Y.srinivasa Rao

1

APGU0B0002692020

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: GURAZALA

Present: Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Wednesday, this the 13th day of May, 2026

SESSIONS CASE No.958 OF 2021

(P.R.C.No. 10 of 2021 of Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gurazala, connected with Crime No.151 of 2020 of Karempudi Police Station).

Name of complainantState:- Sub-Inspector of Police, Karempudi Police station.

Name of the accusedMekala Vijaya @ Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o.Late Venkata Reddy, 48 years, R/o.Miriyala village of Karempudi Mandal.

The Prosecution conducted bySri Shaik Jani Basha,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Gurazala.

The accused is defended by Sri.Ch.Rami Reddy, and Smt. N.Syamala Devi, Advocates for accused. OffenceABETMENT OF SUICIDE – Punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

Plea of AccusedNot guilty

Finding of the JudgeNot found guilty of the Charge under Sec.306 IPC.

Sentence or Order The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of IPC and accordingly she is acquitted of the offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C./ under section 258 (1) of BNSS Act, 2023. The bail bonds of the accused and her

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 2 sureties shall be in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of this Judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C./ section 481 of BNSS Act, 2023. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This sessions case came before me on 04.05.2026 upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sk.Jani Basha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri.Ch.Rami Reddy and Smt. N.Syamala Devi, Advocates

for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration, till this

day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The sessions case against the accused arises out of the charge sheet laid down by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Karempudi Police Station pertaining to Cr.No.151/2020 of Karempudi Police Station for the alleged offence said to have perpetrated, which invites the penal provisions of

Sec.306 IPC.

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gurazala before whom the charge sheet was laid has been taking cognizance of offence under

Sec.306 IPC against the accused as PRC.No.10/2021 and on considering of material available on record and having satisfied that this case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committal Division, Guntur which was registered as Sessions Case No.958/2021.

3. Succinctly the case of prosecution as per the report of the investigation (charge sheet) is as follows;

The defacto-complainant/LW.1-Mekala Koti Reddy is the resident of Miriyala village of Karempudi Mandal. Himself and his wife Mekala

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 3

Venkataravamma (LW.6) are doing agricultural works and eking out their lively hood. They are having three daughters and they are studying. For the last three years, their opposite neighbour i.e. accused was abusing them in filthy manner, then they kept quiet and asked the accused as to why unnecessarily abusing them whether they did any harm to her. For which, the accused exposed that on seeing the accused, they must fear and they must bend their heads before the accused. The defacto-complainant discussed with the elders about the acts of the accused, but the accused paid deaf ear to the words of elders also. Since last eight months due to lock down, his daughters are staying at the house and in their presence also, the accused abusing all the family members in filthy language. His second daughter Sree Vijaya Lakshmi i.e. deceased now and then used to ask the accused what is the fault on part of them and as to why the accused is abusing them and expressed her opinion, instead of listening abuses of the accused it is better to die.

It is further alleged that on 08.11.2020 morning at about 11.20 a.m. the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi contacted her father Mekala Koti

Reddy over phone and asked him to come to the house from agricultural fields. Then, he went to the house and asked her daughter Sree Vijaya

Lakshmi what happened, for which she replied that she is not willing to alive and therefore she consumed QUARADE weed poison. Immediately the defacto-complainant shifted his daughter Sree Vijaya Lakshmi on his motor cycle to one RMP Doctor by name Nimmala Ankamma Rao (LW.11) at

Lakshmipuram, after rendering first aid to Sree Vijaya Lakshmi, she was shifted to Gajjala Brahma Reddy Hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment, where the doctor examined the Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and while rendering treatment declared her death by the duty doctor on 09.11.2020 at 11.30 p.m.

Therefore, the defacto-complainant gave report in Karempudi Police Station and requested to take necessary action.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 4 .Basing on the report of defacto-complainant/Mekala Koti Reddy,

K. Appala Naidu, Head constable of Karempudi P.S (LW.18) registered the same as a case in Cr.No.151/2020, U/S.306 IPC and issued FIR and submitted copies of FIR to all the officers concerned and took up investigation in this case in the absence of Sub Inspector of Police. During the course of investigation on 10-11-2020 at 11-00 AM, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene of offence at Miriyala village and seized Weed poisonous tin under the cover of scene observation report, examined the witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Later, he visited the Area Hospital,

Narasaraopet and prepared inquest and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem examination. Thereafter, G.Ravi Krishna, Sub-Inspector of

Police, Karempudi P.S. (L.W.19) verified the investigation made by Head constable/L.W.18 (K.Appala Naidu), found it on correct lines and took up further investigation in this case.

During the course of his investigation on 19-11-2020, the Sub

Inspector of Police G.Ravi Krishna, apprehended the accused and interrogated her in the presence of his staff and during the interrogation the accused admitted the guilty of offence and as prima-face was made out against the accused, arrested her and sent her for judicial remand and he sent the material objects to the Director, RFSL, Guntur for analysis and obtained analysis report on 09-12-2020from the Director, RFSL, Guntur, in which he analyzed items Nos.1, 2 and 3 and "Paraquate dichloride a herbicide poisonous substances is found in them". LW.17-Dr. D. Vasu, CAS, Area

Hospital, Narasaraopet who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and issued PME certificate and final opinion on the death of the deceased. After completion of investigation G.Ravi

Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Karempudi P.S. (LW.19) filed charge sheet against the accused.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 5

4.After accused made her appearance before this Court upon hearing and on considering the charge under Sec.306 IPC against the accused U/Sec.228 (2) Cr.P.C has been framed, read over and explained to her in Telugu for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence proceed with the trial.

5. The prosecution with a view to bring home the guilt of the accused for the above referred charge as adducing oral evidence of Pws.1 to 16 and

Exs.1 to 8 are marked.

6. After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating circumstances found against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, she understood and totally denied it. Whenever this Court asked the accused to enter into defence, she reported that no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8.Now the point for determination is:

1. Whether the prosecution established that accused abetted the deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi for committing suicide by way of consuming pesticide?

2. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9.It is just and necessary to refer section 306 IPC.

Sec.306 IPC: Abetment of suicide.- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine”

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 6

Though, the Indian Penal Code does not define the word ‘Suicide’ but the ordinary dictionary meaning of suicide is ‘self-killing’. The word is derived from a modern latin word ‘suicidium’, ‘sui’ means’ oneself’ and ‘cidium’ means ‘killing’. Thus, the word suicide implies an act of ‘self-killing’. In other words, act of death must be committed by the deceased himself, irrespective of the means adopted by him in achieving the object of killing himself.

Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. Abetment is defined under Section 107 of IPC which reads as under:

10.Section.107 IPC:- Abetment of a thing – person abets the doing of a thing, who - First - Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.-

Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1. - A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Explanation 2. - Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

11.Before discussing the points, this court relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Arjunan Vs. State

Represented by its Inspector of Police 2019 (3) SCJ Page No.20.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 7

The Hon’ble Supreme court has expounded the ingredients of

Section 306 IPC in the following words:

Purport of judgment:

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (I) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.”

12.This Court relied upon the another judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India in Ude Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC Page No.301, which elucidated on the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC in the following words:- “In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multi faceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses / reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence.

Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 8

13.POINTS NO.1 AND 2:

Both points are clubbed together for the sake of convenience in order to avoid repetition.

14.The criminal law was set into motion by way of presentation of

Ex.P1 report given by PW.1 to PW.15-K. Appala Naidu, Head constable of

Karempudi Police station and on the basis of Ex.P1, PW.15 registered the case in Cr.No.151/2020 under Sec.306 of IPC. issued FIR/Ex.P4. On perusal of the Ex.P1 report, dated 10.11.2020 at 11.30 a.m.it appears to naked eye it is mentioned that the alleged incident was occurred on 08.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m. On careful perusal of recital of Ex.P1 report, PW.1 has mentioned the alleged incident occurred at his house.

15.The defacto-complainant by name Mekala Koti Reddy, who is the father of deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi examined as PW.1, he deposed that on 08.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., his daughter/Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi i.e. deceased consumed the pesticide and telephoned to him and requested him to come to their house, on that he came to his house and the deceased informed him that she consumed pesticide. Himself and Vajrala

Koteswaramma (LW.8) shifted the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi to one RMP

Doctor by name Nimmala Ankamma Rao (LW.11) at Lakshmipuram, he gave first aid to the Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and after rendering first aid, she was shifted to Gajjala Brahma Reddy Hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment.

There, the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi gave statement to the

Narasaraopet police and the police recorded her statement. On the next day i.e. 09.11.2020 at about 11.30 p.m. the deceased was died while under going treatment. On 10.11.2020 he lodged Ex.P1/complaint to the police Karempudi.

Ex.P1 contains his signature. The entire testimony of PW.1 deposed about the alleged incident.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 9

16.The learned counsel for the accused cross-examine the PW.1, during the course of cross-examination he admitted that the Narasaraopet police handover the statement of deceased to him in sealed cover and the same was handover to the Karempudi Police station and he obtained

Photostat copy of statement of the deceased from one constable of

Karempudi police station and he sent the statement of deceased recorded by the Narasaraopet police through PW.2-Mekala Venkatareddy, he enquired about handovering the cover to the police through PW.2-Mekala Venkatareddy and Mekala Venkatareddy stating that he handover the cover.

17. Mekala Venkata Reddy/PW.2 who is the elder brother of deceased by courtesy deposed that nearly three years ago, the accused scolded the deceased and his family. He went to the accused and asked about the scolding. The accused stated to him that some sand was missing which was placed infront of her house. On 08.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased consumed the pesticide and committed suicide due to scolding of accused. PW.1 shifted the deceased to Lw.11/Nimmala Anka Rao hospital,

Lakshmipuram for treatment, from there to Gajjala Brahma Reddy hospital,

Narasaraopet for better treatment. At that time, the PW.1 stated to him that accused scolded the deceased, due to which she committed suicide.

18.The counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.2, during the courses of cross-examination, he categorically admitted that himself, and

PW.1 did not lodge any complaint to the Karempudi Police station. As per the version of PW.1, he sent PW.2 along with the sealed cover given by

Narasaraopet police to the Karempudi police station. In the entire testimony of

PW.2, there is no whisper about he went to Karempudi police station and gave cover.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 10

19. The mother of the deceased by name Mekala Venkataravamma examined as PW.6, she categorically deposed about the deceased committed suicide. The counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.6, and during the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that they were residing in rented house belongs to one Nagendla Satyanarayana and she further admitted that the accused went to the America in twice and she came to India 15 days prior to the alleged incident and she further admitted that at the time of alleged offence, there was lock-down period and her three daughters were present in her house during the lockdown period. The entire evidence of PW.6 did not state the date, time, month and year the accused scolded the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi whether the accused scolded the deceased on the date of alleged offence or not. There is no recital from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 6 that the date, time, month and year the accused scolded the deceased and her family.

20. It is just and necessary to refer the evidence of investigating officer PW.15-Appala Naidu, Head constable of Karempudi Police station and during the course of cross-examination by the accused counsel, he categorically deposed that PW.1 did not state before him in his 161 Cr.P.C statement and Ex.P1 report pertaining to that the Narasaropet police recorded the statement of deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and handed over the same to the Karempudi Police station and PW.2-Mekala Venkat Reddy handed over the statement of the deceased to Karempudi Police station.

21.As per the testimony of defacto-complainant / PW.1 he categorically deposed about the Narasarapet police recorded the statement of deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi at hospital and as per the evidence of investigation officer/PW.15-Appala Naidu, he categorically deposed that the defacto-complainant by name Mekala Koti Reddy and PW.2 Mekala Venkata

Reddy did not handover the cover containing statement of deceased Mekala

Sree Vijaya Lakshmi. The best reason known to the defacto- complainant for

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 11 non-submission of the statement of the deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya

Lakshmi. In generally, if the police recorded the statement of victim or injured person the said statement sent to the concerned jurisdiction police station through proper channel, but in the present case the Narasaraopet police did not send the statement of deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi to the

Karempudi Police station. Surprisingly, the Narasaraopet police gave cover containing statement of deceased Mekala Sree Vijaya Lakshmi to the defacto- complainant / PW.1. The PW.1 and PW.2 did not give said cover to the

Karempudi police station. There is a doubt about the version of PWs.1 and 2 about the statement of deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi recorded by the

Narasaraopet police. The entire testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 6 did not state about when the accused scolded the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and the deceased committed suicide. PWs.1, 2 and 6 simply stating that the accused scolded the deceased and the deceased committed suicide. And as per

Sec.306 of IPC, there must be cause of suicide and in the commission of said offence, the accused is said to haveabetted the deceased in the commission of suicide must have played and active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of the suicide.

