Ms. Yegi Janaki

Fair 1 CC.No.355 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: DHARMAPURI.

Friday the 28th day of November, 2025.

Present: Ms.YEGI JANAKI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

DHARMAPURI.

C.C.No.355 of 2022

(Old CC.No.1131 of 2018)

(Crime No.79 of 2018 of P.S., Buggaram) Between :-

The State of Telangana, represented through the Sub Inspector of Police,

Buggaram Police Station.

...Complainant

AND A.1 Salman Mohammad s/o Julekha Begam (Gouse Baba) 24-yrs, muslim r/o H. No. 8-4-6 Bellampalli-I town PS area dist Mancherial. (Abated)

A.3 Mohammad Taj Baba @ Raheem s/o Mahamma Gouse, 21-yrs, muslim r/o H No. 1-8-315 Maheboobnagar, Ramagundam, Peddapalli dist.

A.5 Khan Amjad Khan @ Babulu s/o Khan Hameed Khan, 38-yrs. Muslim r/o H. No. 3-150 Srirampur, near Hanman temple, dist Mancherial …Accused.

Section of Law:U/Secs.379 of I.P.C. Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the:Found not guilty Court Sentence or order:In the result, A3, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds furnished by the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time and the MO1 that was given towards the interim custody shall be made absolute after lapse of the appeal time.

* * *

Fair 2 CC.No.355 of 2022 This case coming before me on 26.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Rajesh, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.J.Ramesh, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The sub Inspector of police Buggaram has filed case against the accused persons under Cr.No.192 of 2018, U/s.379 IPC and filed charge sheet before this court.

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

On 06-10-2018 at 01:30 hrs at Aruntharam village and reported on 06-10-2018 at 01:30 hrs by the complainant Janga Narsaiah s/o Mallaiah, 65-yrs, Golla r/o Anantharm village, in which the accused A.1, JCL2, A3,

JC4 and A5 have committed theft of 4 sheep worth about Rs.12,000/- from the sheep shed belongs to the LW-1 and fled away with for wrongful gain,

The place of e of offence falls under the limits of PS Jagtial Rural and within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 06-10-2018 at 18:00 hrs the complainant Janga Narsaiah s/o

Mallaiah, 65-yrs, Golla to Anantharm village came to PS Jagtial-Rural and lodged a Telugu written complaint stating that, he is the resident of

Anantharam village and living by grazing sheep. He is having 35-sheep, As usual on 5-10-2108 at morning hours he went to grazing sheep, thereafter in the evening hours he returned back to house by leaving his sheep undo sheep shed by the side of road and slept away in the house. On 06-10- 2018 at about 01:30 hrs, when he hearing the shouts and bigger sounds from his sheep shed. He wokeup and rushed to sheep yard and found some Un-known offenders shifted his sheep in un-known vehicle, when he

Fair 3 CC.No.355 of 2022 raised hues and cries the fled away from there with his sheep along with vehicle. The offenders stolen away his four sheep worth Rs. 12,000/-. Due to unable to present anybody to hand over his remaining sheep to grazing and caused delayed in reporting the matter after handed over his sheep to another shepherd and he can identified the offenders when see again,

Finally he requested to take necessary action.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, the LW10/Ch.Sathish has registered a case in Cr.No.192/2018 U/Sec.379 IPC, issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Janga

Narsaiah at PS. Later the LW10/Ch.Sathish along with men proceeded to

Anantharam village, secured the presence of witnesses LW2/Janga Shekar to LW5/Bathini Thirupathi examined and recorded their statements in part-II CDs in detail and observed the scene of offence incorporated the detail in crime detail from in the presence of LW6/Janga Lachanna &

LW7/Konda Komuraiah.

4.While efforts are in progress, on 09-11-2018 at 06:00 hrs, the

LW10/Ch.Sathish along with his pose while conducting vehicle checking at out skirts of Kalleda village, meantime two persons came from

Dharmapuri side towards Jagtial on Rayal Enfield (Bullet) in suspicious circumstances on seeing the police the above two persons tried to escape, the police party led by LW10/Ch.Sathish followed them and caught hold successfully on interrogation the above -HP persons, they revealed their names as A.1 Salman Mohammad s/o Julekha Begam (Gouse Baba) 24-yrs,

Fair 4 CC.No.355 of 2022 muslim r/o H. No. 8-4-6 Bellampalli-I town PS area dist Mancherial and JCL

Sayyad Gulam @ Gullu s/o Sayyad Ankoosh muslim r/o H. No. 3-104

Kistampet v/o Chennur mandal dist Mancherial when in confession mood the LW10/Ch.Sathish summoned the panchas LW8/Arre Laxmirajam &

LW9/Kusa Prabhakar, on the advise of LW10/Ch.Sathish the panchas took the A.1 to a side and interrogated in which the accused voluntarily confessed about this crime along with JCL2,A3, JCL4 and A.5 and committed theft 4 sheeps from sheep yard and same was handed over to the A.9 by explaining him, they were theft the sheeps to kept and sale the same and arrange to them. Further the A.1 admitted in beside other offences i.e. sheeps and goats from various places and the same were kept with the A.9 to A.11 selling the sheeps and goats and arrange amount to them. During the confession the A1 revealed details is as follows.

5.While the efforts were in progress to apprehend the culprits, the accused was arrested by LW10/Ch.Sathish. The sub Inspector of police of

Jagtial on 09.11.2018, apprehended the accused person in their case i.e., in crime No.192 of 2018 under section 379 of IPC of PS Jagtial rural.

During the course of investigation by LW10/Ch.Sathish secured two mediators i.e., LW2/Janga Shekar, LW3/Janga Jalendar, LW4/Uredi

Rayamallu and LW5/Bathini Thirupathi, before them LW10/Ch.Sathish conducted confession cum recovery panchanama in which the accused confessed that he has committed series of offences. During the said confession cum recovery panchanama LW10/Ch.Sathish recovered

Fair 5 CC.No.355 of 2022 property that is Bullet Motorcycle and Xylo van pertaining to the present case in hand under the cover of confession and recovery panchanama.

