to reunite, the petitioner has lost all hope for the marriage and seeks a divorce.

09. Since the evidence of PW.1, coupled with the documentary evidence, remains unchallenged, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the same. It is needless to say that the aforementioned acts of the respondent, as reiterated by the petitioner (PW.1), amount to treating the petitioner with mental cruelty. All these circumstances clearly show that there is no chance of a reunion and that the respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner from his conjugal society in November 2023. The petitioner has been residing separately for a period of more than two and half years preceding the present petition. In other words, the petitioner has successfully established that the respondent deserted her. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Accordingly, these point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favor of the petitioner.

10. POINT No.3:

In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, held on 21.08.2022, is hereby dissolved by a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion under Section 13(1) (ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 8th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-V.Vijaya Kumar Reddy,

Sd/- V. Viajaya Kumar Reddy,

Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Sattenapalli.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

C J (Sr D)., Sattenapalli.6/6HMOP No.27/2026

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT:

PW.1: Maddireddy @ Induri Nandini.- Exparte –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:

Ex.P1: Wedding card. Ex.P2: Marriage Photos (2 in number) Ex.P3: True copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner (Compared with original).

FOR RESPONDENT:

- N I L -.

Sd/- V.VKR,

C J. (Sr. D)., SAP.

Order Record 409 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
SC/842/2026	SHO Amaravathi vs Yepuri Veera Srinu alias Vinayakudu	19 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/1233/2025	SHO Amaravathi vs Pipineni Chandra Shekhar	15 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
SC/1273/2025	SHO Atchampeta vs Tellamekala Veeraiah	14 May 2026	Judgement	Acquitted
H.M.O.P/3/2026	Pittu Prasanthi vs Pittu Venkata Gopi Reddy	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/27/2026	Maddireddy alias Induri Nandini vs Maddireddy Sai Krishna Reddy	08 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/154/2025	Bodpati Kiran vs Vsnil	07 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2026	Nimmagadda alias Manne Aswani vs Nil	05 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/50/2026	Konuru Naga Bhargavi vs Nil	04 May 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/126/2022	Vengala Ravi Kumar vs Vengala Anjali	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
ELECOP/3/2021	Kojja Rajeswari vs Meda Atchamma	30 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/40/2026	Sanku Rama Mohan Rao vs Sanku Lakshmi	29 Apr 2026	Order	—
AS/11/2019	Sanagala Sri Laxmi vs Ganta Seshi Reddy	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
IP/38/2023	Shaik Ismail vs Kanna Tirupathi Rao alias Tirupataiah	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/20/2026	Kumpati Ashok vs Kumpati alias Yarasani Divya	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/22/2026	Bathula Srinvasa Rao vs Bathula Jayalakshmi	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/140/2025	Boggarapu Bala Venkata Siva Sowjanya vs Vsnil	27 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/7/2026	Bandlamudi Gopi vs Nil	24 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/68/2025	Parupalli Srikanth vs Vsparupalli alias Sekaratti Dharani	23 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/8/2023	CHANDRAPATI NARAYANAMMA vs CHANDRAPATI OBULU	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/26/2026	Golamari alias Bobba Divya vs Golamari Mahesh Reddy alias Maheswara Reddy	20 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/28/2024	Vattikunta Naresh vs Kotha Balaiah	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/83/2025	Kancheti Srinivasa Rao vs Kancheti alias Nakarasetti Prabhavathi	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/132/2025	Veramallu Bhuvaneswari vs Veeramallu Satish	16 Apr 2026	Order	—
EP/31/2022	Shaik Khatumbi vs Syed Chinna Bikari (Died ) and 7 others	15 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/52/2025	Allam Sagar Sujith Reddy vs Nil	09 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/112/2025	Gumma Brahmiah vs Gumma Llakshmi	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/120/2025	behara Venkata Naga Pratap vs Kotha lakshmi	01 Apr 2026	Order	—
IP/42/2021	Ganguri seshu Kumari vs Vskalluri Pullaiah	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/2/2026	Kurapati Chakravathy vs Vskurapti anusha	31 Mar 2026	Decree	—
H.M.O.P/145/2023	Chinthabhaina Sunil Kumar vs Chintaathina alias Korabanti Sunitha	31 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/111/2024	Potlacheruvu Kalyana Chakravarthi vs Potlacheruvu alias Chevuri Srilakshmi	26 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/39/2021	Gangadhari Saidaiah vs Yalakapati Nageswara Rao	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/56/2024	Gurram S Pavan Kumar vs Gurram alias Garlapati Shamili	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/98/2025	Ravela.Siddu and Ravela.Aswini vs Vsnil	25 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/28/2023	Miryala Siva Leela @ Naga Siva Leela vs Tangella Srikanth	24 Mar 2026	Order	—
AS/2/2023	GANTELA AROGYAM vs NAMBURI NAGENDRAMMA	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/21/2023	Mandala Navaneethamma vs Puttigampala Srilakshmi	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
OS/42/2021	Kata Suvarna lakshmi vs Idupulapati Srinivasa Rao	23 Mar 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/16/2026	Ganta Pramila vs Ganta Lingaiah	23 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/4/2026	Marreddy alias Kalvapalli Venkata Sreelatha vs Marreddy Sai manikanteswara Reddy	16 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/75/2025	Bellamkonda Gopi Krishna vs Bellamkonda alias Pokilikuri Vaishnavi	13 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/22/2022	Pothuganti Venkata Appa Rao vs Kothuri Venkata Vara Prasada Rao Guptha	09 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/155/2025	Yarrapati Akhila vs Yarrapati sankar	06 Mar 2026	Order	—