22. In the present case, PWs.1, 2 and 6 did not state the date, time, month and year and when the accused abetted and instigated the deceased, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, the testimony of PWs. 1, 2 and 6 are inconsistent and no corroboration. Hence, the testimony of PWs.1, 2 and 6 are not believable.

23.Now coming to the evidence of Mekala Veera Nagi Reddy (PW.3), Mekala Venkata Reddy (PW.4) and Alavala Thati Reddy (PW.5), their evidence is only came to know the alleged incident and they went to the

Gajjala Brahma Reddy Hospital, Narasaraopet, hence their evidence is hearsay evidence and their evidence is no wayhelpful to the case of prosecution.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 12

24. As per the testimony of PW.7/ Dulam Gangamma (grand mother) of deceased, she categorically deposed that on 08.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., the deceased consumed the pesticide and the deceased died. She is not the eye witness to the alleged incident, she came to know the alleged incident, PW.6 is her own daughter. Her evidence is also no way helpful to the prosecution case.

25.As per the testimony of PW.8/ Vajrala Koteswaramma, she categorically deposed that the house of the deceased is situated in front of her house. Nearly five years ago, the deceased consumed pesticide. At that time, the PW.1 raised the cries that the deceased consumed the pesticide. PW.1 requested her to come along with him to shift the deceased to the hospital for treatment. Immediately, herself, PW.1 and deceased went to one RMP doctor at Lakshmipuram, later the deceased was shifted to Narasaraopet for better treatment. She left the place and came to her house. On the next day, deceased died. She does not know the reason for deceased committed suicide.

26.As per the version of prosecution, the accused scolded the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and the deceased committed suicide. PW.8 /

Vajrala Koteswaramma, who is the independent witness to the alleged incident, she did not reveal anything against the accused. The neighbours are the best persons to speak about the alleged offence. In the present case,

PW.8 did not state anything about the alleged incident that the accused scolded the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi.

27.The learned counsel for the accused appearing for accused vehemently submitted that even the testimony of PW.8 did not state anything about the alleged offence. As per the testimony of PW.8, the ingredients of abetment of the suicide is not attracted. The entire testimony of PW.8 did not constitute the ingredients of abetment of suicide. Hence, the testimony of

PW.8 is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 13

28.As per the testimony of PW.9/Veeravalli Nagaratnam, she categorically deposed that her house is situated near the house of accused.

She further deposed that the accused scolded the deceased in filthy language she asked the accused about the scolding of the deceased, the accused stated to her that “Neeku Enduku Po, Vallu Naa Mundu Thala Dinchukovali”.

Nearly 5 years, ago, the deceased consumed the pesticide and she was shifted to RMP Doctor Nimmala Ankamma Rao, Lakshmipuram, who gave first aid to the deceased, and from there she was shifted to Gajjala Brahma Reddy

Hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment. She went to hospital,

Narasaraopet and asked the PW.1 what was happened, the PW.1 stated to her that the deceased consumed pesticide due to accused scolding the deceased. On the next day, the deceased was died.

29. The testimony of PW.9/ Veeravalli Nagaratnam was tested by way of cross-examination, during the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she is the daughter of Venkateswara Reddy and

Venkateswara Reddy is the brother of PW.1 and she further admitted that her house is situated ten houses away from the house of PW.1.

30.As per the evidence of the PW.9/Veeravalli Nagaratnam, PW.9 is also relative of the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi as well as the PW.1. In the entire evidence of PW.9, PW.9 is also did not state the date, time, month and year when the accused scolded the deceased. In her evidence, she simply stating that the accused scolded, further during the course of cross- examination she categorically admitted that her house is situated ten houses away from the house of PW.1, it means that her house is situated far away from the house of PW.1. So far as PW.9 examination by the police is quite contra to the evidence of PW.9. Hence, the testimony of PW.9 is also not believable as she is also relative of the PW.1. The entire evidence of PW.9 is also no way helpful to the case of prosecution.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 14

31.The PW.11/Gullapalli Venkatesh Babu, and PW.12/Kandukuri

Prasada Rao, the then VROs of Karempudi village deposed that on the request of Police constable, Karempudi P.S. they went to Karempudi police station to act as mediators. Then they along with police officials proceeded to the scene of offence place i.e.house of PW.1 at Miriyala village, searched the house, found one Pesticide bottle and seized the pesticide bottler from the house of PW.1 in their presence and police drafted the scene observation report, dt.10.11.2020, which is marked as Ex.P2.

32.As per the testimony of PW.13-Cheekati Suresh Babu and

PW.14-Sakhamuri Srinivasa Rao, they deposed that on 10.11.2020 they went to Government hospital, Narasaraopet for treatment, at that time, the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mekala Sree

Vijaya Lakshmi in their presence and police scribed inquest report and obtained their signatures on Inquest report which is marked as Ex.P3.

33.One RMP doctor by name Nimmala Ankamma Rao is examined as PW.10, he categorically deposed that on 08.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m., he received phone call from PW.1 stating that the deceased Sree Vijaya

Lakshmi consumed pesticide, and he informed to PW.1 that he was present at

Lakshmipuram, on that PW.1, deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and PW.8 /Vajrala Koteswaramma came to him and he gave first aid to the Sree Vijaya

Lakshmi, on his advice, they shifted the deceased to Gajjala Brahma Reddy

Hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment. He accompanied with PW.1 and deceased and stayed at Narasaraopet and after evening he returned to his house. Later, he came to know that the deceased was died on 09.11.2020 in between 11.00 p.m., to 11.30 p.m.

34.The evidence of PW.10 is that he only gave first aid to the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi. On his advice, the deceased was shifted to

Gajjala Brahma Reddy Hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 15

35.The Investigating officer examined as PW.15/K.Appala Naidu,

Head constable of Karempudi P.S., he categorically testified that he received the complaint and issued FIR, examined the witnesses and recorded their detailed 161 statements and he securedPW.11/Gollapalli Venkatesh Babu and PW.12/Kandukuri Prasada Rao, visited the scene of offence at Miriyala village of Karempudi Mandal, observed the scene of offence and seized the pesticide bottle under the cover of scene observation report and prepared

Rough sketch, which aremarked as Exs.P2 and P5. He also proceeded to

Narasaraopet Hospital, secured PW.1-Mekala Koti Reddy, PW.2/Mekala

Venkatareddy, PW.3/Mekala Veera Nagireddy, PW.4/Mekala Venkata Reddy,

PW.5/Alavala Thati Reddy, examined them and recorded their statements u/s.161 Cr.P.C and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sree

Vijaya Lakshmi in the presence of PW.13/Cheekati Suresh Babu and

PW.14/Sakhamuri Srinivasa Rao at Area Hospital, Narasaraopet. Thereafter,

Dr. D.Vasu, Area Hospital, Narasaraopet (LW.17) conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and issued Ex.P6 Postmortem Examination Report and handed over the dead body to the blood relatives. Thereafter, he visited the Miriyala village, secured the witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. Later, he handed over the case file to PW.16-G.Ravi Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police,

Karempudi P.S. for further investigation.

36.The counsel for the accused cross-examined PW.15/K.Appala

Naidu, investigating officer and during the course of cross-examination, he categorically admitted that he did not examine the doctor, who gave treatment to the deceased at Gajjala Brahma Reddy Hospital, Narasaraopet and further admitted that the PW.3 and PW.5 did not state before him while recording their 161 Cr.P.C. statements pertaining to that the deceased committed suicide due to accused scolding the deceased and her family in filthy language. And further admitted that he did not examine the Nagendla

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 16

Sathyanarayana and he further admitted that he did not examine Shaik Ali

Saheb, Peda Saida Reddy, Dareddy Rajyam, Lingireddy Srinivasa Reddy, who are shown in Ex.P5 as neighbours of PW.1. On the other hand, according to the PW.1 and PW.6 they categorically deposed that the accused scolded the deceased and their family. If really, any such incident was occurred that accused scolded the deceased and her family, the neighbours are the best persons to speak about the same, inspite of availability of neighbours, the investigating officer did not examine the neighbours.

37.On perusal of Ex.P5 is rough sketch of scene of offence prepared by the Investigation Officer/PW.15-K.Appala Naidu, Head constable,

Karempudi P.S. The neighbours by name Shaik Ali Saheb, Dareddy Pedda

Saida Reddy, Dareddy Rajyam, Lingireddy Srinivasa Reddy werementioned in the Rough sketch/Ex.P.5. The Investigation officer did not examine the neighbours of scene of offence. The Investigation officer failed to examine the neighboring witnesses even though shown in the rough sketch. If really, the accused scolded the deceased and her family, the best persons to speak about the same are the neighbours. But in given case, inspite of availability of neighbours the investigation officer failed to examine the neighbours, no explanation is offered by the investigating officer, why he did not examine any independent witnesses to prove the same. Admittedly Pws. 2, 6, 7 and 9 are the relatives of the PW.1. Naturally, they are supporting the case of the prosecution. There is a doubt about the case of prosecution for non- examination of the neighbours.

38.The PW.16/G.Ravi Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Karempudi

P.S., deposed that he took up investigation done by PW.15 for further investigation. During his investigation, he proceeded to Miriyala village, interrogated the accused, arrested the accused and sent her for remand.

Thereafter, he sent material object to FSL through SDPO, Gurazala and

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 17 obtained report / Ex.P7 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

39. As per the version of the prosecution, on 10.11.2020 the investigation officer (PW.15/K.Appala Naidu) seized the empty pesticide bottle from the house of PW.1 in the presence of PW.11/Gollapalli Venkatesh Babu and PW.12/Kandukuri Prasada Rao under the cover of scene observation report/Ex.P2. On perusal of entire record, the investigation officer did not produce empty pesticide bottle before learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Gurazala and not obtained CPR number. The best reason known

to the investigating officers PW.15/ K.Appala Naidu, Head constable and

PW.16/ G.Ravi Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Karempudi P.S. The non- production of the material object is fatal to the case of prosecution.

40.The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is a delay in lodging First Information Report. Therefore, he invite the attention of the court to Ex.P4 First Information Report. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred on 08.11.2020 morning at about 11.30 a.m and deceased was died on 09.11.2020 at 11.30 p.m., the First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 10.11.2020 at about 11.30 a.m. On perusal of the

Ex.P4 First Information report, it is made clear that even though the incident was occurred on 08.11.2020 morning at about 11.30 a.m and the deceased was died on 09.11.2020 at 11.30 p.m., the information was received at police station at 11.30 a.m., on 10.11.2020 in Ex.P4, hence there is a delay of 24 hours in lodging FIR.

41.Mere delay in lodging First Information report is not fatal to the case of prosecution subject to such delay has been explained properly. In the given case, there is no explanation has offered from complainant / Mekala

Koti Reddy and the investigation officer/PW.15-K.Appala Naidu, H.C. of

Karmepudi Police station in column No.8 of Ex.P4, reason for the delay in reporting by the complainant shown as empty column. As per the version of

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 18 the prosecution, the accused scolded the deceased Sree Vijaya Lakshmi and her family and deceased consumed pesticide and the deceased was shifted to

GBR hospital, Narasaraopet for better treatment. It is bounden duty of the duty doctor who gave treatment to the deceased, the duty doctor shall inform to the jurisdiction Police station about the medico legal case. But in the present case, the duty doctor did not inform to the jurisdiction police station, the best reason known to the hospital authorities.

42.Therefore, in the absence of any such convincing evidence or reason in explaining the delay in lodging First Information Report, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the version advanced by the prosecution and the delay of 24 hours also throws a doubt about the case of prosecution.

43.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of Honourable Supreme Court of India reported in 2025(1) ALT (Crl.)

113 (S.C) in between Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh, wherein it was held that:

Purport of judgment:-

PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 306

Abetment of suicide : The ingredients to constitute an offence under

Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased direct and alarming encouragement/ incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide - In cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself - Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record - It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions - It is ultimately for the police and the courts of law to look into the matter and see that the persons against whom allegations have been levelled are not unnecessarily harassed or they are not put to trial

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 19 just for the sake of prosecuting them - Putting the appellants to trial on the charge that they abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased will be nothing but abuse of process of law - No case worth the name against the appellants is made Appeal allowed Impugned order passed by the High Court set aside Proceedings quashed.