Later LW10/Ch.Sathish produced the accused before Hon’ble Junior Civil

Judge cum Judicial Magistrate of first Class at Jagtial and Hon’ble court

sent him to judicial remand and the accused was lodged in Sub Jail at

Jagtial.

6.Thereafter, LW10/Ch.Sathish obtained the attested copies of FIR, remand case diary and confession and recovery statements of the accused from SHO of P.S. Jagtial rural. Later LW10/Ch.Sathish assumed the charge of this Jagtial rural P.S.. Further the LW10/Ch.Sathish taken mio the cuttody of the JCL2, A3 JUL4 and A5 reached to there with Xylo van immediately the LW10/Ch.Sathish along with pose caught hold them when they are in confession mood immediately on the advise of

LW10/Ch.Sathish the panchas the LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa

Prabhakar who took a JCL2 to a side and interrogated him in which he vuluntarily confession to have committed the offences and collaboristed with panchanama of A1. The LW10/Ch.Sathish recorded his confessional statement before the LW8 and 9.

7.Further the panchas the LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa

Prabhakar took A3 to a side and on interrogation the A3 who voluntarily confessed to have committed the offences along with A.1, JCL2, JCL4, A5,

A6, A7, A8 and A9 the LW10/Ch.Sathish recorded his confessional statement and further seized two Oylo Vans B/No. AP-26-AQ 2929 und TS 09-EA-3073 from the possession of A.3 under a cover of confessional and

Fair 6 CC.No.355 of 2022 recovery panchanama before the panchas LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and

LW9/Kusa Prabhakar the pasting cheats having their signatures. The

LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar took a side JCL.4 and on interrogation the JCL.4 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offences along with A.1, JCL.2, A.3, A.5 and A.7. Further the

LW10/Ch.Sathish recorded his confessional statement before the panchas

LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar.

8.Further the LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar took a side to the A.5 and on interrogation the A5 has voluntarly confessed to have committed the offences along with A.1, JCL.2, A3, JCL4, A.6 and A.7

Further the LW10/Ch.Sathish recorded his confessional statement before the panchas LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar. Further the

LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar took a side to the A.6 and on interrogation the A6 has voluntarily confessed to have committed the offences along with A.1, JCL.2, A.3, A.5. A.6 and A.7 Purther the

LW10/Ch.Sathish recorded his confessional statement before the panchas

LW8/Arre Laxmirajam and LW9/Kusa Prabhakar.

9.While accused persons are in judicial remand, they were furnished with case copies under section 207 of CRPC. Thereafter, they were examined under section 239 of CRPC by explaining the accusation leveled against them and the charges that were framed under section 379 of IPC in vernacular language to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the offence under section 379 of IPC.

Fair 7 CC.No.355 of 2022

10.The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined PW1 to

PW6 and marked exhibit P1 to P9. After closing of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 of CRPC by explaining them the incriminating evidence deposed against them in their vernacular language to which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

11. Heard both sides.

12. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused persons A3, A4 and A5 for the offence under section 379

of IPC beyond the reasonable doubt or not ?

13.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and marked exhibits P1 to P12 and MO1 which is ₹9000/-. The accused person did not bring any evidence on the record.

14.PW1 is the complainant as per the deposition he stated that at about six years back one day on hearing noise from the herd of goats, immediately he along with his wife woke up and searched the herd of goats on their search, they found that three goats and one sheep were missing. So that the witness suspected that some unknown person have committed theft of said goats and sheep after searching nearby surroundings as they could not find them, they came to the police station and lodged a report before the police. The cross examination of PW1 reported as nil.

15.PW2 is brother-in-law PW1, even he also deposed in the similar lines of PW1 stating that during the night hours there was theft committed by

Fair 8 CC.No.355 of 2022 some unknown persons as they committed theft of three goats and one sheep from the herd of sheep. The cross examination of PW2 also reported as nil.

16.PW3 and PW4 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, in their deposition, they have stated that at about five years back one day when they went to police station on their personal work, the police have obtained their signatures on some papers, but they does not know the contents of the papers. As the witnesses have resiled from their previous statements, the learned APPO has declared them as hostile witnesses. During their cross-examination both the witnesses have denied that the scene of offence panchanama was conducted on 3–10–2018 at about 17:50 hours, apart from this nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of both the witnesses.

17.PW5 is panch witness for confession cum recovery panchanama he worked as VRO at kalleda village. At present he is working as junior assistant at commercial tax office, Jagtial. On 9–11–2018, as per the oral instructions of Thasildar, Jagtiyal rural, he went to the Kalleda Shivar. The police requested him to act as panch witness. By the time he reached the place the police personals were present with five members and one child.

At the request of the police, he enquired one person, he revealed his name as Salman and confessed voluntary that he along with three other persons and one child used to commit thefts in various places as such, they have engaged xylo car and they have committed theft of three goats and one sheep at Buggaram, three goats in Madanur village and other

Fair 9 CC.No.355 of 2022 villages. And they gave those sheeps to one sai who belongs to

Mancherial. Accordingly the police have prepared individual confession cum recovery panchanama and obtained their signatures. Similarly, there are three confession panchanama recorded by the police, they were marked as exhibit P4, P5, P6 and P7 after recording confession. They have proceeded to Kothagudem by 2:15 PM to the house of sai who is residing in the house of Raula. Where in the Sai was interrogated, he revealed that he sold goats of Madanur. He received ₹9000/- and the same were recovered under cover of panchanama and the same was marked as MO1.

Further the witness identified the accused persons who are standing in the dock of the court as the persons who confessed the guilt before him.

18.During cross examination, he stated that four persons have confessed guilt before him, but he does not know their names. He was given a suggestion that he being a government official, at the instance of the police officials, he is depositing falsely before this court.

19.PW6 is the investigating officer who has narrated the chronological sequence of the investigation done by him. During cross examination, formal suggestions were given to the investigating officer to which he denied.

20.On perusal of the entire evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that the persons who have reported the offence stated that some unknown persons have committed theft as there is no identity by the persons who gave the complaint.