IP/12/2024	Shaik Akbar Baji vs Chiluka Rama Rao and four others	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/18/2026	Radham Manikanth vs Nil	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/69/2023	Guggilam Lakshmi Sai Niharika vs Tripuramallu Srinivasarao@SrinivasaVara prasad	05 Mar 2026	Order	—
EP/20/2025	Digumarthi Sravanthi vs Garninei sambasiva rao	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/21/2025	Digumanthi Sravanthi vs Garneni phani Gopal	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/7/2024	Galam Hanumantha Rao vs Yasam Sivaia1 others	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/13/2025	Tammisetti Naga Malleswara Rao vs Rajavarapu Venkayamma	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/22/2024	Gali Syda vs Shaik Rabbani	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/9/2026	Makkena alias Kommineni Hyndavi vs Nil	27 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/38/2023	Sk .Mehar Jan died,2.SK.Anwar Basha, vs Sk yusuf,S/o. Fareed Saheb,aged 44 yrs	26 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/4/2023	Atukuri Suresh vs Yakkala Guru	26 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/22/2025	Johiparthi Venkata Ashok vs Katteboina Ramaiah and 10 others.	26 Feb 2026	Order	—
EP/37/2023	Chettepu Siva kotireddy vs Vskolli Aruna	25 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/55/2024	Gandham Mani Koteswara Rao vs Gandham alias Tummala Siva Parvathi	25 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/147/2022	Pasupuleti Gopinadh vs Pasupuleti Revathi@ Yenumula Revathi	25 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/165/2025	Javangula Udaya Lakshmi vs Polukonda Srinivasa Rao	25 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/162/2025	Sanikommu Srikanth Reddy vs Sanikommu Alias Gatla Akanksha Reddy	24 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/14/2024	Gujjarlapudi Satish vs Vatcha Veerendra Kumari	23 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/20/2025	Yadlapalli alias velaga Manisha vs Yadlapalli Rama Krishna	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/121/2025	Banavath Narsimha Rao vs Bhukya Maruvani	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/138/2025	Jamulla Swathi alias Konjeti Swathi vs Jamulla Vasu	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/146/2025	Mangalagiri Venkata Ramesh vs Venkata Ramesh	20 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/60/2025	Bandlamudi alias Amathi Haritha vs Amathi Venkata Naresh	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/103/2025	Kesavan.Doonisha vs Vsnil	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/104/2025	Kesavulu.Harshana vs K.prathiban	18 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/951/2024	SHO Rajupalem vs Pamidipalli Suresh	17 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/406/2023	Sub Inspector of police vs Ramavath Swamy Naik	16 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/66/2024	SHO Atchampet vs Boyina Brahmam	13 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/678/2023	SI of police, Atchempet ps vs Gowthkattala Satyanarayana and two others	12 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
SC/110/2024	SHO, Amaravathi vs Shaik Malik	10 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/100/2025	S.Linga Reddy vs Vsnil	10 Feb 2026	Order	—
SC/43/2024	Amaravathi SHO vs Manchineni Venkata Harinadh	09 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/67/2024	Kongathi alias Vutla Anusha vs Vutla Mallikarjuna Swamy	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/163/2025	Devara Alias Pedala Bhavani vs Devara Venkateswarlu	09 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/57/2022	SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBANI vs TADEPALLI SEETHARATNAM	06 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
EP/9/2024	Ala Balaraju vs Pulamala Rama Krishna Rao	05 Feb 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/92/2025	Kallikonda Nandini and Venkateswara Rao vs Nill	05 Feb 2026	Order	—
IP/10/2024	Ramavath Anji Naik vs Banavath Bala Naik and 9 others	02 Feb 2026	Order	—
OS/79/2018	Yarramaneni Yedukondalu vs Yarramaneni Venakteswarlu and 3 others	02 Feb 2026	Judgement	—
OS/3/2021	Peravali Naga Sandeep Kumar vs Peravali Ramulamma	29 Jan 2026	Judgement	—
H.M.O.P/149/2025	Maganti Rama Krishna vs Magamti Sai Lakshmi	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/152/2025	Kumba Mangamma vs Kumbba Koteswara rao	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/161/2025	kOTA ALIAS MELLAPUDI ASWINI vs MELLEMPUDI PAWAN KUMAR	29 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/157/2025	Annapareddy Rohini vs Bhumireddy Sivaji Ganesh Reddy	28 Jan 2026	Order	—
IP/25/2022	Medarametla Madhava Rao vs Ganga Rajendra Prasad	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/108/2025	Devalla Lakshmi vs Devalla Yallamanda	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/165/2022	Salla Punnamma vs Salla Saidulu	27 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/6/2024	Nelakuditi alias Mellempudi Gayathri vs Mellempudi Venkata Rao	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/156/2025	Velisetti Nagaiah vs Velisetti Rajyalakshmi	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/159/2025	Kambhampati alias Chikati Amjali vs Chikati Sai Krishna alias Venkata sai Krishna	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/160/2025	chennamsetty Nagaraju vs Chennamsetty alias Ponduri Sai Ramya	23 Jan 2026	Order	—
IP/12/2025	Kajjam Murali Krishna vs Katakam Mallikarjuna Rao	20 Jan 2026	Order	—
IP/46/2023	Gantela Nageswara Rao alias Sagar vs Namburi Nagendramma and five others	20 Jan 2026	Order	—
EP/30/2023	Tulam Nageaswara rao, died.Tulam .Ramanjaneyulu. vs Alla.seetha Ramaiah,S/o Kistaiah	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/69/2025	Podili Anil Kumar vs Kanchuganti Yavalamma alias Yamini	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/130/2025	Yemugula Tirupathamma vs Gattu prasad	19 Jan 2026	Order	—
H.M.O.P/57/2025	Madanu Mary Joseph Swapna vs Nalamala Saitej	09 Jan 2026	Order	—

