Sri. Y. Jaya Prasad

OS 158/17. Page No.1 of 11.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT:- SRI. Y. JAYA PRASAD, M.A, L.L.M,

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 12th day of September, 2018

O.S.No.158 of 2017

Between:

1.Pallaergayala Pentaiah S/o.Late Pallergayala Nagaiah Aged about : 58 years, Occ : Labour work in Nagarapanchayath Medchal, R/o.H.No.14-167, Kistapur (V), Medchal Mandal and District

2.Paleragayal Yadaiah S/o.Late Pallergayala Nagaiah Aged about : 57 years, OcC : Labour, R/o.H.No.14-20/11, Weaker Section Colony, Kistapur (V), Medchal Mandal and District …Plaintiffs

A N D

1.Pallergayala Mallaiah S/o.Late Narsaiah Aged about : 85 years, Occ : Senior Citizen R/o.H.No.14-165

2.Thudum Yadaiah S/o.Late Pentaiah Aged about : Retired Govt. Employee R/o.H.No.14-160

3.Thudum Swami S/o.Late Thudum Yellaiah Aged about : 55 years, Occ : Labour, R/o.H.No.14-135

4.Chinnasaiagari Narsimha S/o.Ch.Peddamalliah Aged about : 48 years, Occ : Labour, R/o.H.No.14-176/1

5.Papannagari Krishna S/o.Late Papannagari Pochaiah Aged about : 50 years, Occ : Labour, R/o.H.No.14-166 All are residents of Kistapur Village, Medchal Nagarapanchayath, Mandal and District

6.Jogannagari Shivashanker Reddy S/o.Late Veerareddy Aged about : 50 years, Occ : Business

7.Jogannagari Srinivas Reddy S/o.Late Veerareddy Aged about : 48 years, Occ : Business

8.Jogannagari Muralimohan Reddy S/o.Late Veerareddy Aged about : 46 years, Occ : Business

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.2 of 11.

9.Jogannagari Madanmohan Reddy S/o.Late Veerareddy Aged about : 45 years, Occ : Business

10.Jogannagari Kistamma W/o.Late Veerareddy Aged about : 69 years, Occ : Senior citizen

All are R/o.H.No.20-65, Venkatapuram, Secunderabad …Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 07-08-2018 in the presence of Sri. S.Yadagiri, Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants were set exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit for cancellation of sale deed and for partition.

2. In brief plaint pleadings are to the following effect : That the plaintiff's father Late Paleragayala Nagaiah is 1/6th share holder i.e.,

Ac.0-11 Gts., in the joint property admeasuring Ac.1-26 Gts., situate in

Sy.No.713 of Kistapur Village, Medchal Nagarapanchayath Medchal

Mandal and District. The suit schedule land larger extent originally belongs to a group of Scheduled Caste Community persons and it was orally partitioned among the families in which plaintiff's father has got

Ac.0-11 Gts., in the suit survey number. This is suit schedule property.

During his lifetime, plaintiff's father had cultivated the land. After his demise, the property was inherited by plaintiffs by way of succession. In the extent of Ac.1-26 Gts., defendant No.1 and the fathers of defendant

No.2 to 5 are having 1/6th share each with plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and defendants were in joint physical possession of suit schedule property and it was not partitioned with metes and bounds. In the month of

June'2016 plaintiffs had demanded defendant No.1 to 5 for partition and seperate possession but the defendants had kept quite. In the month of

July'2016, plaintiffs were preparing the land for cultivation, then

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.3 of 11.

defendant No.10 with her two sons and anti social elements had gone to suit schedule property and claimed that her husband had purchased Ac.1- 20 Gts., out of Ac.1-26 Gts., including the land admeasuring Ac.0-10 Gts., of plaintiffs share from plaintiff No.1. On demand, defendant had not shown any document, on persistence on 20.03.2017 defendant No.10 had handed over the xerox registered sale deed vide document No.8686/90

dated 24.09.1990, registered at office of SRO, Medchal. The said

document reflected to the surprise of plaintiff, that plantiff No.1, had executed registered sale deed in favour of father of defendant No.6 to 9 (husband of defendant No.10) to an extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., and his name was mentioned as vendor No.6 on the registered sale deed. Infact, plaintiff No.1 had never executed the alleged sale deed in favour of father of defendant No.6 to 9. That the plaintiffs had obtained certified copies of sale deed and had gone to the office of Tahsildhar, Medchal and obtained

Pahanis and then realized that father of defendant No.6 to 9 and husband of defendant No.10 being the neighbour of suit schedule property hatched plan with deceitful intention to grab the land wrongfully and to cause wrongful loss to plaintiffs, dishonestly and fradulently forged the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 and created document No.8686/90, as though plaintiff No.1 had sold an extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., of land to them, out of the total land admeasuring Ac.0-11 Gts., in Sy.No.713/part. Based on the forged documents, plantiffs names were abruptly deleted in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-10 Gts., in Sy.No.173/part in revenue records. That no notice was served to the plaintiffs before deletion of their names and there was no enquiry conduction, any pnachanamma was held and no application for mutation was made. That the revenue officials had not followed the procedure and illegally deleted

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.4 of 11.

their names in respect of Ac.0-10 Gts., of land. As far as Ac.0-01 Gts., without their being any application, it was mutated in favour of plaintiff

No.2. That the father of defendant No.6 to9 Jogannagari Veerareddy died leaving behind defendant No.6 to 9, and his wife, defendant No.10 as legal heirs. Thus, father of defendant No.6 to 9 and husband of defendant

No.10 with a malafide intention basing on forged and fabricated documents by managing the revenue officials got their names mutated in respect of Ac.0-10 Gts., in Sy.No.173/part which originally belongs to plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiff No.1 having suspected his thumb impression on the registered sale deed document No.8686/90 got it sent to "Truth Labs" to get the genuiness of the thumb impression there in determined, whether it contains the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 as executor

No.6 or not. Whereupon the report was received from "Truth Labs" to the effect that, the thumb impression in vendor No.6 column in the sale deed

No.8686/90 was not identical with the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 and they are different. As such it was cleared that by forging the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 the sale deed No.8686/90 was forged and created, so plaintiff No.1 has filed private complaint against defendant

No.6 to 10 on 23.05.2017 for the offence under Sec.468, 474, 506 r/w. 34

Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in Cr.No.427/17 dated 16.08.2017 and it is pending investigation. That the suit schedule land belongs to the plaintiffs, it has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Plaintiffs are having together 1/6th share. Taking undue advantage of illegal documents and invalid revenue records defendants had gone to suit schedule land on 15.10.2017 with real estate brokers and made attempts to alienate and create third party interest upon suit schedule property which includes 1/6th share of the plaintiffs. If the

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.5 of 11.

defendants succeeds in their attempts, in alienating the suit schedule land, it causes irreperable loss and hardship to plaintiffs besides creating multiplicity of litigations. So, plaintiffs approached this court seeking cancellation of the sale deed No.8686/90 to an extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., in suit schedule land and for partition and seperate possession with metes and bounds of suit schedule land and for allocation of 1/6th share in suit schedule land along with defendant No.1 to 5.