Fair 10 CC.No.355 of 2022

21.Scene of offence panchanama witnesses did not supported the case of prosecution. The confession panch witness is VRO who is the government official stated that the accused person Salman revealed that they have committed theft of goats and sheeps and the said panchanama was recorded in another case and the stolen sheep and the goats were sold to another person named sai and that person sold them and received some amount as a part of the residual amount 9000/- was seized as MO1.

22.During the argument submitted by the defense council, he stated that any statement that is recorded in the presence of the police is not admissible and it is not reliable as per section 26 of Indian evidence act that is the confession made before the police is not admissible. Here the witness has stated that the police were very much present at the time of confession and confession that was made to VRO is weak as no strong corroborative evidence was brought on the record. Here the VRO himself stated that at the call of police he went and acted as panch witness for confession cum seizure panchanama, and that he might be a tool easily available for police officials, hence this court presumes that the confession made before VRO at the instance of police and the same was not proved contrary by the prosecution through any other form of cogent evidence.

The witness did not stated that he was taken aside or to a place where there is no presence of the police. He just stated that on enquiry, the person revealed his name as Salman and stated other facts it is implied that the confession panchanama was recorded in the presence of the police personal. The person who is stated as confession panch witness is

Fair 11 CC.No.355 of 2022 the government official whose statement cannot be solely relied upon to convict the accused person without any independent corroborative evidence to show that there is a theft committed by them. However, there is no other evidence brought on record to show that the accused persons are the one who committed theft out of them A4 is physically handicapped and found that he could not commit theft due to his body disability. It was not revealed as to how the accused persons are involved in the role they have played while committing the theft. It is stated by the

PW5 that Salman is the person who revealed everything but could not say in what way the other accused persons were involved with him in commission of the said theft.

23.During the cross-examination of PW5, he stated that he cannot remember the names of the accused person, but he identified the persons who are standing in the dock are the persons who have committed the offence. In order to corroborate the evidence of PW5, there is no cogent evidence brought on the record. Hence this court is of the considered view that without any accurate identification of the accused just by depending upon the oral evidence of the official witnesses the accused persons cannot be convicted.

24.In the result, A3, A4 and A5 are found not guilty for the offence under section 379 IPC. Accordingly, the accused persons are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds furnished by the accused persons shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time and the MO1

Fair 12 CC.No.355 of 2022 that was given towards the interim custody shall be made absolute after lapse of the appeal time.

Dictated to the Typist and Typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me, in the

Open Court this the 28th day of November, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge–cum- Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: Md.Hymadkhan -None- PW2: Md.Rahmadkhan PW3: G.Dathaiah PW4: B.Thirupathi PW5: A.Laxmirajam PW6: K.Ravinder

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 is complaint -Nil- Ex.P2 is CDF Ex.P3 is attested copy of confession cum recovery panchanama of A1 Ex.P4 is attested copy of confession cum recovery panchanama of A3 Ex.P5 is attested copy of confession cum recovery panchanama of A5 Ex.P6 is attested copy of confession cum recovery panchanama of syed Ex.P7 is FIR Ex.P8 is CDF Ex.P9 is Remand Case Diary of accused

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1 is cash of Rs.9,000/-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

Fair 1 CC.No.32 of 2024

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: DHARMAPURI.

Friday the 28th day of November, 2025.

Present: Ms.YEGI JANAKI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

DHARMAPURI.

C.C.No.32 of 2024

Between :-

The State through S.I. of Police, S.H.O. P.S. Dharmapuri.

...Complainant

And

Medi Narsaiah, S/o.Bhumaiah, Age:48years, Caste:Goondla, Occ:Coolie,

R/o.Velgonda village of Buggaram mandal, now at LB.Shasthri Nagar,

Bhayandar west, Thane District.

…Accused. Section of Law:U/Sec.324 and 323 of IPC Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the:Found not guilty Court Sentence or order:In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence U/s.324, 323 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused person shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time.

* * *

This case coming before me on 26.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Rajesh, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.A.Vinodkumar, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.The sub-Inspector of police Buggaram has filed a case against the accused person under Cr.No.76/2023 U/s.323, 324 of IPC and filed charge sheet before this court.

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

On 28.12.2023 at 13.00 hrs the complainant Medi Ramesh s/o

Bhoomaiah, r/o Velgonda(v) came to P.S. Buggaram and lodged telugu

Fair 2 CC.No.32 of 2024 written complaint stating that he is the resident of Velgonda village of

Buggaram Mandal and living by doing his caste work Fishing. He had one brother by name Medi Narsaiah s/o Bhoomaiah, r/o Velgonda village of

Buggaram. The victim who is mother of the complainant has one sister by name Thokala Gangavva r/o Nandi medaram has no children, gangavva adopted victim’s elder son/accused 25 yrs back, since then the accused is residing with gangavva. After the adoption of alleged accused, he did not looked after his biological mother/victim. Last 3 years back the complainant’s father died due to illness. The accused mother had property one house at Maharashtra and accused is residing in same house at

Mumbai. About 6 months ago the accused along with his wife and daughter came to nandi meddaram velagtoor and demanded the victim for partition of the agricultural lands.

4.On 27.12.2023 at 11.00 hrs the alleged accused came to his mother/victim house at velgonda village and quarrel with her about partition, but the victim did not agree so that accused warned her and went away. Again on the same day at 14.00 hrs the alleged accused came to complainant house and argued with victim and questioned her that why she is not agreeing for partition ? And got angry over her and beat the complainant mother with an axe on her neck and right hand, due to which she received bleeding injuries. During the alleged incident complainant’s wife Medi Sony tried to stop the accused person, but accused pushed her, due to that she fell down.

5.As she could not stop accused she informed about the matter to the complainant over phone. The said incident was witnessed by LW3/Medi

Sony to LW5/Jella Rajavva. Immediately the complainant came to

Fair 3 CC.No.32 of 2024 velgonda from Jagtial and shifted his mother to hospital for treatment hence got delay in filing petition. He requested to take necessary action against him.