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the

above judgment and the facts of the present case are one and the

same. In the present case, the prosecution failed to adduce the

evidence that the accused abetted or the intention of the accused to

aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.

44.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon another judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2024 (1) ALT (Crl.) 350 (SC) in Criminal Appeal No.1427 of 2011, decided on 01-03-2024 in between Kumar @ Shiva Kumar V. State of Karnataka, wherein it was held that:

Purport of judgment:-

PENAL CODE, 1860, Section 306 - Abetment to suicide - “If any person commits suicide, then whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished - Where the accused by his act or omission or by his continued course of conduct creates a situation that the deceased is left with no other option except to commit suicide, then instigation may be inferred - A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation - In a case of death due to consumption or administering of poison or insecticide or pesticide, be it homicidal or suicidal, recovery of the trace of such poison or insecticide or pesticide is crucial - Prosecution failed to prove the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 IPC against the appellant - Conviction of appellant wholly unsustainable.

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the

above judgment and the facts of the present case are one and

the same. In the present case, the prosecution failed to adduce

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 20

the evidence that the accused abetted or the intention of the

accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit

suicide.

45.The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of India further reported in 2020

(3) ALT (Crl.) 275 (SC) in Criminal Appeal No.40/2011, decided on

01.10.2020, in between Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, wherein it was held that:

Purport of judgment:-

PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 107 and 306 – Abetment to suicide – Mensrea – To prove the offence of abetment as specified under section 107 of the IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability - The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous - No overt act or illegal omission is seen from the appellant's side, in taking due care of his deceased wife Evidence does not indicate that the deceased faced persistent harassment from her husband Trial Court and the High Court erred in concluding that the deceased was driven to commit suicide, by the circumstances or atmosphere in the matrimonial home - Conviction of the appellant, under Section 306 of the IPC not sustainable - The appellant's conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and quashed - Appeal allowed.

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the

above judgment and the facts of the present case are one and

the same. In the present case, the prosecution failed to adduce

the evidence that the accused abetted or the intention of the

accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit

suicide.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 21

46.Having scrutinized the evidence on the record in view of the reasons stated supra, this Court finds that there is any amount of doubt with regarding to the version of offence by the prosecution. In such case, this court finds that it is a fit case to exercise the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Therefore, this court finds that basing on the evidence on the record, it is highly difficult for the prosecution to come to conclusion that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish and prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly, these points are answered.

47.Point No.3:

In view of the findings on point Nos.1 and 2 as discussed supra, this court finds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/S.306 IPC.

48.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.306 of IPC and accordingly she is acquitted of the offence under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C./ under section 258 (1) of BNSS Act, 2023. The bail bonds of the accused and her sureties shall be in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-

A Cr.P.C./ section 481 of BNSS Act, 2022. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 13 th day of May, 2026.

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

GURAZALA

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 22

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(WITNESSES EXAMINED)

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1Mekala Kotireddy

PW.2Mekala Venkatareddy

PW.3Mekala Veera Nagireddy

PW.4Mekala Venkata Reddy

PW.5Alavala Thatireddy

PW.6Mekala Venkataravamma

PW.7Dulam Gangamma

PW.8Vajrala Koteswaramma

PW.9Veeravalli Nagaratnam

PW.10 Nimmala Ankamma Rao, RMP Doctor, Lakshmipuram,

PW.11 Gollapalli Venkatesh Babu

PW.12 Kandukuri Prasada Rao

PW.13 Cheekati Suresh Babu

PW.14 Sakhamuri Srinivasa Rao

PW.15 K. Appala Naidu, HC 3460 of Karempudi P.S

PW.16 G. Ravi Krishna, Sub-Inspector of Police, Karempudi P.S.

FOR DEFENCE: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Complaint of PW.1.

Ex.P2: Scene observation Report, dt.10.11.2020.

Ex.P3: Inquest report.

Ex.P4: First Information Report in Cr.No.151/2020 of Karempudi P.S.

Ex.P5: Rough sketch.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530 23

Ex.P6: Postmortem Certificate.

Ex.P7: RFSL Report.

Ex.P8: Final opinion.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-- NIL --

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

GURAZALA

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.05.13 15:13:48 +0530

1

APGU0B0001292022

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: GURAZALA

Present: Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala

Thursday, this the 02nd day of April, 2026

SESSIONS CASE N0.539 OF 2022

(P.R.C.No.04/2022 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piduguralla) connected with Crime No.499/2019 of Piduguralla Police Station)

Name of complainantState- Inspector of Police, Piduguralla PS, Guntur Rural District. Name of the accusedDadinaboina Bala Gopi @ Gopi, S/o Krishna, 28 years, R/o.Peda Agraharam village, Piduguralla Mandal. The Prosecution conducted bySri Sk.Jani Basha,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Gurazala.

The accused is defended bySri.Kota Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for accused.

OffencesUnder Section 307, 506 of IPC

Plea of AccusedNot guilty. Finding of the JudgeNot guilty of the Charges under Sections 307, 506 of I.P.C.

Sentence or Order In the result, accused is not found guilty for the charge under Secs.307, 506 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the charge under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C./ under section 258 (1) of BNSS Act. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.Cr.P.C / section 481 of BNSS Act.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 2

M.O.1-Broken Thumbsup bottle pieces, M.O.2-Blood stained clothes (Dark red colour full hands shirt with blood stains, blue colour jeans pant, the non valuable items of property in CPR.No.16/2024 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the time to prefer appeal. M.O.1-Broken Thumbsup bottle pieces, M.O.2-Blood stained clothes (Dark red colour full hands shirt with blood stains blue colour jeans pant are forwarded to (Committal Court) the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class Court, Piduguralla, for carrying out the order of the disposal of the case property.

This sessions case came before me on 24.03.2026 upon perusing the charge sheet and other material papers on record upon hearing the arguments of Sri Shaik Jani Basha, Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri Kota Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the accused, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The sessions case against the accused arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Piduguralla Police Station pertaining to

Cr.No.499/2019 of Piduguralla Police Station for prosecution under Sections 307, 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short I.P.C.).

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Piduguralla before whom the charge sheet was laid down as taken cognizance of offence against the accused under Sections.307, 506 of IPC and registered as

PRC.No.04/2022.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 3

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class, Piduguralla on considering of the material available on record and having the satisfied that this case is exclusively trial by the Court of Sessions committal Division,

Guntur, which was registered as Sessions Case No.539/2022.

4.Succinctly the case of prosecution, as per the report of the investigation, charge sheet as follows:

On 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 a.m., while Dadinaboina Sambaiah (L.W 1) and Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) were having tiffin in the hotel of

Jangiti Srinivasarao (L.W.2) which is situated near Ramalayam, at that time the accused went into the said Hotel and taken Thumbs up bottle behind

Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) and beat him on his head by saying as "NAA

KODAKALLAARAA AA ROJU ONTARIGAA UNNA NANNU KOTTADAM

KAADURAA EE ROJU NINNU CHAMPESTHAA NAA KODAKA" so saying and taken another Thumbs up bottle and beat on the head of Dadinaboina

Ramudu (L.W.9), as a result of which, Dadinaboina Ramudu (L.W.9) received bleeding injury on his head. On seeing the same Dadinaboina Sambaiah (L.W.1), Vaddempudi Yedukondalu (LW.7) and Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu (LW.8) tried to caught hold of the accused, then the accused pushed away them and taken broken Thumbs up bottle and tried to stab on his stomach, by saying that today he will be killed Dadinaboina Ramudu (L.W.9), then the defacto-complainant and others saved Dadinaboina Ramudu (L.W.9) from the clutches of the accused, then the accused hit on the face of the complainant

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 4 with hand and threatened the complainant that “MAA JOLIKI YEVADU

VASTHAADO CHUSTHANU” thereby the accused saying that they will be killed them whenever they noticed to them, later Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) was shifted to the Adithya Hospital, Guntur for treatment by Dadinaboina

Sambaiah (LW.1), Jangiti Srinivasa Rao (LW.2), Ramireddy Srinivasa Rao (LW.3), Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao (LW.4), Dadinaboina

Veeranjaneyulu (LW.5) and Vaddempudi Srinivasa Rao (LW.6). Later, on receipt of report given by the defacto-complainant, to A.Surendra

Babu(L.W.16) Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S and A.Surendra babu(L.W.16) registered the case in Cr.No.499/2019 and issued FIR, for the offence under sections 307, 506 I.P.C. and took-up investigation in this case.

5.During the course of investigation on 21.11.2019, Inspector of

Police, Piduguralla Police Station by name A.Surendra Babu (LW.16) visited the scene of offence, seized the material objects, drafted rough sketch under the cover of scene observation report. During the course of further investigation on 22.11.2019, he examined the witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements and seized blood stained clothes of Dadinaboina

Ramudu (LW.9) under the cover of Police Proceedings. During the course of further investigation, on 27.11.2019 A.Surendra Babu (LW.16),inspector of

Police, Piduguralla P.S. arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. Thus the intention and guilt of the accused, established and filed charge sheet for the offence under Secs.307, 506 IPC.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 5

6. After accused made his appearance before this Court upon hearing and on considering the charge under Secs.307, 506 of IPC against him has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence proceed with the trial.

7.The prosecution with a view to bring home the guilt of the accused for the above referred charge as adduced oral evidence as PWs.1 to 12, apart from Exs.P1 to P7 and M.Os.1 and 2 are marked.

8.After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explained and read over to him in Telugu, with reference to the incriminating the material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he under stood and totally denied it. Whenever, this Court called upon to enter his defence, he reported that no defence evidence.

9.During the course of arguments, the learned A.P.P. argued that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused and prays the Hon’ble court to convict the accused.

10.Per contra, the accused counsel argued that the prosecution miserably failed to examine the independent witnesses, all the PWs.2 to

P.w.5, P.W.7 to PW.11 are the close relatives to P.W.6/Dadinaboina Ramulu who is injured person and prays the Honourable court to acquit the accused.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 6

11.Heard on both sides.

12.Now the point for determination is:

1). Whether the prosecution proved that the accused with an intention to kill PW.6/Dadinaboina Ramudu?

2) Whether the accused threatened the PW.6-Dadinabina Ramudu with dire-consequences? and

3) Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge under Secs.307, 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINTS 1 AND 2 :

13.Both the points are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and brevity to avoid reputation as they are interlinked with each other. It is just and necessary to refer the provision of law under section 307 and 506 of

Indian Penal code, 1860.

14.Section 307 of IPC: Attempt to murder:

“Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offence shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned.

Attempts by life-convicts:- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 7

Illustrations :

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that if death ensued, A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.

(b) A with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensure.

(c) A intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the later part of the first paragraph of this section.

(d) A, intending to murder Z, by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping: A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servants to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

15.Sec.506 of IPC; Punishment for criminal intimidation:- “Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”;

16.According to the prosecution, the offence took place in the hotel of PW.1, which is situated near Ramalayam at Peda Agraharam village of

Piduguralla Mandal, on 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 a.m. while Dadinaboina

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 8

Sambaiah (L.W 1) and PW.6-Dadinaboina Ramudu were having tiffin in the said hotel, at that time the accused went into said Hotel, taken Thumbs up bottle behind PW.6 and attacked him, beat him on his head and tried to stab him in his stomach with thumbs up bottle and caused bleeding injuries and the accused threatened him that he would kill him. On 21.11.2019 at about 1.00 p.m., the defacto-complainant Dadinabiina Sambaiah (LW.1) gave report to the PW.12. A.Surendra Babu, Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S.

The first information report was lodged on 21.11.2019. Ex.P5 is First information report.

17. As per the testimony of PW.6-Dadinaboina Ramuduwho is injured person in the present case, he deposed in his Chief-examination that on 20-11-2019 at about 7.00 A.M he along with Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) went to the hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. At that time, the accused came from his back and beat on his head with thumbs up bottle available in the hotel and the accused taken another thumbs-up bottle and beat him on his head and caused bleeding head injury. Immediately, Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1), PW.2-Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao, PW.3-Vaddempudi

Srinivasa Rao shifted the injured to the Adithya Hospital, Guntur for treatment. The reason for alleged offence is that the accused abused P.w.7-

Dadinaboina Naga Bhavani and PW.9-Dadinaboina Srividhya in filthy language and keeping the previous incident in mind, the accused attacked him. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 9

18. The testimony of PW.6 was tested by way of cross examination by the defence counsel, during the course of cross-examination he categorically admitted that he did not state to the police while recording his 161 Cr.P.C statement pertaining to that the accused abusing Dadinaboina

Naga Bhavani (PW.7) and Dadinaboina Sri Vidhya (PW.9). And further admitted in his cross-examination that the scene of offence is situated at middle of the village, nearly fifteen persons were present at the time of the incident. And further admitted in his cross-examination that Dadinaboina

Amaralingeswara Rao (PW.2), Dadinaboina Veeranjaneyulu (LW.5),

Vaddempudi Srinivasa Rao (PW.3), Vaddempudi Yedukondalu (PW.4) and

Dadinabina Lakshmanudu (PW.5) are his relatives. Further admitted that he gave complaint to the police at hospital and police seized blood stained clothes. On perusal of the record, PW.6-Dadinaboina Ramudu did not lodge any complaint to the police at hospital. Hence, the version of the PW.6 is not believable.