3.Defendants were set exparte.

4.Plaintiff No.1 filed his evidence in chief affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 to A18. Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8686 of 1990

dated 24.09.1990, Ex.A2 is original copy of Truth Labs report dated

24.04.2017, Ex.A3 is original copy of specimen thumb impression form

dated 19.04.2017, Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year

1985-86, Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1987-88,

Ex.A6 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1989-90, Ex.A7 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2010 (no.2), Ex.A8 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2011 (no.2), Ex.A9 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2012 (no.2), Ex.A10 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2013 (No.2), Ex.A11 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2014 (No.3), Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2015 (No.5), Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2016 (No.5), Ex.A14 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2017 (No.5), Ex.A15 is photos with CD, Ex.A16 is Market Value certificate dated 13.06.2017,

Ex.A17 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1992-93, Ex.A18 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1999-2000.

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.6 of 11.

6.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the documents exhibited under Ex.A1 to A18.

Point:-

7. Now the point that falls for determination is whether the

Suit can be decreed as prayed for cancelling the sale deed

document No.8686/90 and to partition suit schedule land into six

(6) equal shares and to allot one such share to plaintiffs and for

their seperate possession and to direct the revenue authorities

for correction of revenue record from the year 1992 to 2017

deleting the name of defendant No.6 to 10 in respect of suit

schedule land and to add the name of plaintiffs herein as

pattadar and possessors?

8.Plaintiff No.1 filed his evidence in chief affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief and he has testified on the same lines as it has been pleaded in the plaint that, the plaintiff's father Late Paleragayala Nagaiah is 1/6th share holder i.e., Ac.0-11 Gts., in the joint property admeasuring

Ac.1-26 Gts., situate in Sy.No.713 of Kistapur Village, Medchal

Nagarapanchayath Medchal Mandal and District. The suit schedule land larger extent originally belongs to a group of Scheduled Caste Community persons and it was orally partitioned among the families in which plaintiff's father has got Ac.0-11 Gts., in the suit survey number. This is suit schedule property. During his lifetime, plaintiff's father had cultivated the land. After his demise, the property was inherited by plaintiffs by way of succession. In the extent of Ac.1-26 Gts., defendant No.1 and the fathers of defendant No.2 to 5 are having 1/6th share each with plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs and defendants were in joint physical possession of suit schedule property and it was not partitioned with metes and bounds. In the month of June'2016 plaintiffs had demanded defendant No.1 to 5 for

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.7 of 11.

partition and seperate possession but the defendants had kept quite. In the month of July'2016, plaintiffs were preparing the land for cultivation, then defendant No.10 with her two sons and anti social elements had gone to suit schedule property and claimed that her husband had purchased Ac.1-20 Gts., out of Ac.1-26 Gts., including the land admeasuring Ac.0-10 Gts., of plaintiffs share from plaintiff No.1. On demand, defendant had not shown any document, on persistence on 20.03.2017 defendant No.10 had handed over the xerox registered sale deed vide document No.8686/90 dated 24.09.1990, registered at office of

SRO, Medchal. The said document reflected to the surprise of plaintiff, that plantiff No.1, had executed registered sale deed in favour of father of defendant No.6 to 9 (husband of defendant No.10) to an extent of Ac.0-10

Gts., and his name was mentioned as vendor No.6 on the registered sale deed. Infact, plaintiff No.1 had never executed the alleged sale deed in favour of father of defendant No.6 to 9. That the plaintiffs had obtained certified copies of sale deed and had gone to the office of Tahsildhar,

Medchal and obtained Pahanis and then realized that father of defendant

No.6 to 9 and husband of defendant No.10 being the neighbour of suit schedule property hatched plan with deceitful intention to grab the land wrongfully and to cause wrongful loss to plaintiffs, dishonestly and fradulently forged the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 and created document No.8686/90, as though plaintiff No.1 had sold an extent of

Ac.0-10 Gts., of land to them, out of the total land admeasuring Ac.0-11

Gts., in Sy.No.713/part. Based on the forged documents, plantiffs names were abruptly deleted in respect of the land admeasuring Ac.0-10 Gts., in

Sy.No.173/part in revenue records. That no notice was served to the plaintiffs before deletion of their names and there was no enquiry

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.8 of 11.

conduction, any panchanamma was held and no application for mutation was made. That the revenue officials had not followed the procedure and illegally deleted their names in respect of Ac.0-10 Gts., of land. As far as

Ac.0-01 Gts., without their being any application, it was mutated in favour of plaintiff No.2. That the father of defendant No.6 to 9 Jogannagari

Veerareddy died leaving behind defendant No.6 to 9, and his wife, defendant No.10 as legal heirs. Thus, father of defendant No.6 to 9 and husband of defendant No.10 with a malafide intention basing on forged and fabricated documents by managing the revenue officials got their names mutated in respect of Ac.0-10 Gts., in Sy.No.173/part which originally belongs to plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiff No.1 having suspected his thumb impression on the registered sale deed document No.8686/90 got it sent to "Truth Labs" to get the genuiness of the thumb impression there in determined, whether it contains the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 as executor No.6 or not. Whereupon the report was received from "Truth

Labs" to the effect that, the thumb impression in vendor No.6 column in the sale deed No.8686/90 was not identical with the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 and they are different. As such it was cleared that by forging the thumb impression of plaintiff No.1 the sale deed No.8686/90 was forged and created, so plaintiff No.1 has filed private complaint against defendant No.6 to 10 on 23.05.2017 for the offence under Sec.468, 474, 506 r/w. 34 Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in Cr.No.427/17

dated 16.08.2017 and it is pending investigation. That the suit schedule

land belongs to the plaintiffs, it has not been partitioned by metes and bounds. Plaintiffs are having together 1/6th share. Taking undue advantage of illegal documents and invalid revenue records, defendants had gone to suit schedule land on 15.10.2017 with real estate brokers

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.9 of 11.

and made attempts to alienate and create third party interest upon suit schedule property which includes 1/6th share of the plaintiffs. If the defendants succeeds in their attempts, in alienating the suit schedule land, it causes irreperable loss and hardship to plaintiffs besides creating multiplicity of litigations. So, plaintiffs approached this court seeking cancellation of the sale deed No.8686/90 to an extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., in suit schedule land and for partition and seperate possession with metes and bounds of suit schedule land and for allocation of 1/6th share in suit schedule land to plaintiff together with defendant No.1 to 5.