6.Basing on the above complaint, LW-9 registered case in

Cr.No.76/2023, U/sec.324, 323 of IPC and issued F.I.R. and submitted to all concerned officers and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation LW9/S.Sandeep examined and recorded the statement of

LW1/Medi Ramesh in detail in part-II CD at P.S. Buggaram. Later on same day LW9/S.Sandeep proceeded to scene of offence at Velgonda,

Buggaram village, there LW9/S.Sandeep have summoned the LW2/Medi

Narsavva, LW3/Medi Sony, LW4/Kuthala Narsaiah and LW5/Jella Rajavva and examined and recorded their statements in part-II CDs in detail. Later,

LW9/S.Sandeep have drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence in CDF

before the LW6/Thokala Kistaiah & LW7/Rendla Ravinder.

7.On 30.12.2023 at 10.00 hrs the accused appeared before

LW9/S.Sandeep Later LW9/S.Sandeep interrogated the accused about the incident, on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence with an axe which was used in commission of offence was thrown away some un-known place. Hence LW9/S.Sandeep unable to seized the crime weapon. Later LW9/S.Sandeep prepared notice

U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C against the accused and served him and obtained acknowledgement copy and instructed him produce his I.D proofs. On 31.12.2023 at 10.00 hrs the accused appeared before LW9/S.Sandeep with his ID proof.

8.Later LW9/S.Sandeep verified the ID proof i.e., Aadhar card and found genuine and satisfied with and given instructions to appear before

Fair 4 CC.No.32 of 2024 the Hon'ble Court J.F.C.M. at Dharmapuri whenever he received summons from the Hon'ble Court.

9.On 06.01.2024 the LW9/S.Sandeep obtained the Medical Certificated of LW2/Medi Narsavva from the LW8/Dr.L.Murali krishna. The

LW8/Dr.L.Murali krishna issued Medical Certificate of LW2/Medi Narsavva opining that the LW2/Medi Narsavva received injuries which are Simple in nature. After LW9/S.Sandeep filed charge sheet before the court.

10.Basing on the material record placed before this court, this court has taken cognizance against the alleged accused person U/s.190(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.323 and 324 of IPC and issued summons to the accused person.

11.On receipt of summons, the accused person appeared before this court, on his appearance, this court has furnished the copies of the case on which the prosecution is relying U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

12.Thereafter, the accused person was examined U/s.239 of Cr.P.C explaining the accusation leveled against him and the charges framed against him U/s.323 and 324 of IPC in vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.

13.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to P5.

After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined

U/s.313 of Cr.P.C in which the accused person was explained about the incriminating evidence that was deposed against him in vernacular language to which he denied and reported no defense evidence.

14. Heard both sides’ arguments.

15. Now the point for consideration is:

Fair 5 CC.No.32 of 2024

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused person for the offence U/s.324, 323 of IPC beyond the

reasonable doubt or not ?

16.In order to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to P5. No evidence was brought on the record by the accused person.

17.PW1 is the complainant and the son of the injured, as per his deposition, he deposed that the accused is his brother who was given adoption to his junior paternal aunt at Nandimedaram so that since 25 years accused is residing with his junior paternal aunt. On 27–12–2003 accused came to his house and demanded his mother to make partition of all the properties between himself and the accused. The witness stated that he doesn't know what happened between accused and his mother, but accused beat his mother with an axe. As a result, she received injury over her neck and right hand, meanwhile, PW1’s wife went to the rescue of his mother, but the accused pushed his wife/PW3, and threatened her that he would also kill her, so that PW3 called PW1 over phone and informed the same. Immediately PW1 proceeded to the spot and shifted his mother for treatment to hospital through 108 ambulance later, PW1 went to police station and lodged report.

18.During his cross examination, he stated that PW3/wife called him at about 3 PM prior to his arrival, PWI called 108 ambulance. PW1 stated that he did not filed any adoption deed pertaining to his elder brother/accused

before this court. PW1 stated that he has given the axe to the

police. PW1 admitted that he did not witness the incident, but he got to know about the incident through PW3/his wife. PW1 stated that there is no

Fair 6 CC.No.32 of 2024

Panchayat held regarding the partition disputes between his family and accused. Further PW1 stated that the said incident was witnessed by one

Nithin, LW4/Kuthala Narsaiah and LW5/Jella Rajavva and they are near to the house of PW1. Apart from this, nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW1, the defence council has given suggestions that no such adoption was taken by his junior paternal aunt and also alleged offence was not committed by the accused person to which the witness denied.

19.PW2 is the injured. She stated that at about one year ago, accused came to her house and beat her with stick and as a result she sustained injury over her neck and right hand so that she was shifted to hospital through 108 ambulance later they went to police station and lodged report before the police station.

20.During the cross-examination, she stated that she agreed to remove the case against her elder son/accused. She denied to the suggestion that the accused never beat her on the instigation of PW1 she is deposing falsehood.

21.PW3 is wife of PW1, daughter-in-law of PW2 and she is the eye witness to the alleged incident as per her deposition, she stated that on 27–12–2023 the accused came to her house and demanded PW2 to make partition of all the properties between PW2 and accused. During the discussion quarrel took place between PW2 and accused/brother-in-law.

Suddenly accused beat PW2 with an axe, as a result PW2 received injury over her neck and hand. By the time she went to rescue her mother-in-law but the accused pushed her and threatened her to kill her also, so that PW3 called PW1 and informed about the alleged incident

Fair 7 CC.No.32 of 2024 after that PW2 was shifted to hospital for treatment through 108 ambulance.

22.During the cross examination, PW3 stated that accused is residing at Nandimedaram village along with his wife since from the time she got married to PW1. PW3 stated that on the day of the alleged offence accused along with his wife came to their house. PW3 was given a suggestion that with an intention to grab all the properties she got married to PW1 to which she denied and also denied to the suggestion that PW3 herself beat PW2. PW3 stated that at the time of the

alleged incident she and PW2 were present and no other person

was there. PW3 stated that after 3 to 4 days of filing the complaint, the police came to their house and recorded her statements. PW3 was given a suggestion that in order to grab the properties of PW2 along with PW1, they have filed this false case against the accused person to which the witness denied. Apart from this, nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW3.