19. The other evidence available on record is the evidence of PW.2-

Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao, PW.3-Vaddempudi Srinivasa Rao, PW.4-

Vaddempudi Yedukondalu, PW.5-Dadinabina Lakshmanudu, PW.7-

Dadinaboina Naga Bhavani, PW.8-Dadinaboina Kasaiah, PW.9-Dadinaboina

Srividya and PW.10-Bandaru Naga Gopi undoubtedly they are relatives. As per the testimony of PW.2/Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao, deposed that nearly five years ago, on one day, in between 7.00 and 7.30 a.m, he went to

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 10 hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. At that time, accused beat PW.6/Dadinaboina

Ramudu on his head and also raised the voice as “Appudu Kadu, ippudu mimmulanu Champestanu” and trying to stab him on his stomach. Jangiti

Srinivasa Rao/PW.1, Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1), Dadinaboina

Lakshmanudu (LW.8) and Dadinaboina Veeranjaneyulu (LW.5) were tried to pacify the matter. The injured PW.6/Dadinaboina Ramudu was shifted by

Dadinaboina Veeranjaneyulu (LW.5), Vaddempudi Yedukondalu (LW.7),

Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu (LW.8) to Adithya hospital, Guntur for treatment.

20. The testimony of PW.2-Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao was tested by way of the crossexamination, during the course of cross- examination, he admitted that PW.1 shop was situated middle of the village and it is busy locality and main road and he further admitted that they proceeded to Guntur hospital after crossing the police station, Piduguralla.

And it was suggested to PW.2 that as there was no incident occurred, but

PW.2 denied the same. According to PW.6, on the date of alleged incident, he along with Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1 ) went to the hotel of PW.1 (Jangiti

Srinivasa Rao) for taking tiffin. Whereas, the PW.2 (Dadinaboina

Amaralingeswara Rao) deposed that he was present at the time of alleged offence at scene of offence. The version of the PW.2 is not corroborated to the version of PW.6, hence there is any amount of doubt with regard to the presence of the PW.2 at scene of offence.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 11

21. As per the testimony of PW.3 (Vaddempudi Srinivasa Rao ) he came to know the alleged incident through Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu (LW.8),hence the evidence of PW.3 is the hearsay evidence. His evidence is noway helpful to the case of prosecution.

22. As per the testimony of PW.4 (Vaddempudi Yedukondalu), he deposed in his Chief-examination that on 20-11-2019 at about 7.00 A.M he went to the hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. By that time, Dadinaboina Sambaiah ( LW.1) and Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) were taking tiffin. At that time, the accused brought the thumbs up bottle from tray which is present at the steps of hotel and beat the Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) on his head with thumbs- up bottle. And the accused again brought the another bottle and beat

Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) and caused bleeding injury on his head. The accused was trying to stab Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) with broken thumbs- up bottle pieces.

23. The testimony of PW.4-Vaddempudi Yedukondalu was tested by way of the cross-examination,during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the hotel / house of PW.1 (Jangiti Srinivasa Rao) is situated in the middle of the village and busy locality and he cannot say how many persons are gathered at the scene of offence by the time of alleged incident.

It was suggested to PW.4 (Vaddempudi Yedukondalu) that the accused never brought the thumbs up bottle from the tray which is present at the steps of hotel and the accused never beat the PW.6 (Dadinaboina Ramudu)

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 12 on his head with thumbs up bottle, bottle never broken and the accused never again brought the another bottle, the same is got denied it. Whereas the version of the PW.4(Vaddempudi Yedukondalu), the accused used two thumbs up bottles for the alleged offence, but as per the evidence PW.6 is the injured in this case. According to PW.6/Dadinaboina Ramudu, on the date of alleged incident he along with Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) went to the hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. Whereas, the PW.4 (Vaddempudi Yedukondalu) deposed that he was present at the time of alleged offence at scene of offence. The version of the PW.4 (Vaddempudi Yedukondalu) is not corroborated to the version of PW.6 (Dadinaboina Ramudu). Hence, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the presence of the PW.4 at scene of offence.

24. As per the testimony of PW.5 (Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu) he deposed inChief-examination thaton 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 a.m.,he went to the hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. By that time, Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) and Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) were taking tiffin. At that time, accused brought the thumbs-up bottle from tray which was available at steps of hotel and beat Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) on his head with thumbsup bottle and stating to LW.9-Dadinaboina Ramudu as “Aa roju kaadhu ee roju ninnu champesthanu” Bottle was broken and again the accused brought the another Thumbsup bottle and beat him on his head and he sustained bleeding injury on his head, the accused also trying to stab the Dadinaboina

Ramudu (LW.9) with broken thumbsup bottle pieces. PW.1 (Jangiti Srinivasa

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 13

Rao), Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1), Dadinaboina Veeranjaneyulu ( Lw.5),

PW.2 (Dadinaboina Aamaralingeswara Rao, PW.4 (Vaddempudi

Yedukondalu) were trying to interfere, at that time the accused pushed them and stating as “Daggaraku vasthe mimmalanukudu podusthanu” In the meanwhile, the father of the accused came to the scene of offence and tried to pacify the matter. Dadinaboina Ramudu (LW.9) was shifted to Adithya hospital, Guntur for treatment.

25. The testimony of PW.5 was tested by way of the cross examination that during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the hotel of

PW.1 situated at middle of the village and busy locality, he cannot say how many persons were present at the scene of offence by the time of alleged incident and he further admitted that at the time of alleged incident nearly 10 to 15 persons were present at the scene of offence. He cannot say the names of the persons and he further admitted that they proceeded to the Guntur after crossing the Piduguralla Police station. According to PW.6 (Dadinaboina

Ramudu), on the date of alleged incident he along with Dadinaboina

Sambaiah (LW.1) went to the hotel of PW.1 for taking tiffin. Whereas, the

PW.5 (Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu deposed that PW.6 (Dadinaboina

Ramudu) and Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) were already present at the scene of offence when he reached the scene of offence. The version of the

PW.5 is not corroborated to the version of PW.6, hence there is any amount of doubt with regard to the presence of the PW.5 at scene of offence.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 14

26. PW.7 (Dadinaboina Naga Bhavani), PW.8 (Dadinaboina Kasaiah),

PW.9 (Dadinaboina Srividya) categorically deposed that they came to know the alleged incident through Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1), their evidence is only hearsay evidence, they are not the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. Hence their evidence is noway helpful to the case of prosecution.

The investigating officer (A.Surendra Babu) is examined as PW.12. He categorically deposed that Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) lodged the complaint against the accused and his father by name Dadinaboina Krishna.

On perusal of Ex.P5 /First Information Report, initially the FIR was registered under sections 307, 506 r/w.34 of IPC. As per the investigation, the father of the accused was not involved in the alleged offence and deleted the name of father of accused by name Dadinaboina Krishna. It is nothing but the defacto complainant / Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) foisted this false case against the father of the accused along with accused. Hence, this court finds that it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

27. As per the version of the prosecution, the PW.1 (Jangiti Srinivasa

Rao) is running hotel, the alleged incident was occurred at PW.1’s hotel. In the present case, PW.1 did not support the prosecution case, he turned hostile. The learned A.P.P. cross examined PW.1, nothing was elicited in favour of the prosecution. In the present case, the defacto complainant

Dadinaboina Sambaiah(L.w.1) did not examine as he is no more.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 15

28. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that there is a delay in lodging the First Information Report. According to the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred on 20.11.2019 at 7.00 a.m., whereas on perusal of Ex.P4 written report, it appears that the Ex.P4 was presented on 21.11.2019 at about 1.00 p.m., First Information Report was lodged on 21.11.2019. It is made clear that even though the incident was occurred on 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 am., the information was received at police station on 21.11.2019 at about 1.00 p.m. in Ex.P5 column No.8 mentioned the reason for delay complainant paternal uncle came to the private hospital for treatment and came to P.S. It is just and necessary to the evidence of PW.12 (A.Surendar Babu), who is the Investigating officer categorically deposed that

Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) submitted Ex.P4 written report on 21.11.2019 at 1.00 p.m. and registered the case on 21.11.2019 at about 1.00 p.m.

Whereas Ex.P4 written report it appears that the alleged incident was occurred on 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 a.m. There is a delay for lodging the

FIR nearly 30 hours from the time of alleged offence.

29.Mere delay in lodging in First Information report is not fatal to the case of prosecution subject to such delay has been explained properly. In the given case, there is an explanation has offered from complainant /Dadinaboina Sambaiah as well as PW.12 /A.Surendra Babu stating that the complainant took the paternal uncle to the hospital to provide treatment and comes to the police station in given case who is the injured person by

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 16 name Dadinaboina Ramudu (PW.6) was not given any complaint to the police, but Dadinaboina Sambaiah (LW.1) given complaint to the police.

There is a delay for 30 hours in lodging the First Information Report. As per the version of the prosecution, the accused beat the PW.6 on his head with thumbs-up bottle and the PW.1 was shifted to the Adithya hospital, Guntur for treatment. It is bounden duty of the duty doctor who gave treatment to the

PW.6 (Dadinaboina Ramudu), the duty doctor shall inform to the jurisdiction

Police station about the medico legal case. But in the present case, the duty doctor did not inform to the jurisdiction police station. Best reason known to the hospital authorities.

30. It is not a case where that there is a lot of distance between the scene of offence and Piduguralla police station and thus delay was occurred. On the other hand, during the course of cross-examination of PW.2 (Dadinaboina

Amaralingeswara Rao) and PW.5 (Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu) categorically deposed that they crossed the police station of Piduguralla and proceeded to the Guntur, but they did not lodge any complaint to the Piduguralla police.

Therefore, in the absence of any such convincing evidence or reason in explaining the delay in lodging First Information report, there is any amount of doubt with regard to the version advanced by the prosecution and delay of 30 hours also throws a doubt about the case of prosecution.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 17

31. It is not the case where the alleged incident was occurred at isolated place that too an odd hours. On the other hand, according to the

PW.6, the incident was occurred at the hotel of the PW.1 at about 7.00 a.m., near Ramalyam, Peda Agraharam of Piduguralla Mandal. If really, any such incident or galata was held at the hotel of Pw.1 naturally the best persons known to the witnesses are speak about the same or the neighbours, inspite of availability of neighbours and the investigating officer did not examine the neighbours.

32.On perusal of Ex.P6 is rough sketch of scene of offence prepared by the the Investigation Officer PW.12 (A.Surendra Babu), Inspector of Police,

Piduguralla P.S. The neighbours by name Ramireddy Srinviasa Rao, son of

Nagaiah, Bachinaboina Koteswara Rao, Polla Pitchaiah, Lingala Venkata

Ramana, and Ramula vari gudi, Boddu rai Mahalakshmi mentioned in the

Rough sketch/Ex.P.6. The Investigation officer/P.w.12 /A.Surendra babu did not examine the neighbours of scene of offence. The Investigation officer failed to examine the neighboring witnesses even though shown in the rough sketch. If really the alleged incident was occurred, the best persons to speak about the same are the neighours. But in given case, inspite of availability of neighbours the investigation officer failed to examine the neighbours, even according to prosecution the alleged incident was occurred at PW.1’s hotel which is busy locality, no explanation is offered by the instigating officer, why he did not examine any independent witnesses to prove the same. Admittedly

Pws.2 to 10 are the relatives, even prior to the alleged incident some other

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 18 disputes were taken place between the accused family and PW.6’s family.

Therefore, taking into the consideration of the earlier disputes, the contention raised by the learned defence counsel that there is a possibility to foist false case against the accused cannot be ruled out.

33. The evidence available on the record, PW.2 to PW.10 who are the relatives and interested witnesses, in such a case this court finds that in the absence of any independent and convincing evidence, it is highly difficult to place reliance on the testimony of PWs.2 to P10 who are the interested witnesses.