9.Apart from this oral evidence, plaintiff No.1 as PW1 also exhibited following documentary evidence Ex.A1 to A18. Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8686 of 1990 dated 24.09.1990, Ex.A2 is original copy of Truth Labs report dated 24.04.2017, Ex.A3 is original copy of specimen thumb impression form dated 19.04.2017, Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1985-86, Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1987-88, Ex.A6 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1989-90, Ex.A7 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2010 (no.2), Ex.A8 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2011 (no.2), Ex.A9 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2012 (no.2), Ex.A10 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2013 (No.2), Ex.A11 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2014 (No.3), Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2015 (No.5), Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2016 (No.5), Ex.A14 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2017 (No.5), Ex.A15 is photos with CD, Ex.A16 is Market Value certificate dated 13.06.2017, Ex.A17 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1992-93, Ex.A18 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1999-2000.

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.10 of 11.

10.The oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff remained unchallenged. A plain perusal of oral and documentary evidence does not disclose anything patently to disbelive or reject them. Ex.A2 is report of "Truth Labs" dated 24.04.2017 reflects that the sale deed under Ex.A1 bearing document No.8686/90 does not contain thumb impression of

PW1. So, it is obvious that PW1 is not a party to the document as such it is not binding on the plaintiffs. Thus, the document (sale deed) is to be declared as void, nonest in the eye of law and not binding on plaintiff

No.1 and 2, so it is liable to be cancelled to the extent of the share of plaintiff No.1 and 2, Ac.0-10 Gts., Ex.A4 to A14 reflects that the name of original owner reflected in the pahanis till 1989-90, thereafter the name was missing in the revenue records. It is the claim of plaintiff and ofcourse it was also testified that, the names of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule land was deleted without there being any basis and enquiry without following the procedure behind their back. So, the evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged, thus, it needs to be believed. Ex.A17 and 18 are the pahanis for the year 1992-93 and 1999-2000 reflects the names of plaintiffs and their ancestor. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff having remained unchallenged amply proves the suit claim.

In the result:- Suit is decreed with costs cancelling the registered sale deed document No.8686/90 dated 24.09.1990 registered at the office of

Sub-Registrar, Medchal to an extent of Ac.0-10 Gts., and for partition of suit schedule land into six (6) equal shares and allotment of one such share to plaintiff No.1 and 2 (together admeasuring Ac.0-11 Gts.,) and for its seperate possession. Further, it is directed in the revenue records from

Senior Civil Judge.

OS 158/17. Page No.11 of 11.

1992-2017 to delete the names of defendant No.6 to 10 and for adding of names of plaintiffs in revenue records as pattadars and possessors as prayed for.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12 th day of September, 2018).

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: Pallergayala Pentaiah -Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is certified copy of sale deed bearing No.8686 of 1990 dated 24.09.1990 Ex.A2 is original copy of Truth Labs report dated 24.04.2017 Ex.A3 is original copy of specimen thumb impression form dated 19.04.2017 Ex.A4 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1985-86 Ex.A5 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1987-88 Ex.A6 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 1989-90 Ex.A7 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2010 (No.2) Ex.A8 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2011 (No.2) Ex.A9 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2012 (No.2) Ex.A10 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2013 (No.2) Ex.A11 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2014 (No.3) Ex.A12 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2015 (No.5) Ex.A13 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2016 (No.5) Ex.A14 is certified copy of pahani pathrikas in the year 2017 (No.5) Ex.A15 is photos with CD Ex.A16 is Market Value certificate dated 13.06.2017 Ex.A17 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1992-93 Ex.A18 is CC of pahani pathrika in the year 1999-2000.

For Defendant: -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

Senior Civil Judge.

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.1 of 10.

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MEDCHAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri. Y. Jaya Prasad, M.A. L.L.M.,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal, R.R.District.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2019.

S.C.No.600/2018

1.Name & description of the: The state of Telangana through

ComplaintStation House Officer, Dundigal

Police Station.

2.Name and description of accused: 1. Jondhale Kiran S/o.J.Utham, Age : 20 years, Occ : Driver, R/o.Saibabanagar,Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R.Dist.

2. Suryavamshi Pappi @ Gowtham S/o.S.Ramesh, Age : 21 years, Occ : Labor, R/o.Sidhartha Nagar, Marata Basti, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R.Dist.

3.ShaikAfsarMiya S/o.S.K.Babumiya, Age : 19 years, Occ : Student, R/o. H.No.29-670/1, Saibabanagar, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R.Dist.

4. Suryavamshi Deepak S/o.Babu Rao, Age : 18 years, Occ : Student,R/o.H.No.6-333/1, Siddarthanagar, Marata Basti, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R.District

5. Suryavamshi Pappan @ Vishal S/o.Balraj, Age : 18 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.6-288/1, Sidhartha Nagar, Maratha Basti, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur, R.R.Dist.

6. Rathod Raju S/o.Ravi, Age : 19 yaers, Occ : Auto Driver, R/o.Saibabanagar,Suraram, Quthbullapur, R.R.District.

3.Offence with which charged : U/s.307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code.

4.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.2 of 10.

5.Finding of the Judge: Accused No.1 to 6 are not found guilty for the offences U/Sec. 307

R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code.

6.Sentence or Order: In the result: Accused No.1 to 6 are not found guilty of the offence under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused and their surities shall stand cancelled.Unmarkedcase property of Auto bearing Regn.No.AP28 TE 1951 which was returned by the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.624/2016 is made absolute.

7.Prosecution conducted by: Smt. Sudha Kiran Thakur, FAC. Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8.Accused defended by:SriA.G.Suneel Reddy,

Advocate

This case is coming up for final hearing on 25.07.2019 for disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri.

A.G.Suneel Reddy, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of police, Dundigal Police Station in Cr.No.168/2016 for the offences under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code.

2. In brief prosecution case is to the following effect : Mallesh

S/o.Late Narsaiah works as driver, he resides in Sanjeevapuram,

Parsigutta, Secunderabad. D.Naresh his son was prosecuting B.Tech at

Mallareddy Engineering College, Doolapally. On 14.03.2016 as

D.Naresh and his friends Rahul Reddy, Venu Kumar, Donnadala Nartesh

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.3 of 10.

fought in college, they were suspended from college. On the same day, i.e., on 14.03.2016 at 7.30PM said Donnadala Naresh called Rahul

Reddy, Venu Kumar and D.Naresh S/o.Mallesh over phone and asked them to come behind Aditya Wines. As they had gone there and while they were talking, Rahul Reddy had gone there and beat D.Naresh with a granite stone on left leg. As a result, Mr.D.Naresh sustained severe bleeding injury. He was also indescriminately fisted by the accused persons. Immediately, he was taken to R.R.Hospital in 108 ambulance.