23.PW4 is circumstantial witness as per his deposition he stated that at about two years ago, one day accused who is the son of PW2 came to house of PW2 and quarreled with PW2 and beat her with axe as a result

PW2 received injuries over her neck and right hand regarding the land disputes. By the time PW4 went to house of PW2, she fell on the road with oozing blood over her neck.

24.During his cross-examination, he stated that he is not the eye witness to the alleged incident. Rather, he got to know about the alleged incident that accused beat PW2 and he was given a suggestion that at the

Fair 8 CC.No.32 of 2024 instigation of PW1, he is deposing false before the court to which the witness denied.

25.PW5 and PW7 are the panch witnesses to the alleged scene of offence. They have stated that at about two years ago, one day police came to the house of PW1 and conducted panchanama in their presence.

During the cross examination, both the witnesses have admitted that they are not aware of the contents of Ex.P2 that is crime detail form. Apart from this, nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of

PW5 and PW7.

26.PW6 is the eye witness to the alleged incident as per her deposition she stated that she does not know the accused and also did not witness any such incident and she was not examined by the police also. As the witness resiled from her previous statements the learned APPO has declared her as hostile witness. During the cross examination of PW6 she was given a suggestion that she was examined by the police and her statements were recorded and now that she is deposing falsely before this court, to which she denied.

27.PW8 is investigation officer who has narrated the chronological sequence of the investigation done by him. During his cross-examination, he admitted that Ex.P1 does not disclose the presence of PW2 and PW3.

PW8 admitted that accused confessed before him that he has

thrown away the crime weapon at some unknown place, and there is no whisper made in Ex.P1 about shifting PW2 to the hospital through ambulance. PW8 admitted that column number 14 in FIR is kept blank without obtaining the signature of complainant. Apart from this, nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW8.

Fair 9 CC.No.32 of 2024

28.On careful analysis of the evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, it is seen that except PW3, no other eye witness supported prosecution case. PW3 is none other than the daughter-in-law of PW2 and wife of PW1 upon consideration of the evidence deposed by PW3 she stated that the accused person beat PW2 with an axe, whereas PW2 who is the injured herself stated that accused is her elder son he beat her with stick on her neck and hand, and these two statements are quite contradictory as to the weapon used by the accused. In order to clarify the said contradiction there is no material object seized by the investigating officer and there is a major contradiction that is seen on the face of the record is that PW1, who is the complaint stated that the axe that was used by the accused was handed over to the police, whereas on the other hand

PW8, who is the investigating officer, he stated that on the interrogation of the accused, he stated that the weapon used by him was thrown at some unknown place by him so that the recovery of the material object was not made. And there is another glaring contradiction found in the evidence is that the delay in filing the complaint before the police station.

29.There is also a doubt raised in the mind of this court is that if at all the accused attacked PW2 with such dangerous weapon, so that she fell down in a pool of blood on the road when she was shifted to the hospital through 108 ambulance, there is no medical legal case registered by the hospital who examined the injured and also to the utter surprise of this court the medical certificate issued by the government Doctor who examined the injured, that the injury sustained by PW2 are simple in nature and it is a laceration.

Fair 10 CC.No.32 of 2024

30.On the keen perusal of the medical report that is Ex.P5, there is no age of the woman mentioned and the object that was used causing the injuries and the remarks, all the columns were kept blank, which are very essential in any medical certificate to prove that the injured sustained by the victim is genuine, but the veracity of the medical certificate is suspicious, such document cannot be relied upon to believe that injured sustained injuries as per the story of prosecution and such discrepancies were not even clarified by the prosecution.

31.On the above discussions, it is seen that there are major discrepancies found in the depositions of the witnesses who are the material witnesses to the present case in hand, they themselves have stated different versions of the material object used by the accused person whereas the PW2/injured have stated that accused beat her with stick whereas the PW3/eye witness stated that accused used axe to beat

PW2, as there are two contradictory statements made by the material witnesses and their credibility was shaken as they were not consistent with their statements. In order to corroborate the evidence of the material witnesses and other witnesses of the prosecution, the material medical certificate is found to be improper and it does not carry any evident value to look into or to be made in the present case in hand. The prosecution has relied upon various citations of the apex court stating that non-seizure of material object is not fatal to the case of prosecution, but in the present case there is no clarity as to which weapon was used in causing injury to

PW2 and the medical certificate also was not issued in accordance to convict the accused. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion

Fair 11 CC.No.32 of 2024 that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond the reasonable doubt.

32. In the result, the accused found not guilty for the offence U/s.324 and 323 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds executed by the accused person shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge–cum- Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: M.Ramesh-None- PW2: M.Narsavva PW3: M.Sony PW4: K.Narsaiah PW5: T.Kishtaiah PW6: J.Rajavva PW7: R.Ravinder PW8: S.Sandeep

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 is report-Nil- Ex.P2 is CDF Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P4 is FIR Ex.P5 is wound certificate of PW1

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

Fair 1 CC.No.177 of 2025

IN THE COURT OF HON’BLE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS: DHARMAPURI.

Friday the 28th day of November, 2025.

Present: Ms.YEGI JANAKI,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

DHARMAPURI.

C.C.No.177 of 2025

Between :-

The State through S.I. of Police, S.H.O. P.S. Dharmapuri.

...Complainant

And

A1.Duda Kishan, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:37years, Caste:SC-Madiga,

R/o.Dammannapeta village of Dharmapuri mandal.

A2.Duda Veeraiah, S/o.Rajaiah, Age:65years, Caste:SC-Madiga,

R/o.Dammannapeta village of Dharmapuri mandal.

A3.DudaVanitha,W/o.Kishan,Age:32years,Caste:SC-Madiga,

R/o.Dammannapeta village of Dharmapuri mandal.

A4.Duda Rajitha, W/o.Raju, Age:28years, Caste:SC-Madiga, R/o.Battapelli

Potharam village of Sarangapur mandal.

…Accused.