34. Now, it has to be considered whether the ocular evidence tallied with the medical evidence of PW.11 (Dr.V.Gopi Krishna) or not. it is just and necessary to refer, who gave treatment to PW.6 (Dadinaboina Ramudu) by

Dri V.Gopi Krishna.

35. The testimony of PW.11- Dr.V.Gopi Krishna, he deposed in his chief examination that on 20.11.2019 at about 7.00 am., he examined the

PW.6–Dadinaboina Ramudu and found the injury: Contusion over the left side of scalp, fresh in nature, less than 12 hours duration. C.T. Scan brain suggestive of left frontal Extra dural Hemorrhage and MRI suggestive of left frontal extract dural hemorrhage and left frontao temporo Parietal, thin subdural hemorrhage. He opined that the above said injury is grievous in nature, caused by hard object and he issued wound certificate of PW.6-

Dadinaboina Ramudu under Ex.P3.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 19

36. The testimony of PW.11-Dr.V.Gopi Krishna was tested by way of cross-examination, during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the contusion is not a bleeding injury. If any person beat with the thumbs- up bottle on his head multiple injuries are possible and if the person hit one time one injury is possible on his head. The counsel put suggestion to the witness that he issued Ex.P3 at the instance of political influence, the same is got denied it.

37.The PW.6-Dadinaboina Ramudu is injured person categorically deposed that the accused beat him on his head with two thumbs-up bottles on his head. On perusal of Ex.P3, there is only one injury i.e. contusion over the left side of scalp. If really, the accused beat the PW.6 with two thumbs-up bottles on his head it might be one or two multiple injuries are to be present. Therefore, basing on the material evidence available on record, it is very difficult to come to conclusion that the accused made an attempt to commit murder. Hence, the ocular evidence is not tallied with the medical evidence. Now coming to the seizure of M.O.1 from the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.10/Bandaru Naga Gopi and L.W.13/Soma

Venkatesh. The P.W.12/A.Surendra Babu/Inspector of Police seized the

M.O.1 /broken thumbsup bottle pieces under the cover of scene observation report/Ex.P.2. The P.W.10/Bandaru Naga Gopi testifiled that the

P.W.12/inspector of Police seized M.O.1/broken thumbsup bottle in his presence. The testimony of P.W.10/Bandaru Naga Gopi by way cross

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 20 examination by the defense counsel, during the course of cross examination he categorically admitted that the bloodstains were not present on seized broken pieces of thumbsup bottle and further admitted that he does not know the recital of Ex.P.2/scene observation report. Further admitted that

P.W.5/Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu and P.W.6/Dadinaboina Ramudu his relatives. He further admitted that the police obtained his signature at shop of P.W.1, later went to the police station and obtained signature at shop of

P.W.1. in the present case the P.W.10 categorically admitted that the police obtained his signature at shop of P.W.1 and later obtained his signature at police station. The version of the P.W.10 is not believable because he stated for one time police obtained his signature at shop of hotel and another time stating that police obtained his signature at police station. He deposed two ways. As per the case of the prosecution that the accused used two thumbsup bottle for the alleged offence, but the prosecution seized only broken pieces of the one thumbsup bottle, hence the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of remaining bottle along with M.O.1.

P.W.12/Investigation officer did not send the M.O.1 and M.O.2 to the RFSL for analysis, if the M.O.1 and M.O.2 send to the RFSL real facts come into existence about the bloodstains on the M.O.1 and M.O.2 belongs to injured or not, The non sending material objects to the RFSL is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 21

38.The learned Additional Public Prosecution relied upon the following citations of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh.

Vinay Kumar Vs.State of H.P. reported in Crl.Appeal

No.236/2006, dt.28.02.2019, wherein wherein the Lord ship of Hon’ble

High Court of H.P. observed that:

Purport of Judgment:

“ Attempt to murder – Proof – Allegations that on oral altercation, accused hit victim with bat on head of victim till he became unconscious – Victims version duly corroborated by his wife, Investigating officer and medical evidence -

Presence of accused on spot, proved – Minor contradictions about place of incident not fatal to the prosecution case – Weapon of offence i.e. bat recovered at instance of accused – No false implication of accused.

“It can conveniently be held that the findings recorded by the learned trial court are based on correct appreciation of material on record and in absence of perversity, these findings cannot be interfered with”.

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the above judgment and the facts of the present case are totally different.

39.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon the following citations of Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

Kansa Behera vs State Of Orissa, decided on 21 April, 1987- reported in AIR 1987 SC 1507 wherein the Lord ship observed that:

Purport of Judgment:

“As regards the recovery of a shirt and dhoti which are alleged to be stained with human blood, it was contended that there is no clear evidence to

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 22 indicate that the appellant was wearing dhoti at the time of the incident. As regards shirt it was contended that although the serologist report indicate that it is stained with human blood but blood grouping is not there. In this view of the matter the presence of some stains of human blood after sometime could not be a circumstance on the basis of which any conclusive inference could be drawn. It was therefore contended that in view of these circumstances it could not be held that the circumstances point to the only conclusion of the guilt.” “As regards the recovery of a shirt or a dhoti with blood stains which according to the serologist report were stained with human blood but there is no evidence in the report of the serologist about positively be connected with the deceased. In the evidence of the investigating officer or in the report, it is not clearly mentioned as to what were the dimensions of the stains of blood. Few small blood stains on the cloths and living in villages. The evidence about the blood group is only conclusive to connect the blood stains with the deceased. That evidence is absent and in this view of the matter, in our opinion, even this is not a circumstance on the basis of which any interference could be drawn.”

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the above judgment and the facts of the present judgment are not one and the same.

40.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon another citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

Jitendra and Anr Vs. State of M.P. decided on 18.09.2003 reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 4236, 2004 (10) SCC 562, in Criminal

Appeal No.1318 & 1319/2002, wherein the Lord ship of Hon’ble Supreme

Court Bench observed that :

Purport of Judgment:

“The learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the final report dated 3.10.1999 submitted under Section 173 of Cr. P.C., from the original file. We notice something peculiar here. In the final report, in Column

No. 16, headed "result of laboratory analysis", it is stated "report of FSL.

Sagar is awaited". Interestingly, the report of the State Forensic Laboratory,

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 23

Sagar is dated 30. 8.1999 (Ex.P/17) certifying that the packets 'A', 'B' and 'C' sent to the laboratory contained charas and ganja.”

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the above judgment and the facts of the present judgment are not one and the same.

41.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon another citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court:-

Purport of Judgment:

Ram Narain Singh vs The State Of Punjab decided on 15 July, 1975

Equivalent citations: reported in 1975 AIR 1727, 1976 SCR (1) 27, AIR 1975

SUPREME COURT 1727, 1976 (1) SCWR 211, 1976 (1) SCR 27, 1975 ALLCRIC 273, 1975 CURLJ 595, (1975) 4 SCC 497, 1975 SCC(CRI) 571 wherein the Lord ship of Hon’ble Supreme Court Bench observed that :- “Where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent. It with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistic expert, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit entire case. In

Mohinder Singh v. The State(1) this Court observed in similar circumstances as follows:

"In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which and in the manner in which they are alleged to have been caused. It is elementary that where the prosecution has a definite or positive case, it is doubtful whether the injuries which are attributed to the appellant were caused by a gun or by a rifle."

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 24

It is obvious that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. While appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, the

High Court does not appear to have considered this important aspect, but readily accepted the prosecution case without noticing that the evidence of the eye witnesses in the Court was a belated”.

With great respect and honour, the facts mentioned in the above judgment and the facts of the present judgment are not one and the same.

42. Having scrutinized the evidence on record and in view of reasons stated supra, this court finds that there is any amount of doubt with regard to the version advanced by the prosecution, in such a case this court finds that it is a fit case to exercise the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Therefore, this court finds that basing on the evidence on record it is highly difficult to come to conclusion that the prosecution established to prove that the accused intend to kill the PW.6 and threaten the PW.6 with dire-consequences. Accordingly, the points 1 and 2 are answered.

43. Point: No.3:

In view of this court findings on points 1 and 2 discussed supra, this court finds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charge U/Scs.307, 506 IPC.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 25

44.In the result, accused is not found guilty for the charge under

Secs.307, 506 IPC, accordingly he is acquitted of the charge under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C./ under section 258 (1) of BNSS Act. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for further period of six (6) months from the date of Judgment as per Section 437-A Cr.P.C.Cr.P.C / section 481 of BNSS Act.

M.O.1-Broken Thumbsup bottle pieces, M.O.2-Blood stained clothes (Dark red colour full hands shirt with blood stains, blue colour jeans pant, the non valuable items of property in CPR.No.16/2024 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of the time to prefer appeal.

M.O.1-Broken Thumbsup bottle pieces, M.O.2-Blood stained clothes (Dark red colour full hands shirt with blood stains blue colour jeans pant are forwarded to (Committal Court) the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class

Court, Piduguralla, for carrying out the order of the disposal of the case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 02 nd day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1: Jangiti Srinivasarao

PW.2: Dadinaboina Amaralingeswara Rao.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 26

PW.3: Vaddempudi Srinivasarao

PW.4: Vaddempudi Yedukondalu

PW.5: Dadinaboina Lakshmanudu

PW.6: Dadinaboina Ramudu.

PW.7: Dadinaboina Naga Bhavani

PW.8: Dadinaboina Kasaiah

PW.9: Dadinaboina Srividya.

PW.10 Bandaru Naga Gopi.

PW.11 Dr.V.Gopi Krishna

PW.12 A.Surendra Babu, Inspector of Police, Piduguralla P.S.

FOR DEFENCE: NONE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P2: Scene observation Report.

Ex.P3: Wound certificate of PW.6/Dadinaboina Ramudu.

Ex.P4: Written report of Dadinaboina Sambaiah/LW.1.

Ex.P5: First Information Report in Cr.No.499/2019 of Piduguralla P.S.

Ex.P6: Rough sketch.

Ex.P7: Police proceedings, dt.22.11.2019.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Broken Thumbs-up bottle pieces. (kept in cardboard box)

M.O.2: Blood stained clothes (Dark red colour full hands shirt with blood stains, blue colour jeans pant)

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GURAZALA

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000 27

Copy submitted to: -

1. The Hon'ble Registrar [Judl.] High Court of Judicature, Nelapadu, through Prl. District Sessions Judge, Guntur.

2. The Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Guntur.

Copy to: -

1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Piduguralla

2. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural District

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.02 16:46:17 +0000

1

APGU0B0002852012

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: GURAZALA

Present :- Y.S RINIVASA R AO,

Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurazala

Thursday, this the 16th day of April, 2026

O.S.No. 368/2012

Between: -

1. Chintamalla Peda Yesu Mani

2. Chintamalla China Yesu Mani

3. Gorremutchu Dayamma @ Jayamma. … Plaintiffs

And

1. Melam Yesobu @ Kasaiah and Yusaf (died)

2. Melam Koteswaramma.

3. Melam Prasanth

4. Melam Syam

5. Ekula Sudharani (Defendants No:2 to 5 are L.Rs of deceased 1 st defendant added as per the orders, dt.04-11-2024 in I.A. No.251/2018)

...Defendants

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on 17.03.2026 in the presence of Sri Ch.Rami Reddy and Smt. N.Syamala Devi, Advocates for

Plaintiffs, Sri J.Chennakesava Rao, Advocate for Defendants 2 to 5; Defendant

No.1 died; and after having heard and stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following: -

J D G M E N T

This is a original suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four (4) equal shares and to

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 2 allot three such shares to the plaintiffs 1 to 3 by metes and bounds with good and bad qualities and for separate possession to the plaintiffs and for mean profits, and for costs of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the Neat copy of the Plaint, are as follows:-

Originally, the plaint schedule properties belonged to one Melam

Mariyamma, wife of Ananda Rao. She inherited the property through her mother

Santhamma as her legal heir, who died intestate on 24-07-1996. The said

Santhamma has no sons and daughters except this Mariyamma i.e. the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs and 1st defendant are the children of Mariyamma. Mariyamma died intestate on 08-10-2010 leaving behind her the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the 1st defendant as her legal heirs. The schedule properties are derived to them and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and the 1st defendant not co-operating for partition of the same. Since the date of death of the mother of the plaintiffs, they demanded the 1st defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties personally and through mediators. But, the 1st defendant postponed the partition of the plaint schedule properties from time to time on some pretext or the other. The plaintiffs also got issued a legal notice to the 1st defendant on 08.11.2010 and also dt.23-12-2011, calling upon him to co- operate for partition of the plaint schedule properties in four equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiffs 1 to 3, but in vain. And the 1st defendant given false and evasive reply notice, 09.02.2012. Moreover, the 1st defendant is trying to fabricate collusive, sham and nominal documents to alienate the plaint schedule properties in favour of others to gain unlawfully and to cause loss to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died intestate on 05.09.2017 leaving behind the defendants 2 to 5 as his legal heirs, hence the defendants 2 to 5 are entitled for the share of the 1st

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 3 defendant equally and hence they were impleaded as proper and necessary parties to the suit.