From there he was shifted to Human Touch Hospital, Attapur as his condition was serious. On having come to know about the incident,

Mallesh, father of the injured went to police station on 17.03.2016 filed report against the accused persons and the same was registered as

Cr.No.168/2016 under 324 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code. On 18.04.2016 arrested all the accused persons and seized sticks and motor cycle AP28TE 1951 at their instance under the cover of panchanama in the presence of LW13 - Tamru Krishna Reddy, LW14 -

Manda Narayana. Then affected the arrest of the accused and got them sent to court for remand. Dr.Romma Reddy Suresh treated the injured. On completion of investigation, after collecting wound certificate, laid chargesheet against the accused for the offence under

Sec.307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code with an undertaking to file seperate chargesheet against the absconding minor offenders. The

Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statements of LW1 -

D.Mallesh, LW2 - Dindigalla Naresh, LW3 - Smt.Dindigalla Vijayalaxmi,

LW4 - Bellekari Ramesh, LW5 - Smt.A.Kumari, LW6 - Chamanthula Raju,

LW7 - D.Naresh, LW8 - Bodas Venu Kumar, LW9 - Mahankala Nikhil,

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.4 of 10.

LW10 - Yogesh Roy, visited scene of offence in the presence of LW11 -

Mysigari Sravan Kumar, LW12 - M.Veeraswamy. On 18.04.2016 arrested the accused persons, after recording their confession in the presence of LW13 - Tannru Krishna, LW14 - Manda Narayana and got them sent to court for remand. LW15 - Dr.Romma Reddy Suresh examined and treated the injured. Thus, on completion of investigation and after collecting the Wound Certificate, LW17 - M.Pavan, Sub-Inspector laid chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.307

R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code.

3.Learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code and registered as

PRC.No.40 of 2017. Record reflects, on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to the accused, in compliance of Sec.207

Criminal Procedure Code and committed the case to the court of

sessions division, of the court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide the

committal order dt.18-06-2018, since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

4.On committal Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad has taken PRC.No.40 of 2017 on file, as SC.No.600/2018 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused, after perusing the report, statements of witnesses and other material papers on record, and up on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and accused, this court framed charges for the offence U/S.307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal

Code against the accused, read over and explained in Telugu language, the accused denied the charge and opted trial.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.5 of 10.

6.Prosecution examined PW's-1 to 12 and marked documents

Exs.P1 to P15. PW1 - D.Mallesh (father of injured), PW2 - D.Naresh (injured/victim), PW3 - D.Vijaya Lakshmi (Mother of injured), PW4 -

B.Ramesh (witness), PW5 - A.Kumari (witness), PW6 - Ch.Raju (witness),

PW7 - D.Naresh (witness / friend of injured), PW8 - Nikhil Kumar (witness/friend of injured), PW9 - Yogesh Roy (witness/friend of injured),

PW10 - B.Venu Kumar (witness/friend of injured), PW11 - M.Pavan (Inspector of police, ACB, Nizamabad), PW12 - G.Venkateshwarlu (Inspector of police). The documents exhibited under - Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on report, Ex.P2 to P11 are 161 CrPC statements by

PW1 to PW10, Ex.P12 is scene of offence observation proceedings,

Ex.P13 is seizure proceedings, Ex.P14 is original report, Ex.P15 is printed FIR.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence accused are examined

U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code, putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, and has not chosen to adduce any evidence on their behalf. Case of the accused is of total denial and they are innocent.

8.Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel.

9.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that, all the witnesses have not supported the charges except the investigation officer. There is no rule of law that, evidence of an investigation officer cannot sustain conviction. That, the testimony of investigation officer - PW11, is quite categorical and specific as to the commission of the offence by the accused persons. There is prompt registration of the case followed

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.6 of 10.

by the investigation which clearly indicated the complicity of the accused. Thus, the evidence on record disclosed that the accused beat the injured with stone, so the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor requested to record convicition against the accused persons and sentence them appropriately as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel argues seriously, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence. All the witnesses who are none otherthan the injured/victim, eye witnesses and parents of the injured who had filed the report have not supported the charges. PW11 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness.

His evidence is quite routine and formal as to the registration of the case and examination of the witnesses, recording of their statements and arrest of the accused. So, the learned counsel requested to record clean acquittal.

11. Now the sole point that falls for determination is:-

Whether prosecution could prove the charges against the

accused for the offence under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts or not?

In order a charge for the offence under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34

Indian Penal Code be proved, prosecution must establish following facts with legal evidence.

(1) That, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused simple hurt to PW2.

(2) That, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention intimidated PW2 criminally to do away with his life or to cause danger to his life.

(3) That all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention abused and beat and causes severe bleeding leg injury to PW2 by beating him with granite stone with an

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.7 of 10.

intention to cause injury having sufficient knowledge that there by causing such an injury he would cause pain to PW2

12.In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced following evidence.

(a)PW1, is father of the injured, PW2 is injured himself, PW3 is mother of the injured. All these witnesses have not supported the charges. All of them stated that, they do not know anything about the facts of this case. They do not know any of the accused persons. They cannot identify the accused persons. PW1 deposed that, "two years

before his deposing evidence, on one day, he had received call from

police stating that, his son was beaten by some unknown persons.

Thus, police had obtained his signature on some white papers. He can identify only his signature on the report."

(b)In the same fashion, PW2 also deposed that, they do not know accused and accused had never beaten PW2. PW2 deposed that "Two years before his deposing evidence, himself and his friends had gone to Mallareddy Engineering college to attend college function. Himself and his friends consumed liquor, while they were going away, some unknown persons had beaten them." Thus, injured himself has not supported the case of the prosecution.

(c)In the same fashion, PW4 to PW10 have not at all deposed anything against the accused. All of them had stated that, they do not know anything about the facts of this case. Police had not examined them, and they had never seen the accused persons. All these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, but nothing tangible could be elicted in the cross

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.8 of 10.

examination. So, their evidence is of little use and significant to establish the charges.

(d)Once the evidence of PW1 to 10 is excluded, there remains the evidence of PW11 the investigation officer. His evidence is in the nature of compliance of legal formality of examination of witnesses, recording their statements, arrest of the accused and filed chargesheet, on completion of investigation. PW11 states that, PW1 had stated before him as in Ex.P2. Be it noted that the mediators for confession and recovery proceedings have not supported the charges, though they are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, but to of no avail. In cross examination, PW11 admits that there is no date mentioned on the top of the report and that in the report, it is stated that "unknown persons" had beated the injured, and that all the witnesses have stated before him except PW5 and 6 that, unknown persons had assaulted the injured.

(e)That being so, how come the investigation officer had shown the nexus between the accused and the offence is not known. Further,

PW11 admits that there is delay of three (3) days in presentation of the report and the same is not explained. That he had not obtained signature of the first informant / PW1 at column No.14 of the printed

FIR. Thus, the learned counsel argued that since it is a cooked up case and PW1 had not at all presented report, that is the reason his signature was not obtained at Column No.14 of printed FIR. For this there is no explanation from prosecution. Besides that PW11 also admitted that on the date of incident, LW2 had gone to the college in drunken condition, that is the reason LW2 and his friends were

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.9 of 10.

suspended from the college. Thus, viewed from any of the stand points, the very evidence of investigation officer is beset with many inconsistencies and unexplained inherit informities which ultimately demonstrated the very case of prosecution in poor light. Besides this as already noted above, none of the witnesses including the injured, his parents and friends have not supported the charges and they have not even identified the accused persons, before this court. Thus, prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused persons for the offence under Sec.307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code.

