Any suggstion of PW1 statement:
PW1 has already been examined-in-chief and cross-examined before this Hon’ble Court and during her cross-examination, PW1 clearly stated that she is illiterate.
in chief examination, PW1 gave a clear and consistent statement confirming the contents of Ex.P1 and narrated the incident in detail, including that her statement was recorded by the police. She also confirmed her illiteracy during the incident period.
During the cross-examination, PW1 was seated in the witness box, and the learned defense counsel waved a paper from a distance, without showing paper to PW1 or bringing it within her clear view or explaining their contents in simple terms. The defense counsel further used legal terminology and asked question while merely waving documents from a distance without reading it aloud or explaining them in simple language understandable to her in layman's terms, despite being fully aware that PW1 is an illiterate person and senior citizen. This style of questioning caused PW1 to become confused, and she ended up saying that she could not read and did not know since she never read any document being illiterate. As a result, the following misleading sentences were recorded:
I. I do not know what are the content of Ex.P1. I am unable to say police examine me and recorded my statement after lodging of Ex.P1.
II. I am unable to remember whether I mention in Ex.P1 in respect of the Accused threatened us dire consequences when I approached the panchayat elders.
III. I do not know whether I mentioned in Ex.P1 the accused told me that our house plot is located in different place.
IV. I unable to say whether the police examine me and recorded my statement after lodging of Ex.P1. Police did not call me and accompanied me, conducted inquiry Infront the house of Komuraiah.
V. I don’t know the boundaries of my registered plots which are marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
CHIEF EXAMINATION OD PW1 by APP:
1 know the accused. LW2/P.Thiriinathi Reddy is my husband and he passed away in june, 2021. LW3/P. Sudheer Ready is my elder son. In the year 2007 my husband purchased a house plot from the accused in Sy.No.492F3 to an extent of 305 Sq.Yards and another plot to an extent of 300 Sq.yards through registered sale deeds.
In the year 2019 we went to the said plot to clean the plot, at that time the accused raised dispute stating that we have no concern with the said plot and the plot does not belongs to us. Then I questioned the accused to show the plot which he sold to us. Then the accused told that he constructed house which he sold to us. On the next day I approached elders but the accused threatened us with dire consequence and stated that we have no land at all. Aggrieved by the in action of the accused we approached police and I lodged a report before the police KUC. EX.PI is my report.
Police examine me and recorded my statement.
CROSS-EXAMINATION of pw1 BY COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
I am an illiterate. I do not know whether the accused obtained permission from Gram panchayat, komatipally as per Ex.P9. I do know when the accused was constructed his house. I dnot know the boundaries of my registered plots which are marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. Witness adds that my husband look after above-mentioned property. I do not know the boundaries of accused house. I did not mention in Ex.P1 in which year accused constructed his house
I approached panchayat elders. I am unable to remember whether I mention in
Ex.P1 in respect of the accused threatened us dire consequences when I approached the panchayat elders. I am unable to remember when I went to disputed property and when he threatened us.
My son filed a civil suit against the accused constructed a house in our plot. I visited the disputed property and house of the accused. I do not know in which plot of mine the accused constructed a house and also in how many Sq.Yard. Witness adds that I came to know about the construction of the house through the accused only. My husband does not file any suit against the accused. I do not know whether I mentioned in Ex.P1 the accused told me that our house plot is located in different place.
After purchase Ex.P6 and P7 properties I never approached the gram panchayat of Komatipally for obtaining house construction permission. I do not know whether my husband filed the civil suit against the accused which is pending before IV Addl. JCJ's Court, at warangal vide I know only one elder name by name Buchi Reddy but I do know the remaining panchayat elders name. I do not know what are the content of Ex.P1. I unable to say whether the police examine me and recorded my statement after lodging of Ex.P1.
Police did not call me and accompanied me, conducted inquiry Infront the house of Komuraiah. It is not true to suggest that there is relationship between the property of our sale deeds and boundaries, and schedule property of the civil suits boundaries and the house of accused and boundaries of Ex.P9. It is not true to suggest that in order to harass the accused I filed an false case against him and deposing false. It is not true to suggest that accused never threatened me at any point of time and I am deposing false.