Section of Law:U/Sec.118(1), 296(b), 115(2) of BNS Plea of the Accused :Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the:Found not guilty Court Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused persons A1 to A4 are :found not guilty for the offence under section 118(2), 296(b), 115(2) of BNS, accordingly the accused persons are acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds executed by the accused persons shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time.

* * *

This case coming before me on 26.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri.B.Rajesh, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the Complainant/State and Sri.S.Karthik, Advocate for accused; and upon hearing their arguments and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivered the following:-

Fair 2 CC.No.177 of 2025

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

1.The sub-Inspector of police Dharmapuri has filed a case against the accused persons A1 to A4 under Cr.No.57/2025 U/s.118(1), 296(b), 115(2) r/w.35(3) of BNS and filed charge sheet before this court.

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

On 22.02.2025 at 13.00hrs, the complainant Duda Sailaja w/o.Sathish, r/o Dammannapeta village came to PS and lodged a written

Telugu petition in which, she stated that she is resident of Dammannapeta village and does coolie work for her livelihood. They had dwelling house in

Dammannapeta village, her neighborhood and relation in uncle by name

Duda Veeraiah s/o Rajaiah, r/o Dammannapeta village has also house, both have agriculture lands back side of their houses and some land boundary disputes have been happening between them. On 21.02.2025 at about 11.30hrs her uncle DudaVeeraiah quarreled with her husband Duda

Sathish s/o Dubbaiah, r/o Dammannapeta village about boundary issue and abused her husband in most filthy language. Later at about 12.30hrs, her husband went to Ankella Swamy Kiraranam shop to purchase the

Cigarette in the meantime Duda Veeraiah and his son Duda Kishan, , daughter-in-law Duda Vanitha w/o Kishan, and daughter Duda Rajitha D/o

Veeraiah, all r/o Dammannapeta village went to her husband and abused him and beat him with hands, further Duda Kishan beat her husband with stick and caused bleeding injuries on his left hand, left leg, the same information was given by Thatpelli Laxmi w/o Rajaiah, r/o Dammannapeta village to the complainant. On receiving the above information the complainant rushed to spot and shifted her husband to omsai hospital,

Fair 3 CC.No.177 of 2025

Jagtial for treatment in 108 ambulance. Further, the complainant stated that she was at hospital along with her husband and caused delay in reporting the said incident before police station. Finally, the complainant has requested to take necessary action against above persons.

3.On receipt of the above complaint, the LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju registered a case in Cr.No.25/2025, U/Sec.296(b), 118(1), 115(2) r/w.35(3) of BNS, 2023 and issued FIR to Hon'ble court under copies to all concerned. During the course of investigation, the LW10/S.Suryanarayana

Raju examined and recorded the statement of the LW1/Duda Sailaja in part-II CD in detail at P.S.

4.During the investigation, the LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju proceeded to scene of offence at Dammannapeta village, there the

LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju has drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence in CDF before the LW7/Kommu Gangadhar & LW8/Arikella

Rajendar, later the LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju summoned the

LW3/Thatipallli laxmi to LW6/Muppatla Srinivas and examined them and recorded their statements in part-II CDs in detail. Later, the

LW10/S.suryanarayana examined the LW2/Duda Sathish and recorded his statement.

5.During the investigation, the LW11/P.Uday kumar has taken the CD file from LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju and verified investigation done by

LW10/S.Suryanarayana Raju and found correct lines. Then, the

LW11/P.Uday kumar proceeded to scene of offence and there the

LW11/P.Uday kumar summoned the LW1/Duda Sailaja to LW6/Muppatla

Srinivas and re-examined them, but they reiterated the same facts who

Fair 4 CC.No.177 of 2025 deposed before the LW10/S.Suryanarayana, hence the LW11/P.Uday kumar did not re-recorded their statements.

6.On 19.03.2025, the accused A1 to A4 appeared before the

LW11/P.Uday kumar, on interrogation the accused A1 to A4 voluntarily confessed their guilt. Later, the LW11/P.Uday kumar served notice u/sec.35(3) of BNSS, 2023 by directing them to attend the investigation

before the LW11/P.Uday kumar before or on 20.03.2025 with any identity

proof, since the punishment of U/Sec.296(b), 118(1), 115 (2) r/w 35(3) of

BNS, 2023 are within 7-years. According to above notice on 20.03.2025 the accused A-1 to A-4 appeared before the LW11/P.Uday kumar at PS

Dharmapuri along with their Aadhar cards. Later, the LW11/P.Uday kumar served the acknowledged copy of the notice u/sec.35(3) of BNSS, 2023 with instructions to the accused A-1 to A-4 that on receiving court summons they have to appear before the Hon'ble JFCM Court Dharmapuri.

7.During the investigation, on 22.03.2025, the LW11/P.Uday kumar obtained the Medical Certificates of LW-2/Duda Sathish/injured from

LW9/Dr.Phaneendra kumar, in which the LW9/Dr.Phaneendra kumar has opined that the LW2/Duda sathish/injured has sustained "Grievous injuries".

8.Basing on the Medical Certificate of the LW2/Duda sathish/injured, the LW11/P.Uday kumar altered the section of law to 118(2), 296(b), 115(2) r/w 35(3) of BNS, 2023 from 118(1), 296(b), 115(2) r/w 35(3) of

BNS, 2023 and submitted charge sheet to the Hon'ble court.

9.Basing on the material record placed before this court, this court has taken cognizance against the alleged accused persons A1 to A4 under

Fair 5 CC.No.177 of 2025 section 210 of BNSSfor the offences under sections 118(1), 296(b), 115(2) r/w.35(3) of BNS and issued summons to the accused persons.

10.On receipt of summons, the accused persons appeared before this court, on their appearance, this court has furnished the copies of the case on which the prosecution is relying U/s.230 of BNSS.

11.Thereafter, the accused persons were examined U/s.262 of BNSS explaining the accusation leveled against them and the charges framed against them U/s.118(1), 296(b), 115(2) r/w.35(3) of BNS in vernacular language to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offences.

12.The prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P9. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined U/s.351 of BNSS in which the accused persons were explained about the incriminating evidence that was deposed against them in vernacular language to which they denied and reported no defense evidence.