In the result :- Accused No.1 to 6 are not found guilty of the offences under Section 307 R/W.Sec.34 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure

Code. Bail bonds of the accused and their surities shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property of Auto bearing Regn.No.AP28 TE 1951 which was returned by the learned XXI Metropolitan Magistrate vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.624/2016 is made absolute after appeal period is over.

(Typed to my Dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of July, 2019)

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW1 - D.Mallesh -NIL- PW2 - D.Naresh PW3 - D.Vijaya Lakshmi PW4 - B.Ramesh PW5 - A.Kumari PW6 - Ch.Raju PW7 - D.Naresh PW8 - Nikhil Kumar

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.600 of 2018. Page No.10 of 10.

PW9 - Yogesh Roy PW10 - B.Venu Kumar PW11 - M.Pavan PW12 - G.Venkateshwarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2 to P11 are 161 CrPC statements by PW1 to PW10 Ex.P12 is scene of offence observation proceedings Ex.P13 is seizure proceedings Ex.P14 is original report Ex.P15 is printed FIR.

For Defense: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.1 of 8.

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MEDCHAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri. Y. Jaya Prasad, M.A. L.L.M.,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal, R.R.District.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2019.

S.C.No.697/2018

1.Name & description of the: The state of Telangana through

ComplaintStation House Officer, Dundigal

Police Station.

2.Name and description of accused: Syed Hussain S/o.Khaja Hussain, Age : 32 years, Occ : Driver, R/o.H.No.2-14/5, Nallavalli (V), Jinnaram (M), Medak District.

3.Offence with which charged : U/s. 498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

4.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Judge: Accused is not found guilty for the offences U/Sec.498-A, 307

Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

6.Sentence or Order: In the result: Accused is not found guilty of the offences under Section 498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused and his surities shall stand cancelled.Unmarkedor unvaluable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

7.Prosecution conducted by: Smt. Sudha Kiran Thakur, FAC. Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8.Accused defended by:Sri P.Subba Rao, Advocate

This case is coming up for final hearing on 25.07.2019 for disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.2 of 8.

P.Subba Rao, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of police, Dundigal Police Station in Cr.No.578/2015 for the offences under Section 498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

2. In brief prosecution case is to the following effect : Accused is none otherthan the husband of victim lady Smt.Sd.Shabana. They were residing at Bowrampet village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.District.

Their marriage was performed in the year 2004, at the time of marriage, parents of victim lady had presented net cash of Rs.20,000/- and two and half tulas of gold, house hold articles, a scooter. The couple had been blessed with a son by name Syed Akhil, at the time of this case, he was nine (9) years of age. For one year after the marriage, accused looked after the victim lady well, thereafter he started consuming liquor and picked up quarrel on one pretext or the other, with the victim lady and used to harass her, physically and mentally. Thus, all these years accsued had subjected her to mental, physical cruelty and harassment. Due to the unbearable taunting by the accused, Shabana had gone to maternal home on 20.10.2015, on the same day at 7.30PM accused and his friend had gone there on motor cycle bearing No.AP09 B2 0636, while his friend was standing outside the house, accused barged into the house abusing his wife stating that he is not the biological father of his son and tried to throttle his son. Noticing the same Mr.Ghouse, elder brother of victim lady had gone to the rescue of the boy, while her mother-Fathima

Begum was pushed by the accused aside. In the meeleey accused had

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.3 of 8.

fallen on ground and sustained injury on head. Thus, Smt.Sd.Shabana filed report on 20.10.2015 at 9.00PM against accused. The same was registered as Cr.No.578/2015 under Sec.498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP (Dowry Prohibition) Act. The Sub-Inspector examined and recorded the statements of LW1 - Smt.Sd.Shabana, LW2 - Sd.Ghouse, LW3 - Sd.Feroz, LW4 - Smt.Fathima Begum, LW5 - Boini

Mahesh, visited scene of offence in the presence of LW6 - Md.Jalal, LW7 - Smt.B.Pasha. On 26.10.2015 arrested the accused, after recording his confession in the presence of LW8 - Badige Maruthi Raju, LW9 - Begari

Mallesham and got him sent to court for remand. LW10 - Dr.V.Vema

Reddy examined and treated the injured. Thus, on completion of investigation and after collecting the Wound Certificate, LW12 -

Nagendra Babu, Sub-Inspector laid chargesheet against the accused for the offences under Sec.498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act.

3.Learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP (Dowry Prohibition) Act and registered, as PRC.No.14 of 2016. Record reflects, on appearance of the accused, case papers were furnished to the accused in compliance of Sec.207 Criminal Procedure Code and committed the case to the court of sessions division, of the court of

Metropolitan Sessions Judge vide the committal order dt.18-07-2018, since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of sessions.

4.On committal Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad has taken PRC.No.14 of 2016 on file, as SC.No.697/2018 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.4 of 8.

5.On appearance of the accused, after perusing the report, statements of witnesses and other material papers on record, and up on hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and accused, this court framed charges for the offence U/S.498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP (Dowry Prohibition) Act against the accused, read over and explained in Telugu language, the accused denied the charges and opted trial.

6.Prosecution examined PW's-1 to 6 and marked documents Exs.P1 to P7. PW1 - Sd.Shabana (victim lady), PW2 - Sd.Ghouse (brother of victim lady), PW3 - Sd.Feroz (brother of victim lady), PW4 - Fathima

Begum (mother of victim lady), PW5 - B.Nagendra Babu (Inspector of police, ACB), PW6 - G.Venkateshwarlu (Inspector of police). The documents exhibited under Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on report, Ex.P2 to P5 are 161 CrPC statement of PW1 to PW4, Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P7 is report filed by PW1.

7.On conclusion of prosecution evidence accused is examined

U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code, putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against him, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the entire evidence on record in toto, and has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Case of the accused is of total denial and he is innocent.

8.Heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel.

9.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly argued that, none of the witnesses supported the charges except the investigation officer.

However the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor states that there is no rule of law that, an uncorraborated testimony of an investigation officer

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.5 of 8.

cannot be found basis and it cannot be taken into account to record conviction. That the testimony of investigation officer is quite consistent and convincing. Thus, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor requested to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel argues, let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence. All the witnesses including the victim and eye witnesses have not supported the charges.

Even if the evidence on record is taken to be true, on the face of it as gospel truth, it does not indicate any offence much less the one for which the accused is charged and tried. That the investigation officer is not an eye witness. Thus, his testimony cannot be taken into account.

So, the learned counsel has requested to record clean acquittal against the accused.