3.The deceased 1 st defendant filed written statement by denying other allegations except the relationship among the parties and it is contended that the 1st defendant is brought up by late Santhamma and the 1st defendant was given Item No:1 of the plaint schedule properties by way oral gift to the knowledge of the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant has performed the marriages of the plaintiffs 2 and 3 and has given

Rs.15,000/- and a gold ring each towards dowry and presentations. The 1st plaintiff was aged about 43 years and she got married long back and she has taken share by way of cash from the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and relinquished her rights. All the mentioned transactions are oral and no documents are executed as the 1st defendant is the only the male member of the family. This 1st defendant has performed his duties and looked after the welfare of the plaintiffs with love and affection till today. The plaintiffs were given some gold ornaments belonging to Mariyamma i.e. the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant subsequent to her death.

Further submitted that the Item No:1 of the schedule property is the absolute property of the defendant as per the oral gift made by the late

Santhamma and the Revenue authorities recognized his title and possession over the Item No:1 of the plaint schedule properties and issued pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour and he has been paying land revenue regularly. Except this defendant, none other has got any right and title and possession over the Item No:1 of the plaint schedule properties.

Further submitted that late Santhamma has executed an un- registered Will, dt.14-01-1995 and bequeathed Acs.1-72 cents out of Acs.3-72 cents in Item No:2 of the plaint schedule properties to this defendant and

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 4 bequeathed Acs.2-00 cents to the mother of the plaintiffs and the this defendant. The mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant has sold away

Acs.2.00 cents to one Melam Venkateswarlu about ten years back and as such, the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share in the Item No:2 of the plaint schedule properties and the said Melam Venkateswarlu is the proper and necessary party to the suit.

Further submitted that the Item No:3 of the plaint schedule properties was sold by the mother of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant to one

Ponnam Rama Swamy about more than 15 years black and subsequently the said Ponnam Rama Swamy has sold the same to one Talluri Amarnath. As such, either the plaintiffs or the defendant have no right over the Item No:3 of the plaint schedule properties and the said Talluri Amarnath is the proper and necessary party to the suit.

Further submitted that the deceased 1st defendant has purchased the Item No:4 of the plaint schedule properties for a valid consideration from one Pagidipalli Marthamma @ Peramma and her son Rama Chandra Rao under agreement of sale dt. 25-04-1996 and item No:4 of the plaint schedule properties is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs have no right to claim any share in the Item No:4 of the plaint schedule properties.

It is further submitted that the father of the plaintiffs and this defendant and his brother Melam Venkateswarlu partitioned Acs.0-13 cents in

Item No:5 of the plaint schedule properties i.e. each Acs.0-6½cents. The said

Melam Venkateswarlu has sold Acs.0-05 cents to one MotamarriYelesu, S/o

Lazarus long back and this defendant has purchased Acs. 0-1 ½ cents from the Melam Venkateswarly under agreement of sale dt. 02-12-2009. The share devolved to the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant was presented to the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant by him orally. The mother of the

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 5 plaintiffs and the defendant has given the same to this defendant by way of oral gift to the knowledge of the plaintiffs.

Further submitted that the claim of the plaintiffs is illusive and there is no iota of truth in the averments of the Plaint and the plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties and there is no joint family in existence and there are no properties left for partition and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the plaint schedule properties.

The fact remains is that the 1st plaintiff has cultivated the Item No:1 of the plaint schedule properties as a tenant about five years back and evaded lease Amount to this defendant, Because of that, the disputes arose between the 1st plaintiff and this defendant. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 are motivated by the 1st plaintiff and all of them conspired together and hatched up a plan to grab the property of this defendant. The fact remains is that this defendant has executed a registered gift deed bearing No:177/11 dt. 13-01-2011 in favour of his sons pertaining to Item No:1 of the plaint schedule properties. This defendant has executed a gift deed bearing No:208/11 dt.18-01-2011 in favour of to his wife pertaining to Acs.1-72 cents (Part of Item No:2 of the plaint schedule properties) which was acquired by this defendant under the Will executed by grand mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant, dt.14-01-1995.

It is humbly submitted that Melam Venkateswarlu, Talluri Amarnath and the wife of the deceased 1st defendant and the children of the defendant are proper and necessary parties to the suit. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the plaint schedule properties and they are not entitled for any share in the plaint schedule properties.

Finally, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 6

4.Defendants 2 to 5 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendant No.1.

5.Considering the pleadings and on hearing both sides, the following issues are settled for trial : -

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are liable for partition into equal shares among plaintiffs and defendant?

2. Whether the oral partition of suit schedule properties had taken place among plaintiffs and defendant ?

3. Whether Item No. 1 of suit schedule property is absolute property of the defendant ?

4. Whether Item No.2 of suit schedule property was sold to one Melam Venkateswarlu by maternal grand mother of plaintiffs?

5. Whether Item no. 3 of suit schedule property was sold to Ponnam Rama Swamy and subsequently to one Talluri Amaranadh by the mother of plaintiffs?

6. Whether Item No. 4 of suit schedule property is self acquired property of the defendant?

7. Whether Item No.5 of suit schedule property was gifted to the defendant by oral gift?

8. Whether the suit is hit by non joinder of necessary parties?

9. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?

10. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of defendants DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were got marked.

7.Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8.It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the deceased 1st defendant are the children of one Melam Mariyamma. The defendants 2 to 5

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 7 are legal heirs of deceased 1st defendant by name Melam Yesobu @ Kasaiah.

Originally, the plaint schedule properties belongs to one Santhamma, the

Santhamma died and the said Santhamma has no sons and daughters except

Mariyamma.

9.Issue No.8: Whether the suit is hit by non-joinder of necessary parties?

It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that

Melam Venkateswarlu, Talluri Amarnath are proper and necessary parties to the suit for effective adjudication of the matter. It is further contended by the counsel for the defendants that the item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was sold by the mother of the plaintiffs and the deceased 1st defendant to one

Ponnam Rama Swamy about more than 15 years back and subsequently the said Ponnam Rama Swamy has sold the same to one Thalluri Amarnath and said Thalluri Amarnath is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Since,

Melam Venkateswarlu and Thalluri Amarnath are not added as party to the suit, as such suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

10. The same pleadings were taken in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant an issue was also framed, the plaintiffs did not file any application by adding Melam Venkateswarlu and Thalluri Amarnath.During the course of trial, the 1st defendant died on 05.09.2017, the legal representatives and the wife of 1st defendant added as party as per the orders in I.A.251/2018,

dt. 04-11-2024.

11. The PW.1-Chintamalla Peda Yesumani herself examined as

PW.1. During the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that

Melam Venkateswarlu sold the land an extent of Ac.0.05 cents out of Ac.0.6 ½ cents to one Motamarri Yelesu, son of Lazarus and she further admitted that defendant No.1 purchased Ac. 0-1 ½ cents from Melam Venkateswarlu under

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 8 agreement of sale, dt.02.12.2009. In the present case, the plea of the defendant is that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties.

Eventhough, the 1st defendant categorically mentioned in his written statement about the names of non-joinder parties by name Melam Venkateswarlu and

Thalluri Amarnath, the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary parties. All the parties shall be bring on record for proper effective adjudication, hence suit is not maintainable. As such, this issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NOs. 1 to 7 and 9:

12. All these Issues are clubbed together for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition and redundancy in discussion.

13.The burden lies on the plaintiffs to prove the above issues by adducing the evidence.

14.It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and defendant No.1 are the children's of the Melam

Mariyamma, Mariyamma died on 08.10.2010 leaving behind the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant No.1 are the legal heirs of

Mariyamma. The plaintiffs demanded the 1st defendant for partition for partition of plaint schedule properties personally and through mediators, but the 1st defendant postponed the partition of the plaint schedule properties from time to time on some pretext or the other. The plaintiffs, who are the daughters of the

Mariyamma demanded the 1st defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties into four equal shares and to allotted three shares to the plaintiffs

No.1 to 3 each and one such share to the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the plaintiffs got issued legal notices and filed the suit into the court.

15. Whereas the contentions of the defendants are that all the plaint schedule properties belongs to the Usthala Santhamma. The counsel for the defendantsfurther argued that 1st defendant is brought up by late

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 9

Santhamma. The Santhamma gave item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant by way of oral gift, the said fact known to the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has performed marriages of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and has gave Rs.15,000/- and gold ring each towards dowry at their marriages. And further argued that the 1st plaintiff is aged about 43 years and she got married long back and she has taken share by way of cash from the mother of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and relinquished her right. And further argued that the late Santhamma executed un-registered

Will dt.14.01.1995 and bequeathing the Ac.1.72 cents out of Ac.3.72 cents in item No.2 of plaint schedule properties to the 1st defendant and bequeathing the Ac. 2.00 cents to the mother of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant and the mother of the plaints and 1st defendant sold away Ac.2-00 of land to Melam

Venkateswarlu about ten years back and further argued that the item No.3 of the plaint schedule property was sold by the mother of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant to Ponnam Rama Swamy about more than 15 years back and subsequently the Ponnam Rama swamy has sold the same to the Thalluri

Amarnath.

16.The defendants counsel further argued that the 1st defendant has purchased item No.4 of the plaint schedule property for valid consideration from one Pagidipalli Marthamma and her son Ramachandra Rao under agreement of sale dt.25.04.1996, hence the item No.4 of the plaint schedule property is self acquired property of the 1st defendant. And further argued that the father of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and his brother Melam

Venkateswarlu partitioned the Ac. 0.13 cents in item No.5 of the plaint schedule property i.e. each Ac.0.6 ½ cents. The said Melam Venkateswarlu has sold Ac.

Ac.0.05 cents to the one Motamarri Yelesu, son of Lazarus. And further argued that the 1st defendant purchased Ac.0-1½ cents from one Melam Venkateswarlu under agreement of sale dt. 02.12.2009. And argued that the plaintiffs have no right and title to ask partition of the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiffs are nothing to do with the properties.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 10

17.Having taking into consideration of oral evidence of PW.1 and

PW.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs and DWs. 1 to 4 on behalf of the defendants coupled with Ex.A1 to A6 documents on behalf of the plaintiffs and Exs.B1 to

B7 documents on behalf of the defendants.

18.The pleadings of the defendants shows that the father of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant and his brother Melam Venkateswarlu partitioned the land an extent of Ac. 0-13 cents of item No.5 of plaint schedule property, the father of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and his brother Melam

Venkateswarlu got land an extent of Ac.0-6½ cents each, both of them got their respective shares.

19.The 1st plaintiff examined as PW.1, she reiterated the contents of her Plaint pleadings. During the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that she has no document to show that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties. The plaintiffs filed Exs.A1 to A6 . On perusal of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, the plaintiffs got issued legal notices, dt.08.11.2010 and 23.12.2011 to the 1st defendant for partition of the plaint schedule properties. Ex.A3 is reply notice got issued by the 1st defendant, dt.09.02.2012, Ex.A4 is death certificate dt.20.05.2012 of Usthela Santhamma, Ex.A5 is death certificate, dt.24.04.2012 of Melam Mariyamma and it is not disputed one about the Exs.A4 and A5 and

Ex.A6 is the valuation certificate, dt.10.09.2012.

20.The 2ndplaintiff by name Chintamalla China Yesumani got examined as PW.2, she reiterated the contents of her pleadings. During the course of cross-examination she categorically admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment over the plaint schedule properties and she further admitted that land an extent of Ac.0.6½ cents came from her father’s side. The learned counsel for the defendants put suggestion to the witness that plaintiffs have no right to ask the

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 11 partition over item No.5 of plaint schedule properties as itemNo.5 of Plaint schedule propertywere already partitioned, the same is got denied it.

21.According to the defendants, Usthela Santhamma gave item No.1 of the plaint schedule property to the 1st defendant by way of oral gift.