Showing 100 of 409 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		8
Apr 2026		21
Mar 2026		20
Feb 2026		36
Jan 2026		33
Dec 2025		32
Nov 2025		28
Oct 2025		28
Sep 2025		34
Aug 2025		34
Jul 2025		49
Jun 2025		29

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has VIJAY KUMAR REDDY handled?

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY has handled 416 court orders since 2025 at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli. The average disposal rate is 28 orders per month.

What types of cases does VIJAY KUMAR REDDY hear?

Based on available records, VIJAY KUMAR REDDY primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases) at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli.

Where is VIJAY KUMAR REDDY currently posted?

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY is posted as Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.

Are judgments by VIJAY KUMAR REDDY available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by VIJAY KUMAR REDDY are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does VIJAY KUMAR REDDY dispose cases?

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY disposes approximately 28 cases per month, based on 416 orders handled over their tenure at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli.

Since when is VIJAY KUMAR REDDY serving?

VIJAY KUMAR REDDY has been serving at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli since 2025. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

H 52%

OS 15%

EP 14%

IP 13%

SC 3%

AS 1%

S 1%

CMA 0%

Posting History

Feb 2025 — Present

Senior Civil Judge, Sattenapalli · 416 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 3

Other Judges at this Court

Sri J.Sujin Kumar

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

457 orders

← View all judges at II Addl JCJ Court, Sattenapalli