11. Now the sole point, that falls for determination is:-

Whether prosecution could prove the charges against the

accused for the offences under Section 498-A, 307 Indian Penal

Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act beyond all reasonable doubts or

not?

In order a charge for the offences under Section 498-A, 307 Indian

Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act be proved, prosecution must establish following facts with legal evidence.

1) That, the accused being the husband of victim women – Ms.

Sd.Shabana subjected her to cruelty with his willful conduct of such a nature where by Ms.Sd.Shabana suffered danger to her life or grave injury.

2) That, the accused subjected the victim women, his wife to harassment with an intention to compel her or any of her relatives to meet his unlawful demand for any property or

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.6 of 8.

valuable security and on account of her failure to meet such demand.

In order to prove these facts prosecution adduced following evidence.

12.PW1 is none otherthan the victim lady. Her evidence is "Accused never assaulted me nor tried to kill me, so also accused never demanded dowry nor subjected me to any cruelty for want of dowry. I have never filed report against accused. Only due to differences of opinion, at the instance of my parents, myself and accused went to police station, then police obtained signature on white paper stating that, they need my signature in proof of counselling made to her."

Thus, PW1 totally resiles from her statement and also report, and has not supported prosecution's case.

13.In the same fashion, PW2 who is brother of PW1, the victim lady,

PW3 is another brother of victim lady, PW4 is mother of the victim lady have in one voice deposed that, accused had never beaten PW1 nor tried to kill her nor even subjected her to harassment or cruelty of any sort. Police had not examined them, nor recorded their statements. All these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, but nothing tangible could be elicited in the cross examination. So, the evidence of PW1 to 4 is of little use to prove the charges.

14.Once the evidence of PW1 to 4 is excluded, their remains the evidence of PW5, since all the witnesses are given up by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the ground that the material witnesses have not supported the charges. Evidence of PW5 is this - on 20.10.2015 at 9.00PM he had taken up investigation into this case, he had examined

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.7 of 8.

and recorded the statements of PW1 to 4. They had stated to him as in

Ex.P2 to P5. He had visited scene of offences and observed under Ex.P6 in the presene of LW6 - Md.Jalal, LW7 - B.Pasha. On 26.10.2016 he had arrested the accused and got him sent to court for remand. On completion of investigation, laid chargesheet for the offences under

Sec.498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP Act . Be it noted that, the witnesses who are said to have stated before PW5 as in Ex.P2 to P5 testified before this court, that they had not stated so. Thus, whatever is stated by the witnesses before this court only becomes an evidence. Thus, there is evidence on record that PW1 to 4 have not stated before PW5 as in Ex.P2 to P5, besides this PW1 to 4, are none otherthan the victim lady herself, and her brothers and parents. If at all accused had not resorted to an attempt of killing PW1, there may not be any reason for PW1 to 4 to depose falsehood that, accused had not made an attempt on her life. PW5 is neither eye witness nor circumstantial witness. Thus, his evidence is of little significance and use, in proof of the charges. So, viewed from any of the angles, absolutely there is no evidence on record against the accsued. So, prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused for the offences under Sec.498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code and Sec.3 & 4 of DP (Dowry Prohibition) Act.

In the result :- Accused is not found guilty of the offences under

Section 498-A, 307 Indian Penal Code, and Sec.3 & 4 of DP (Dowry

Prohibition) Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused and his

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.697 of 2018. Page No.8 of 8.

surities shall stand cancelled.Unmarked or unvaluable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

(Typed to my Dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of July, 2019)

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defense:

PW1 - Sd.Shabana -NIL- PW2 - Sd.Ghouse PW3 - Sd.Feroz PW4 - Fathima Begum PW5 - B.Nagendra Babu PW6 - G.Venkateshwarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is signature of PW1 on report Ex.P2 to P5 are 161 CrPC statement of PW1 to PW4 Ex.P6 is scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7 is report filed by PW1.

For Defense: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 30.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.1 of 8.

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT MEDCHAL

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

Present: Sri. Y. Jaya Prasad, M.A., L.L.M.,

Asst. Sessions Judge, Medchal, R.R.District.

Dated this the 25th day of July, 2019.

S.C.No.887/2018

1.Name & description of the: The State of Telangana

Complaintthrough Station House Officer,

Dundigal.

2.Name and description of: Chintala Raju S/o.Sriramulu, Age : 49 years, Occ : accused Business,R/o.H.No.4- 26/1/204,FlatNo.204, MaheshCastlePlots, Bahadurpally, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

3.Offence with which charged: U/s.436 Indian Penal Code.

4.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty

5.Finding of the Judge: Accused is not found guilty

6.Sentence or Order: In the result: Accused is not found guilty for the offence under Sec.436 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused and his surities shall stand cancelled. The unvaluable and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

7.Prosecution conducted by: Smt. Sudha Kiran Thakur, FAC. Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8.Accused defended by:Sri B.Venuraj Yadav, Advocate

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.2 of 8.

This case is coming up for final hearing on 22.07.2019 for disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor and of Sri

B.Venuraj Yadav, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arises out of the chargesheet filed by the Inspector of police, Dundigal Police Station against the accused in crime

No.277/2016 for the offence under Sec.436 Indian Penal Code.

2. In brief prosecution case is to the following effect :

Accused is resident of Mahesh Castle apartments. He does business.

On 14.05.2016 at 11.30PM accusd set fire to all his house hold articles and clothes in his flat and thereby made an attempt to set fire to the entire apartment, wherein LW1 to 6 have been residing. As a result five flats got damaged and they got burnt to half of the extent and turned dark due to the flames. In the meanwhile somebody got called fire engine and the fire was put off. So, Mr.P.Venkata Narayana one of the flat owners presented report on 15.05.2016 at 5.30PM. The same was registered as Cr.No.277/2016 U/Sec.436 Indian Penal Code. LW10 -

M.Pavan, the Sub-Inspector took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of LW1 - P.Venkata Narayana, LW2 - Kambham

Raju, LW3 - Balivada Manorama, LW4 - Smt.Konatham Sushma, LW5 -

Balivada Goverdhan, LW6 - Mirza Tahir. Visited scene of offence and observed in the presence of LW7 - Uruganda Raju, LW8 - Laxmi Yadav.

On 18.05.2016 arrested the accused and got him sent to court for remand. On completion of investigation laid chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Sec.436 Indian Penal Code.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.3 of 8.

3.Learned VIMetropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sec.436 Indian Penal Code and registered as PRC.No.56 of 2018. Record reflects on appearance of the acused, copies of the case papers have been furnished in compliance of Sec.207 Criminal

Procedure Code, and committed the case to court of Sessions Division of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, R.R.Dist. vide commital order dated 27.09.2018 since the offence is exclusively triable by the court of

sessions.