13. Heard both sides arguments.

14. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of the

accused persons A1 to A4 for the offences under section 118(1),

296(b), 115(2) of BNS beyond the reasonable doubt or not ?

15.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. No defense evidence was brought on the record.

Fair 6 CC.No.177 of 2025

16.PW1 is the complainant and injured, PW2 to PW5 are the witnesses to the alleged offence as they are the material witnesses to the case of prosecution. PW1 stated that at about eight months ago, some petty issues took place between himself and the accused person, but he did not give any complaint before the police station. And the other witnesses have stated that they did not witness the alleged incident and they were not examined and recorded their statements by the police officials.

17.As the material witnesses have resiled from their previous statements as such the learned APPO has declared the witnesses as hostile witnesses and during their cross-examination, nothing much could be elicited except suggestions to which the witnesses denied.

18.PW6 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, where he also stated that on 22-2-2025 police came to the house of PW1 and conducted panchanama in his presence and LW8. During the cross- examination, he denied to the suggestion given by the defense council that he does not know the contents of the scene of offence panchanama.

19.PW7 is the investigating officer who has narrated the chronological sequence of the investigation done by him he has stated that he did not recover any crime weapon pertaining to the case. The witness further admitted that he have registered the present case basing on the civil disputes between complainant and the accused person. Apart from this nothing much could be elicited from the cross examination of PW7.

20.On perusal of the entire evidence, it is seen that no material witness, including the injured person supported the case of prosecution, but the scene of offence, panchanama witness have supported the case

Fair 7 CC.No.177 of 2025 stating that the police have conducted scene of panchanama at the house of PW1, but that doesn’t confer that the alleged person is the one who has committed the offence against the PW1. Moreover, there is no proper identification of the alleged accused persons is the one who has committed the alleged offence. However, the police official is the person who has registered the case against the accused person who is very much interested in the outcome of the present case. The essential ingredients of the alleged offences against the accused person were not proved beyond the reasonable doubt either in the form of oral or documentary evidence which is corroborating with the evidence deposed by the panch witness and the investigating officer, hence this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has utterly failed to bring home the guilt of the accused person beyond the reasonable doubt.

21. In the result, the accused persons A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under section 118(2), 296(b), 115(2) r/w.35(3) of BNS, accordingly the accused persons are acquitted U/s.271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds executed by the accused persons shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge–cum- Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

PW1: D.Sathish -None-

Fair 8 CC.No.177 of 2025

PW2: T.Laxmi PW3: A.Swamy PW4: G.Srikanth PW5: M.Srinivas PW6: K.Gangadhar PW7: P.Uday kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION : FOR THE DEFENCE :

Ex.P1 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1-Nil- Ex.P2 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P3 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P4 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P5 is 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P6 is CDF Ex.P7 is complaint Ex.P8 is FIR Ex.P9 is medical report of LW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Dharmapuri.

Fair 1 OS.No.107 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT DHARMAPURI.

PRESENT: Ms. Yegi Janaki,

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

DHARMAPURI.

Friday, the 28th day of November, 2025

O.S.No.107 of 2023

Between:-

Lalchavula Renuka, W/o.Nagaraju, Age:40years, R/o.H.No.1-45,

Suddapalli village of Pegadapalli Mandal.

...Plaintiff.

AND

Rajam Ellaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:42years, R/o.H.No.3-27-, Kotilingala,

H/o.Mukkaraopet village of Velgatoor mandal.

...Defendant.

Claim:- Suit for Perpetual injunction.

This suit is coming on 18.11.2025 for me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Ramadugu Rajesh and Sri.Aluka Vinod kumar,Learned counsel for plaintiff and Sri.G.Lingareddy and Sri.Jajala Ramesh, Learned counsel for defendant and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

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

1.The present suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking relief of perpetual injunction pertaining to the land in survey number 104/U/1/1/1 measuring to an extent of Ac: 1-00 gts situated at kapparaopet village, velgatoor mandal (here in after referred as suit schedule property.

2.The brief averments of the plaint:

The plaintiff is the owner and possession of the land in survey number 104/U/1/1/1 measuring to an extent Ac:01-00 gts. Originally the said land belongs to the mother of plaintiff that is Smt. Rajam Rajamma who is the possession of Ac: 1-33 gts land in Sy.No.104/U/1/1/1. Out of the family necessities and personal requirements, the mother of plaintiff

Fair 2 OS.No.107 of 2023 sold Ac.1-00gts out of Ac.1-33gts in survey number 104/U to the plaintiff under registered sale deed vide document number 540/2023 dated 14– 7–2023 on the file of Sub register cum thasildar velgatoor mandal for a valid sale consideration. As vendor/mother of the plaintiff delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff on execution of the registered sale deed, since from the date of purchase the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. At present, the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land by cultivating it and the mother/vendor of the plaintiff is left over with Ac: 00-33 gts of land to her two sons, which is to be equally divided among them to an extent of 16 ½ gts each so that the plaintiff mother is left with no other land in the said suit survey number. In order to prove the same, the plaintiff has filed original registered sale deed document, original pattadar Digital passbook wide patta passbook number T18180041171, specimen copy of pattadar passbook, specimen copy of 1-B extract, third-party affidavits of vendor/mother of plaintiff and the other relevant documents were filed.

The defendant is brother of the plaintiff he without having any right or title over the said suit schedule property, the defendant is forcing the plaintiff to sell the suit land to him as the value of the said lands were abnormally increased. As the defendants are having the support of unsocial elements constantly they are trying to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. On 25– 11–2023 the defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land.

However, she could resist with the help of the neighbors and she being a lady she could not resist the defendant alone so that having no other go

Fair 3 OS.No.107 of 2023 for her, she has approached this court seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere into her peaceful possession.