22.The Usthenla Santhamma died intestate leaving behind the mother of the plaintiffs and 1st defendant. Usthela Santhamma died on 24.07.1996. While Usthela Santhamma was in a sound and disposing state of mind, she executed testimonitary dispossession of her assets under Ex.B1 Will dt.28.04.1994in favour of the Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu (D1) for item No.1 of the plaint schedule property and she executed another Will i.e. Ex.B2 Will dt.14.01.1995 executed by one Usthela Santhamma, wife of Yesobu in favour of

Melam Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu in respect of item No.2.

Subsequently, she died in the year 1996. The Wills executed by Usthela

Santhamm became acted upon and the beneficiary under the Wills are Melam

Yesobu and Melam Mariyamma, they got right, title and possession over the properties of Usthela Santhamma and they enjoyed the properties of their respective shares and the defendant No.1 died on 05.09.2017.

23.Subsequently, defendants 2 to 5 became the legal heirs of Melam

Yesobu. They inducted into the possession and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. To substantiate the contentions of Defendants, the defendant No.2 is wife of Melam Yesobu examined as DW.1 and she obtained registered gift deed, dt.18.01.2011 document bearing No.208/2011 executed by defendant No.1 in her favour. Ex.B4 is certified copy of Registered gift deed, dt.13.01.2011 document bearing No.177/2011 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants 3 and 4 and the defendants 2 to 4 got title over the properties and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 12 properties. Melam Mariyamma died on 08.10.2010, the plaintiffs are succeeding the properties of Melam Mariyamma.

24. One Geeda Gurava Reddy is examined as DW.4. He testified that his son i.e Geeda Saida Reddy who is working as Government Teacher at

Brahmanapalli village of Piduguralla Mandal purchased the land an extent of

Ac:2-00 cents from Usthela Santhamma and Melam Yesobu about eight years back and he is cultivating the said land. The said land is under possession and enjoyments of his son, as he is an employee, on his behalf he is cultivating the said land.

25.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs cross-examined DW.4 and during the course of cross-examination, he stated that his son purchased land an extent of A.C.2.00 of land under register sale deed. About eight years ago his son purchased the land. Ustela Santhamma is grand mother of defendant

No.1. The said Santhamma is no more, she died nearly four to five years ago.

On perusal of testimony of DW.4 is not believable because, Usthela

Santhamma died in the year 1996 and she executed Will dt.14.01.1995 bequeathing her properties in favour of Melam Mariyamma and her son Melam

Yesobu.

26.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule properties are joint family properties of the Usthela Santhamma. The same is denied by the defendants. However, the plaintiffs did not produce scrap of paper to show that the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties.

Usthela Santhamma executed two Wills, first Will dt.28.04.1994 executed by

Pusthela Santhamma, wife of Yesobu in favour of the Melam Kasaiah @

Yesobu in respect of the item No.1, the same is marked as Ex.B1 and second will, dt.14.01.1995 executed by one Pusthela Santhamma, wife of Yesobu in favour of the Melam Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah in respect of item No.2.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 13

27.It is just and necessary to refer provision of law under

sections 68 and 69 of Indian Evidence Act / Sections 67 and 68 of

Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023 .

Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act:- “Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, mandates that if a document must legally be attested (like a will or mortgage), at least one attesting witness must be called to prove its execution if they are alive and capable of testifying. A key exception exists for registered documents (except wills), which do not require an attesting witness unless the execution is specifically denied.”

Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act:- “Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides a mechanism for proving a document that requires attestation (like a will) when no attesting witness can be found. It applies when witnesses are dead, incapable, or cannot be traced, allowing the document to be proven by proving the handwriting of at least one attesting witness and the signatory.”

28.It is just and necessary to see whether there are any suspicious circumstances under which the documents i.e. the first Will dt.28.04.1994 executed by Usthela Santhamma wife of Yesobu in favour of the Melam

Kasaiah @ Yesobu in respect of the item No.1, and second Will, dt. 14.01.1995 executed by one Usthela Santhamma wife of Yesobu in favour of the Melam

Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah in respect of item No.2.

29. The first Will dt.28.04.1994 executed by Usthela Santhamma and it is unregistered Will prepared on conquest paper. Usthela Santhamma while she was in sound and disposing state of mind executed the document bequeathing her immovable property in favour of her only daughter Melam

Mariyamma and son of Mariyamma by name Melam Yesobu.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 14

30.The second Will dt.14.01.1995 executed by Usthela Santhamma, wife of Yesobu in favour of the Melam Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah in respect of item No.2,it was prepared on white papers. According to the evidence of DW.2-Dodda Ravindra Babu, son of Venkateswarlu testified thathe knows the signature of his father Dodda Venkateswarlu. His father died on 20- 01-2025. His father singed as an attester on a Will dated 28-04-1994 executed by one Pusthela Santhamma who is resident of Pinnelli village. His father also attested as second attestor on the Will. The said will is marked as Ex.B1 in this suit and he can identify the signature of his father on the said Will.

31.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs cross-examined DW.2 and during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know the property particulars mentioned in the Will dt.28-04-1994/Ex.B.1. He has documentary evidence to show his father signature and he can file the document before this court pertaining to signature of his father. The counsel for the Plaintiffs put suggestion to the witness that the Ex.B1 is forged and created one and the signature of his father on Ex.B.1 was also created one, the same is got denied it.

32.The learned counsel for the Plaintiffs cross-examined DW.3 and during the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he cannot say the age of the Ustela Santhamma by the time of execution of the Will. He cannot say the date of execution of Will. The witness says that he does not remember the date. The Will was executed on two white papers. The Ex.B.2 was scribed by

Kolasi Suryanarayana Master house. Suryanarayana Master house is situated at Pinneli village. At the time of execution of Ex.B.2 himself Amaranath, scribe,

Santhamma and her daughter were present. The scribe read over the contents of Ex.B.2 to him. As per Ex.B.2 the Mariyamma got the land an extent of

A.C.2.00 of land, and grand son by name Yesobu got an extent of A.C.1.70 cents. The counsel for the Plaintiffs put suggestion to the witness that Ustela

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 15

Santhamma died without executing any Will, the Mariyamma succeeded the properties of Ustela Santhamma and Mariyamma died, her daughters asked the share over the plaint schedule properties, due to which created the Ex.B.2 and defendant No.1 created the Revenue records on the basis of the EX.B.2, the same is got denied it.

33. DW.3-Boya Nageswara Rao is one of the witness to the Will, he categorically deposed that in his presence the Ex.B2 was scribed and he attested the Ex.B2/Will dt.14.01.1995 in Ex.B2 the Will itself mentioned that the age of Usthela Santhamma is 65 years and her husband died and she has only one daughter by name Melam Mariyamma and she has no male issues and she has executed Will B2 in favour of Melam Mariyamma and son of

Mariyamma by name Melam Yesobu, hope that her daughter can attend to her needs and welfare and medical needs at her old age.

34. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the Ex.B1 and

B2 are forged Wills. Ex.B2 discloses that one Usthela Santhamma is resident of Pinnelli village of Machavaram Mandal, she is aged about 65 years, She has no male issues. She has only daughter by name Melam Mariyamma, she is aged about 45 years. The said Mariyamma has one male issue by name

Yesobu, aged about 24 years. Since six months prior to the date of execution of Ex.B1, the said Usthela Santhamma has been suffering with Heart disease.

While she was suffering from ill health, her daughter Melam Mariyamma and her grand son Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu, who were with her and took good care of her and gave medicines at her old age. Hence, the said Usthela

Santhamma executed Ex.B2 Will in favour of Melam Mariyamma to an extent of Ac.2-00 cents of land and to an extent of Ac.1-72 cents of land in favour of

Melam Yesobu in the sound and disposing state of mind and kept the same. No one has the authority to cancel or change the Will/ Ex.B2.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 16

35.It is no doubt while narrating the true facts, the onus of proof lies on the propounders of the Will. The propounder of the Will is Melam Yesobu (D1), who died on 05.09.2017 after filing of the suit. Since the defendants 2 to 5 are the legal representatives of propounder and they relied upon un- registered Wills, it is for them to establish the execution of Wills and to eliminate the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Wills. Here, it can be seen there are two attestors to the Ex.B1 document. This court perused D2 to D5 to establish the execution of Wills/Exs.B1 and B2 as required under section 68 of

Indian Evidence Act / Under Section 67 of the BSA Act (Bharathiya Sakshi

Adhiniyam, 2023) and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, atleast one of the attestor to be examined. In the present case, the 1st attestor by name Boya

Nageswara Rao, son of Kotaiah of Ex.B2 Will dt.14.01.1995 examined as DW.3 and categorically deposed about the execution of the Ex.B2.

36. The first attestor of Ex.B1 Will, dt.28.04.1994 by name

Gujjarlapudi Krupanandam and the second attestor of Ex.B1 by name Dodda

Venkateswarlu are no more. To identify the signature of second attestor of

Ex.B1, his son Dodda Ravindra Babu, who examined as DW.2 (Dodda

Ravindra Babu). As such, DW.2-Dodda Ravindra Babu, son of Dodda

Venkateswarlu is examined to identify the signature of his father. The counsel for the plaintiffs is posed to DW.2 that no document is produced to show that

Dodda Venkateswarlu is no more. It is for him to establish that his father is no more as he came to the court to identify his signature.

37.DW.3-Boya Nageswara Rao alone examined to establish the

Ex.B2/Will, dt.14.01.1995, his evidence goes to show that on 14.01.1995

Usthela Santhamma executed Will in favour of Melam Mariyamma and Melam

Yesobu. The said Santhamma executed Will with sound and disposing state of mind. As per the Will, dt.14.01.1995/Ex.B2 executed ‘A’ schedule property in favour of her daughter Melam Mariyamma an extent of Ac.2-00, out of Ac.3-72

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 17 cents, ‘B’ schedule property in favour of her grand son Melam Yesobu an extent of Ac.1-72 cents. The said Will dt.14.01.1995 was scribed by one Kolavasi

Suryanarayana Sarma and attested by one Talluri Amarnath. DW.3 identified his signature on Ex.B2/Will dt.dt.14.01.1995.

38.On close scrutiny of DW.3 that Usthela Santhamma executed

Ex.B2 Will and descriptive particulars of the property possessed by Usthela

Santhamma was given in the Will / Ex.B2. The Ac.2-00 cents of land given to her daughter by name Melam Mariyamma and Ac.1-72 cents of land given to her grand son by name Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu.

39.Admittedly, a Will does not require any registration and there is no need or necessity to write the will on Non-Judicial stamp. It can be written on white paper subject to provisions of under section 68 of Indian Evidence

Act / under section 67 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam Act, 2023 and under section63 of Indian Succession Act. However, it is for the propounders to establish that document is executed voluntarily with free volination and the testatrix was in sound and in disposing state of mind over her dispossession of her property. In the present case, Usthela Santhamma executed Ex.B1 and

Ex.B2 in favour of her daughter Melam Mariyamma and her grand son by name

Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu. Usthela Santhamma has no male issues, she executed the Ex.B1 and B2 in favour of Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu and Melam

Mariyamma.

40. It is no doubt DW.3-Boya Nageswara Rao is one of the attestor of

Ex.B2 Will, dt.14.01.1995 and DW.2-Dodda Ravindra Babu is identified the signature of his father by name Dodda Venkateswarlu on Ex.B1/Will, dt.28.04.1994. Hence, the evidence of DWs.2 and 3 is consisting, corroborating and trustworthy to believe the evidence on record to establish the execution of

Exs.B1 and B2 Wills by the propounders of said two Wills i.e. Ex.B1 is Un- registered Will, dt. 28-04-1994 executed by one Pusthela Santhamma, wife of

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 18

Yesobu in favour of Melam Kasaiah @ Yesobu in respect of Item No.1 and

Ex.B2 is un-registered Will dt.14-01-1995 executed by one Pusthela

Santhamma,W/o Yesobu in favour of Melam Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah in respect of item No.2.

41.It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the schedule mentioned properties are joint possession properties, the same is got denied by the defendants. To prove that facts, the plaintiffs did not file single piece of documents to show that item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties are joint possession properties. The plaintiffs failed to establish the item Nos. 1 to 5 of the plaint schedule properties are joint possession properties of plaintiffs and defendants.

42. In view of the above discussion made supra, this court finds that the property shown in the schedule are not the joint family properties and the plaintiffs are failed to establish their case for grant of decree and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. Hence, the issues 1 to 7 and 9 are answered accordingly.

43.Issue No.10: To what relief:

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court this the 16 th day of April, 2026.