4.On committal Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Cyberabad has taken PRC.No.56 of 2018 on file, as SC.No.887/2018 and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused, on perusing the report, statements of witnesses and other material papers on record and upon hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel, this court framed charges for the offence under Sec.436 Indian Penal

Code against the accused, read over and explained in Telugu language, the accused denied the charges and opted trial.

6.Prosecution examined PW1 to PW10, exhibited documents under

Ex.P1 to P11. PW1 - P.Venkata Narayana (complainant), PW2 - K.Raju (witness), PW3 - B.Manoramma (witness), PW4 - K.Sushma (witness),

PW5 - B.Goverdhan Baby (Witness), PW6 - Mirza Taher Baig (witness),

PW7 - U.Raju (mediator for scene of offence proceedings), PW8 -

Laxman Yadav (mediator for scene of offence proceedings), PW9 -

M.Pavan (Inspector of police ACB, Nizamabad), PW10 -

G.Venkateshwarlu (Inspector of police, PS Moinabad). The documents

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.4 of 8.

exhibited - Ex.P1 is report filed by PW1, Ex.P2 to P7 are 161 CrPC statement by PW1 to PW6, Ex.P8 is signature of PW7 on scene of offence proceedings, Ex.P9 is signature of PW8 on scene of offence proceedings, Ex.P10 is scene of offence observation proceedings and rough sketch, Ex.P11 is report filed by PW1.

8.On conclusion of prosecution evidence, accused is examined

U/s.313 Criminal Procedure Code, putting the entire incriminating circumstances appearing against her, in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, accused denied the entire evidence in toto. Case of the accused is of total denial and he is innocent.

9.Heard learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Learned counsel.

10.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor fairly argued that, though PW1 to

PW10 have categorically deposed that, it is the accused to have set fire to the apartment intentionally to cause loss of property and life. Each of the witnesses deposed consistently giving graphic account of the incident. Though the witnesses are examined in cross by the learned counsel, but nothing material could be elicited. That there is prompt registration of the case followed by the investigation which ultimately indicated commission of offence by the accused. Thus, the entire gamut of incident is unfolded before this court with consistent, convincing, coherent legal evidence. Thus, the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor requested to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per law.

10.On the other hand, the learned counsel argues that, there is no legal evidence at all against the accused in proof of the charges. All the

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.5 of 8.

witnesses including the defacto complainant has not supported the charges. Infact all the witnesses are victims and eye witnesses. They have not supported the charges. Though they are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, but nothing tangible could be elicited. Even the mediators have not supported the charges and there is no proof at all that accused is either resident as tenant or owner of the flat. In the same vain, there is no proof that PW1 to 6 are also residents of the scene of offence apartment. The investigation officers

No.1 and 2 are also not eye witnesses. Their evidence is quite routine and formal. So, there is no legal evidene or any sort of evidence in proof of the charges. Thus, the learned counsel requests to record clean acquittal against the accused.

12. Now the sole point that falls for determination is:-

Whether prosecution could prove the charges against the

accused for the offences under Section 436 Indian Penal Code

beyond all reasonable doubts?

13.In order the charge for the offences under Sec.436 Indian Penal

Code be established, prosecution must prove following facts with legal evidence.

That the accused with an intention to cause destruction of the building set fire to his flat knowingly that his act would cause explosion or destruction to the scene of offence building where other persons are living.

14.In order to prove these facts, prosecution adduced following evidence.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.6 of 8.

(a)PW1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are inmates of the scene of offence apartment. All of them were in their respective flats at the time of incident. PW1 is defacto complainant, he presented report stating that, accused intentionally set fire to house hold articles and clothes of him in his flat to cause damage to apartment. But all these witnesses

before this court deposed that, fire accident broke out in the flat of the

accused as his wife lit lamp offering prayer to God, accidentally the lamp flames caught to clothes. So, fire accident occured and the fire spread to other flats. So, all these witnesses have not stated that it is accused to have set fire to the clothes and house hold articles with an intention to cause mischief by fire to the remaining flats. All these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, but nothing material could be elicited in support of the charges. Thus, absolutely their evidence is of little use and significance in proof of the charges.

(b)PW7 and 8 are mediators for scene of offence observation proceedings. They too merely identified their signature while denying rest of the contents of the scene of offence observation proceedings.

Both these witnesses are examined in cross at length by learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor, but nothing material could be elicited in the cross examination. Therefore the evidence of PW1 to 8 is to no use at all against the accused, to prove the charges.

(c)PW9 and 10 are the investigation officers. PW9 is the prime investigation officer. Immediately after the crime, was registered he took up investigation, visited scene of offence observed in the presence of PW7 and PW8, under Ex.P10. Examined and recorded the statements

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.7 of 8.

of PW1 to 6. Thereafter he had arrested the accused and got him sent to court for remand. It is pertinent to note that, PW9 is not eye witness to the occurance of offence and all the witnesses whom he said to have examined and recorded the statements have not supported the charges when examined before this court. Among them the first informant, PW1 is also there. He too has not supported the charges.

(d)Above all nothing would have prevented PW9 to collect documentary evidence that, there is an apartment located in the name and style as "Mahesh Castle", wherein PW1 to 6 and accused were residing. In this direction the investigation officer does not appear to have moved even his little finger to collect documentary evidence.

(e)PW10 is the station house officer. His part of investigation is only to the extent of registration of the crime. Thus, the evidence of PW9 and 10 is also of no use to prove the charges. Thus, viewed from any of the stand points, absolutely there is no evidence against the accused, in proof of the offence under Sec.436 Indian Penal Code. Thereby prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused.

In the result:- Accused is not found guilty for the offence under

Sec.436 Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of the accused and his surities shall stand cancelled. The unvaluable and unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal period is over.

(Typed my dictation by Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of July, 2019.)

ASST.SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

SC. No.887 of 2018 Page No.8 of 8.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence

PW1 - P.Venkata Narayana -NIL- PW2 - K.Raju PW3 - B.Manoramma PW4 - K.Sushma PW5 - B.Goverdhan Babu PW6 - Mirza Taher Baig PW7 - U.Raju PW8 - Laxman Yadav PW9 - M.Pavan PW10 - G.Venkateshwarlu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 is report filed by PW1 Ex.P2 to P7 are 161 CrPC statement by PW1 to PW6 Ex.P8 is signature of PW7 on scene of offence proceedings Ex.P9 is signature of PW8 on scene of offence proceedings Ex.P10 is scene of offence observation proceedings and rough sketch Ex.P11 is report filed by PW1.

For Defense:

-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDCHAL RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Assistant Sessions Judge. 25.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.1 of 6.

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MEDCHAL, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT:- SRI. Y. JAYA PRASAD, M.A, L.L.M,

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2019

O.S.No.493 of 2015

Between:

Smt.G.Swarnalatha W/o.Sri G.V.Choudary Aged about : 56 years, R/o.3-7, Suraram Colony, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District …Plaintif

A N D

Sri K.Anil Kumar S/o.Sri K.Pitchaiah Aged about : 40 years, R/o.Block No.1, Nagarjuna Homes, Flat No.18, Nizampet, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District. …Defendant

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 25-07-2019 in the presence of Sri Linggha Reddy, Counsel for Plaintiff and Sri Balaji,

Counsel for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is suit for recovery of money of Rs.7,72,000/-.