3.The brief averments of written statements:

The defendant has denied the plaint averments, except the fact that the plaintiff is his sister and the vendor of plaintiff is his mother. The defendant pleaded that originally the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendant as such the suit schedule property nominally stood in the name of their mother Rajam

Rajamma, who is the trustee of the suit schedule property. The defendant states that Rajamma having no title or right over the suit schedule property without having any such right, she illegally created a false and fabricated suit document in the name of plaintiff to grab the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is joint family property and it is tend to be partitioned among plaintiff and defendant equally. The defendant pleaded that the suit land property allotted to the defendant under family oral partition along with his brother and the brothers are cultivating the said property. The plaintiff vendor taking advantage of her name in the revenue records created fabricated documents in the present suit and states that the plaintiff or the vendor of the plaintiff were never in possession of the suit schedule property and not even as on date of filing the suit. The defendant states that there is no primafacie shown by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has come before this court with unclean hands by suppressing the material facts by showing wrong boundaries. The defendant further states that the registered gift deed executed by the plaintiff vendor vide document number 6555/2019 in

Fair 4 OS.No.107 of 2023 favour of Rajam Parshu Ramulu and the registered gifted deed executed by the plaintiff vendor vide document number 6456/2019 in favour of

Rajam kuntataiah clearly establishes that the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant prays the hon’ble court to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the plaint and written statements, the following issues were framed for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

5.In order to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, she herself got examined as PW1 and marked exhibit A1 to A6. The defendants did not choose to cross examine PW1 and also did not adduce defendant evidence, hence the evidence of defendant is closed.

6.Heard both sides arguments.

ISSUE NO: 1&2

For the better appreciation of the facts and to avoid the repetition of facts, issue number one and two were answered jointly.

7.The case of the plaintiff is that she has purchased the suit schedule property from her mother vide exhibit A1 to an extent of Ac:1-00 gts and her peaceful possession is being disturbed and interrupted by the defendant who is her brother. The defendant pleaded that the said suit schedule property is ancestral property and joint family property and it is orally partitioned among the plaintiff and the defendant and the present

Fair 5 OS.No.107 of 2023 suit schedule property has fallen into the share of the defendant and he is cultivating the present suit schedule property and the plaintiff is never in the possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit and that the vendor of the plaintiff is having no right or title to transfer the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

8.In a suit for perpetual injunction the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that she is in lawful possession of the suit property as on date of filing the suit. In order prove that PW1 is in lawful possession she relied on Ex A1 which is the original registered sale deed that was executed by her vendor to show that she is a bonafied purchaser and Ex

A2 is original digital passbook issued by the tahsildar Velgatoor, Ex A3 is a specimen copy of pattadar book. Ex A4 is 1-B namoona issued in favour of plaintiff, Ex A5 is digital Pahani in favour of plaintiff, Ex A6 is encumbrance certificate obtained from the online, which is reflecting the transactions pertaining to the present suit schedule property. All these establishes that PW1 is in possession of the suit land and in support of the above exhibits third-party affidavits were also given by the vendor of

PW1, which strongly establish the possession over suit property, that she is the purchaser of the schedule property through a valid registered sale document and the said document was disputed by the defendant alleging it to be false and fabricated one. The plaintiff has successfully proved her claim and the possession and execution of Ex A1 in favour of

PW1 is disputed by defendant that the suit property is ancestral property and he is in possession over the suit property on execution of registered gift deed in his favour. Now the burden shifts on the defendant to prove

Fair 6 OS.No.107 of 2023 the suit property is joint and ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant.

9.However, the defendant did not choose to cross examine the PW1 nor he lead any defendant evidence to disprove that the said suit schedule property was not lawfully acquired by the plaintiff. The defendant has utterly failed to establish that the said suit schedule property is ancestral and joint family property of plaintiff. Further, the defendant also failed to prove that he is in the possession of the suit schedule property and that PW1 was never in the possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit. Mere averments in written statements without any oral or documentary evidence on the record to prove the averments pleaded by the defendant and to disprove the assertions of the PW1.

10.As it is the suit for bear injunction, this court looks into the question whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit, in order to prove the same, the plaintiff has proved how she acquired the said suit property and her lawful possession was established through those exhibits and the same remained un-rebutted and unchallenged by the defendant either in the form of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

11.Hence this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit. Therefore issue no 1 & 2 were answered in favour of plaintiff.

Fair 7 OS.No.107 of 2023

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with cost by granting perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant and their men not to interfere into the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by Typist directly on Computer, corrected and pronounced by me, in the open Court on this the 28th day of November, 2025.

Junior Civil Judge, Dharmapuri.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS FOR DEFENDANTS

PW1 – L.Renuka-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 is the Registered sale deed vide document no.540/2023, dated 14.07.2023 to my favour (Plaintiff).

Ex.A2 is Original digital pattadar pass book no.T1818001171 issued by

Tahasildar Velgatoor Mandal, dated 19.07.2023

Ex.A3 Specimen copy of pattadar pass book, dated 19.07.2023

Ex.A4 is 1-B namuna in favour of the plaintiff, dated 18.11.2023

Ex.A5 is Digital Pahani in favour of the plaintiff, dated 20.12.2023

Ex.A6 is E.C from online in favour of the plaintiff, dated 19.07.2025

FOR DEFENDANTS:

-NIL-

Junior Civil Judge, Dharmapuri.

IN THE COURT OF THE Junior Civil Judge: DHARMAPURI

Present: Ms. Yegi Janaki,

Junior Civil Judge,

DHARMAPURI.

DATE 12-05-2026

CC/1515/2022

TSJI050035322022

VELGATOOR

Between:-

SHO, PS, VELGATOOR, Address: Dharmapuri … Complainant

AND

Kannam Pramod, Address: Rayapatnam village of Dharmapuri mandal.

… Accused

ORDER

Accused is absent. LW1/Victim present. Since the matter was compromised between the both parties for the offence U/s.498-A, 290, 323, 506 of IPC and Sec.4 of

DP Act and they were already kept under observation for 90 days and today complainant reported compromise. The learned APP filed a petition Sec. 321 Cr.P.C. for seeking permission for withdrawn of offence U/s.290 and Sec.4 of D.P Act and same was permitted. Accordingly, U/s.320(8) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.498-A, 323 and 506 of

IPC award is passed. Bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled.

Date : 12-05-2026

Junior Civil Judge

DHARMAPURI