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GURAZALA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

For Plaintiffs: PW.1:Chintamalla Peda Yesumani

PW.2:Chintamalla China Yesumani

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 19

For Defendants: DW.1:Melam Koteswaramma

DW.2:Dodda Ravindera Babu

DW.3:Boya Nageswara Rao

DW.4:Geeda Gurava Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A1:Office copy of legal notice, dated 13-10-2010 sent by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant.

Ex.A2:Office copy of legal notice, dated 23-12-2011 sent by the plaintiffs to the 1st defendant for partition of joint family properties.

Ex.A3:Reply notice got issued by 1st defendant, dated 09-02-2012 through their counsel to the counsel of plaintiffs.

Ex.A4:Death certificate, dated 20-05-2012 of Ustela Santamma.

Ex.A5:Death certificate, dated 24-04-2012 of Melam Mariyamma

Ex.A6:Valuation certificate of schedule property issued by SRO, Piduguralla, dt.10.09.2012.

For Defendants: Ex.B1: Un-registered Will dt. 28-04-1994 executed by one Pusthela Santhamma, W/o Yesobu in favour of Melam Kasaiah@Yesobu in respect of Item No.1.

Ex.B2: Un-registered Will dt.14-01-1995 executed by one Pusthela Santhamma, W/o Yesobu in favour of Melam Mariyamma and Melam Kasaiah in respect of item No.2.

Ex.B3: Certified copy of Registered Gift deed, dt. 18-01-2011 document bearing no.208/2011 executed by one Melam Kasaiah in favour of defendant No.2.

Ex.B4: Certified copy of Registered Gift deed, dt.13-01-2011 document bearing no.177/2011 executed by Melam Kasaiah in favour of Melam Prasanth and Melam Syam.

Ex.B5: Certified copy of I-B issued in favour of one Geeda Saida Reddy, S/o Gurava Reddy, dt. 10-09-2025 in respect of item No.2 (Part of A.C.2.00 of land.)

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530 20

Ex.B6: Certified copy of adangal issued infavour of Geeda Saida Reddy, S/o Gurava Reddy, dt. 10-09-2025 in respect of item No.2. (Part of A.C.2.00) obtained through mee-seva

Ex.B7: House tax receipt issued by Grama panchayat Authority issued by Pinnelli village in favour of Melam Kasaiah for item No.4 of the suit schedule property.

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GURAZALA

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.16 16:21:01 +0530

APGU0B0003102025

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) :: GURAZALA

PRESENT:- S RI Y. S RINIVASA R AO

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), GURAZALA

Tuesday, this the 31st day of March, 2026

H.M.OP.No. 164/2025

Between :

Ancha Koteswara Rao S/o. Narasimha Rao, Hindu, aged 34 Years, Cultivation, Rio. Sivalayan Street, Morjampadu … Petitioner Village, Machavaram Mandal, Palnadu District

And

Ancha Srilatha, W/o. Koteswara Rao, D/o. Nallabothu Saidaiah, Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o. Near Brahmamgari temple, Suddagunthala Bazar, Piduguralla town & Mandal, … Respondent Palnadu District.

This petition is coming on 06-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Smt. N.Syamala Devi, Sri M. Srinivasa Rao and G.Pallavi

Advocates for Petitioner; Respondent remained exparte and having stood over the matter for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following: -

O R D E R

This is an H.M.O.P filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 27.10.2012.

The brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

2.The petitioner submits that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 27-10-2012 at Morjampadu village of Machavaram Mandal as per

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.03.31 16:55:03 +0530 2

Hindu rites and customs in the presence of elders and relatives of both sides. After the marriage, the respondent joined the petitioner at the matrimonial home and the marriage was consummated. Out of their wedlock, they were blessed with a son by name Sathwik and a daughter by name Jashwani.

3.He further submits that from the inception of the marriage, the respondent was of adamant nature and indifferent attitude, and she did not care

for the petitioner and his parents. She used to give evasive replies, humiliate the

petitioner in front of others stating that he is an agriculturist, neglect household responsibilities, pick up quarrels without any reason and abuse the petitioner in filthy language, thereby causing mental agony to him. The respondent frequently left the matrimonial home and stayed at her parental house without any valid reason. The petitioner further submits that the respondent insisted upon setting up a separate residence at Piduguralla to lead a luxurious life and, on refusal, she used to taunt and harass the petitioner. In the year 2014, she picked up a quarrel with the mother of the petitioner and allegedly manhandled her, and when questioned, she abused the petitioner and called her parents, who came and took her along with their son to her parental village. The petitioner submits that despite efforts through village elders for reconciliation and issuance of legal notice dated 26-12-2014, the respondent failed to join the matrimonial home. He also approached the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, but the respondent did not cooperate. The respondent further lodged a criminal case under Section 498-A

IPC against the petitioner and his parents, and also initiated proceedings in DVC and maintenance cases, compelling the petitioner and his parents to attend Court for several years.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.03.31 16:55:03 +0530 3

4.It is further stated that in the year 2018, on intervention of elders, the disputes were compromised and the respondent rejoined the petitioner, and thereafter they were blessed with a daughter. However, the respondent again continued her conduct of frequently leaving the matrimonial home, leading to several panchayats. Even after the petitioner set up a separate residence on rent as demanded, the respondent stayed only for a short period and again left the petitioner. The petitioner took several rented houses, but the respondent repeatedly deserted him and continued to humiliate and harass him. The petitioner further submits that in August 2024, he joined work at a cement factory at

Karempudi and set up residence there, but the respondent again left the matrimonial home along with the children without informing him and went to her parental house. Despite repeated mediations and requests by the petitioner and elders, the respondent refused to rejoin him and has been living separately without any reasonable cause.

5.It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent and her parents have been insulting and humiliating him, and the respondent has openly expressed her unwillingness to continue the marital relationship and threatened to implicate him in further cases. All efforts for reunion have failed, and the conduct of the respondent has caused severe mental cruelty to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner seeks dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.Hence this petition.

6.After registering the O.P., notice to the respondent were returned as refused. Respondent called absent. Even no representation on behalf of respondent. Hence the respondent was set ex-parte.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.03.31 16:55:03 +0530 4

7.To prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1, and got marked Exs.P1 & P2, in which Ex.P1 is the wedding card of the petitioner and respondent and Ex.P2 is the Marriage photograph (one) of the petitioner and respondent. The respondent did not adduce any evidence on her behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point for consideration is:-

Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 27.10.2012 ?

10.Perused the petition and material on record.

P O I N T : -

11.PW.1 reiterated the petition averments in his chief examination affidavit filed in lieu of the chief-examination. He marked Exs.P1 and P2 in support of his case. The testimony of PW.1 was not cross-examined the testimony of PW.1 is unchallenged. Hence, this Court has no option except believing the evidence of PW.1 since there is no rival contention from the respondent. It is settled law that the facts stated in the chief-examination, which are not denied or disputed in the cross examination are deemed to be admitted. Admission is the best evidence, admitted facts need not be proved as per Sec.58 of the Indian

Evidence Act. The evidence of PW.1 and Exs.P1 and P2 establish the case of the petitioner.

12.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the evidence let in and for the foregoing reasons, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent solemnized on 27.10.2012. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.03.31 16:55:03 +0530 5

13.In the result, the H.M.O.P. is allowed without costs, granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 27.10.2012

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this 31 st day of March, 2026.

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GURAZALA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER : FOR RESPONDENT :

PW.1: Ancha Koteswara Rao None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER :

Ex.P1: Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P2: Marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent (one)

FOR RESPONDENT : - N I L -

Digitally signed by Y.Srinivasa Rao

CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION),

GURAZALA.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.03.31 16:55:03 +0530

1

APGU0B0000982026

In the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) :: Gurazala

Present:- Sri Y.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge(Senior Division),Gurazala

Thursday, this the 9th day of April,2026

HMOP No. 56/2026

Between::

Arvapalli @ Sudaa Jayalaxmi w/o Ravi Teja, Hindu, aged about 30...Petitioner

years, House wife, presently residing at her parents house Tangeda village of Dachepalli mandal Gurazala jcj; Palnadu dist..

and

Arvapalli Ravi Teja s/o Venkata Narayana; Hindu; aged about 32...Respondent

years; employee, Santhamguluru village & mandal Prakasam dist.

This petition is coming on this day i.e., on 09-04-2026 before me for appearance of parties and consideration in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasa Rao,

Advocate for Petitioner; respondent called present, and upon hearing and considering the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following::

O R D E R

02. This petition is filed by the petitioner/ husband against the respondent/wife under

Sections 13 (1) (ia) (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and prays to pass a decree of divorce by dissolving his marriage dated 17-03-2023 with the respondent and for costs.

The brief averments of the petition as follows:-

03. It is humbly submitted that the Respondent is the husband of the Petitioner. Their marriage was solemnized on 17-3-2023, as per Hindu religious rites and caste customs at

T.T.D Kalyanamandapam in the Temple of Sri Laxminarsimha swamivari Temple in

Mattapalli,Nalgonda Dist, as it is near by the Petitioner's village. Immediately after marriage the Petitioner joined with the Respondent at Santhamanguluru. Both side parents arranged Nuption function but the petitioner stated to the Respondent that" I reluctantly

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.09 15:59:40 +0000 2 married you with the pressure of my parents, so I did not want to continue the marital life with you." The Respondent develop disliking towards petitioner and the petitioner used to maintain distance with Respondent, however the petitioner stayed with Respondent till 05-04-2023. On 05-04-2023 the Respondent stated that " If you are not interested to lead conjugal life with me you need not live in my house" and necked out petitioner from his house. The petitioner reached to her parents house. The petitioner parents send mediators for reunion of both of them. But there is no chance for reunion of them. As there is no hope of reunion to live together and as there is no hope of reunion even in future also, there is no hope of living together, the petitioner have constrained to file this application, for grant of Divorce, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners and Respondent. The petitioner remain stayed in her parents house since 05-04-2023. In mediation between both their parents. Hence, this petition.

04.Hence, prays to the Hon’ble court may be pleased grant a decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent performed on 17-03-2023 and for costs, in the interest of Justice.

05. Issue notice to the respondent and respondent called present.

Cause of action:- Cause of action for the petition arose on 17-3-2023 when the marriage of the both Petitioners was solemnized and later during their consortium no relationship developed between them and both they lived together for only one month and since 5 th

Apirl 2023 and when both the petitioner and respondent were living separately since 05- 04-2023 and subsequently parents also as there is no hope of reconciliation and the petitioner agreed willfully and voluntarily to dissolve the marriage, by way of divorce and at

Tangeda where the petitioner is residing, which is within the jurisdiction of this Honorable

Court.

06. Both parties are called present. The matter is referred to mediation center on 08-04-2026 and on the same day the matter returned to this court from mediation center.

07.Both the parties are filed memorandum of the agreement u/sec.89 CPC r/w 336 of

Civil procedure alternative disputes resolution and Civil procedure mediation rule 2005.

The terms of compromise as follows:-

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.09 15:59:40 +0000 3

1. Both parties agreed to dissolve their marriage held on 17.03.2023 which was held

at TTD Kalyana Mandapam, Mattapalli Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,

Mattapalli village, Mattapalli Mandal, Suryapet District, Telangana State.

2. The Respondent paid an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) to the petitioner towards permanent alimony.

3. The petitioner further agreed not to file any case against the respondent and his family members and his properties in future.

4. The petitioner further agreed not to claim maintenance case against the respondent and his family members in future.

5. The petitioner further agreed not to claim any right over the properties of respondent in future.

08.The petitioner and respondent put their signatures on memorandum of agreement, the counsel of the petitioner also put her signature on memorandum of the agreement.

09. This court received the HMOP from mediation center for passing appropriate orders. The both the parties are called present. This regular court passed the orders in

HMOP that both parties compromised each other and both are agreed to take divorce amicably. In view of the above terms of compromise. Hence, the HMOP is disposed accordingly.

10.In the result, HMOP is disposed duly ordering dissolution of marriage solemnized on 17-03-2023 held in between the petitioner and the respondent by way of decree of divorce as both parties compromised before mediation center and in the above said circumstances, without ordering any costs.

Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open

Court, this the 9th day of April,2026.

Digitally signed by Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Gurazala.

Appendix of Evidence

No documentary evidence adduced on either side.

Digitally signed by Sd/- Y.Srinivasa Rao

Civil Judge(Senior Division)

Gurazala.

Digitally Signed by

YALAMARTHI

YALAMARTHI SRINIVASARAO

SRINIVASARAODate: 2026.04.09 15:59:40 +0000