2. In brief plaint is to the following effect : Plaintif and defendant are known to each other, thus defendant had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) as hand loan for his urgent business needs from plaintif on 15.06.2012 with a promise to repay the debt as and when demanded, with interest @18% P.A. Despite so many requests and demands, defendant had not discharges the debt and procrastinated.

Thus, plaintif got issued legal notice dated 12.05.2015, yet there was no response, hence the suit.

3.Resisting the plaint, defendant filed written statement disputing and

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.2 of 6.

denying the entire pleas, assertions and claims of the plaintif. It is the specific contention of the defendant that defendant had never borrowed any money from the plaintif, as such the defendant is not liable to pay anything to plaintif in discharge of the debt, as such issuance of legal notice is totally false and incorrect. That the claim of plaintif is false and baseless. The suit documents are created and manufactured. That the defendant is no way concerned with the suit transaction. There is no cause of action, the suit is barred by limitation. So, the defendant requests to dismiss the plaint.

4. Basing on the rival pleadings following issues have been settled :

1.Whether plaintif is entitled for suit claim of Rs.7,72,000/-

2.Whether suit pro-note dated 15.06.2012 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is true, valid and binding on defendant?

3.Is not the defendant liable for suit amount to plaintif as pleaded in written statement?

4.To what relief?

5.Plaintif herself is examined as PW1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to A3.

Ex.A1 is original promissory note dated 15.06.2012, Ex.A2 is legal notice

dated 12.05.2015, Ex.A3 is acknowledgement dated 20.05.2015 Besides

that plaintif examined the scribe of pro-note as PW2.

6.On the otherhand defendant himself got examined as DW1 but no documentary evidence is exhibited.

7. Issue No.1 to 3 :Plaintif as PW1 testified on the same lines as it has been pleaded in the plaint that, defendant borrowed a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/- for his urgent business needs from plaintif on 15.06.2012

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.3 of 6.

by executing Ex.A1 suit promissory note, the transaction was witnessed by PW2, the scribe and another attesting witness one Mr.J.Srinivasa Rao.

Despite so many requests and demands, there was no response from the defendant. Thus, plaintif got issued Ex.A2 legal notice. Though the notice was received under Ex.A3, there was no response from the defendant to discharge the debt, whereby the plaintif is before this court with this suit.

(b)It is suggested in cross examination that plaintif doesn't have financial viability to lend Rs.5,00,000/- to the defendant. However, PW1 states that, she had saved small amounts of money and she also gets rent and she does business of sale of sarees. Defying this evidence of

PW1, defendant doesn't place any evidence before this court except the fact that Ex.A1 suit pro-note doesn't contain stamp at the bottom and that the legal notice Ex.A2 doesn't contain the signature of either plaintif or his counsel, but nothing material could be elicited in cross examination. Be it noted that, Ex.A1 suit pro-note is scribed on Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper, as such it cannot be said that the document is insufficiently stamped.

(c)PW2 deposed on the same lines substantiating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintif. His evidence is that he is third party to the suit, and he is scribe of the suit pro-note. On 15.06.2012 defendant had borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintif under

Ex.A1 suit pro-note, the transaction has been witnessed by himself and attesting witness Srinivasa Rao. That the defendant had promised to discharge the debt to plaintif. Suit pro-note was scribed on Rs.100/- non- judicial bond paper, himself had scribed the promissory note. Srinivasa

Rao attested as the witness. That defendant had not discharged the debt, despite repeated requests and demands. In the cross examination of PW2

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.4 of 6.

nothing specific could be elicited to discredit or otherwise reject the evidence of PW2. In cross examination, PW2 states that the stamp paper was brought from APS Colony. However, Ex.A1 was scribed at the house of plaintif. The denomination of the amount borrowed by the defendant are Rs.500/-, Rs.1000/- and Rs.100/- notes. When the transaction under

Ex.A1 had happened, himself, Srinivasa Rao, plaintif, defendant and the husband of plaintif were present. PW2 also states that plaintif does saree business and he denies the suggestion that plaintif doesn't have financial capacity to lend Rs.5,00,000/- to defendant. Thus, the evidence of PW1 and 2 besides being consistent and corraborative, it is substantiated by the documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A3, ex-facie there is nothing in the evidence of PW1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to A3 to doubt or otherwise take exception to the evidence.

(d)Defendant deposed as DW1 repeating his pleadings in written statement. However in cross examination, defendant admits his signature in vakalath, written statement and also Ex.A1 promissory note scribed on non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. Be it noted that, the claim of the defendant in written statement is that, he has got nothing to do with the suit transaction and Ex.A1 was fabricated and manufactured. However

before this court, the defendant admitted his signature on promissory

note. Thus, the burden got shifted on to defendant to disprove that Ex.A1 was not executed by him and that it was not executed under the suit transaction of borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- by defendant from plaintif. But no evidence as such is adduced by defendant. In cross examination, defendant stated that, he had signed on empty papers in the year 2011 or 2012. But said fact is not pleaded in his written statement nor, is it the defence of the defendant. In cross examination, further, the defendant

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.5 of 6.

admits that his wife had received the notice, so defendant cannot plead ignorance, as to accrual of cause of action to plaintif. Further, defendant admits that the address mentioned in the plaint is that of himself. Thus, in the cross examination, defendant admits his signature on the promissory note. From the foregoing it is very clear that the evidence of

PW1 and 2 and documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A3 together with the admission of defendant as to the signature on the suit pro-note and inaction of the defendant in not getting the suit promissory note referred to any expert to unravel the forgery or fabrication as pleaded by the defendant, needs to be read against defendant. Thus, plaintif could prove that, defendant borrowed Rs.5,00,000/- from plaintif on 15.06.2012 and had executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note on the even date. The suit is barred by Limitation. Thus, the plaintif could establish his entitlement of suit claim of the sum of Rs.7,72,000/- with costs and future interest.

In the result:- Suit is decreed with costs for a sum of Rs.7,72,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs seventy two thousand only) with future interest @12% P.A. on principal sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from the date of institution of plaint till this day and subsequent interest shall be @6% P.A. from this date to till the date of realization.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of July, 2019).

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: G.SwarnalathaDW1 - K.Anil Kumar PW-2:S.Madhava Rao

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019

OS 493/15. Page No.6 of 6.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1 is original promissory note dated 15.06.2012 Ex.A2 is legal notice dated 12.05.2015 Ex.A3 is acknowledgement dated 20.05.2015

For Defendant: -Nil-

Senior Civil Judge,

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.

Senior Civil Judge.

30.07.2019