CHIEF EXAMINATION of PW2 by APP:
PW1 is my mother. LW2/P.Thirupathi Reddy is my father. I know the accused Namindla Komuraiah @ Chinna Komuraiah. The accused was pattadhar of land in sy.No.492/F3 to an extent of 605 Sq.Yards situated at Komatipally Gram Panchayat, Bheemaram Village. As per Ex.PIO the boundaries are NORTH : 10 Feet Road, SOUTH : 60' Feet Devanapet Gopalpur, WEST : 10' Feet Road, EAST : Open land of N.Ratnam. In jaunary 2007 accused has approached my father and myself and shown interest to sell the above mentioned land in Sy.No.492/F3 by showing his pahani.
Therefore the real intention of accused and LW2 is to buy the land situated in Sy.no.492/F3. As per pahani 2005 Sy.No.492/F3 is a housing plot. On 02.02.2007 accused executed two registered sale deeds vide 534/2007 that is Ex.P6 to an extent of 300 Sq.Yards, vide 535/2007 that is Ex.P7 to an extent of 305 Sq.Yards at Sy.No.492/F3. Total 605 Sq.Yard with combined boundaries North 30'Feet Road, South open land of S.Manohar Rao. West open land of S.Manohar Rao, East open land of S.Manohar Rao. Then after LW2 is the absolute owner of Sy.No.492/F3.
The shown location is the walking distance from the boundaries mention in Ex.PlO. It is shown that as per Ex.PIO, Ex.P7 and Ex.P6 the accused has cheated my father by showing land with wrong boundaries. Instead of boundaries mentioned in Ex.PlO and after lapse of 12 years he kept silence and then after on 15.04.2019 he communicated about his fraud. While we are cleaning the land the accused us and threatened us that we dont have land and shown Ex.PlO and claimed that the registered Sy.No,492/F3 is the land where he constructed the house and threatened us by stating that if we enter in to the land again he will kill us. On the next day of the incident myself and PW1 approached accused and requested the accused to rectify the boundaries of the land and hand over the possession. But accused threatened us that we dont have land and sometime he said land is situated in other Survey number and go and search. With no option we approached KU police on 16.04.2019.
Investigating officer called the accused and questioned about the disputed land then the accused reply that he constructed the house in the said land showing Ex.PlO. The investigating officer also visited the disputed land then after we filed police complaint at KUC police station. PW1/ my mother is an illiterate. I have written the Ex.Pl and my mother signed on it. After filing of police complaint police examined me and recorded my statement.
CROSS-EXAMINATION of PW2 BY COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED
It is true that we have filed police complaint on 02.05.2019 prior to the filing of police complaint the investigation officer visited the disputed property. It is true the disputed property is a open plot prior to the lodging of Ex.Pl. It is true that the disputed property is open plot till today which was cleaned by PW1 and myself as on the date of filing of this complaint. The disputed property is having boundaries that is East : lOfeet Road, North : 30' Feet Road, South: Open Land of M.Rajamouli, West : unknown persons land. It is true that the above mentioned boundaries are not mentioned in Ex.P6 and P7. It is true that the accused has construed a house in Sy.No.492/F3 in the year 2011 as per Ex.P10. My Chief examination contents mentioned as it is in my 161 Cr.P・C statement.
It is true that the house of the accused is situated adjacent to the Devannapeta to Gopalpur main road. Prior to purchase of disputed property I verified the boundaries. As on the date of purchase of the disputed property, boundary lands are in open, I do not know the name of owners of boundries. It is true that the IO has visited the disputed property, conducted panchanama drawn rough sketch in CDF. It is true that the boundraied mentioned in Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, the boundaries of P10 are not .mentioned in rough sketch of CDF.
It is true that the boundaries of CDF are not one and the same of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7. It is true that as per the rough sketch of Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 our land is not 「adjacent to the main road of Devannapeta to Gopalpur. It is true that i have verified the revenue records of accused person in respect of the disputed property. It is not true to suggest that Sy.No. 492/F3 is not belongs to accused. Pahanies for the year onfronted to the witness, as per the pahanies the survey number 492/F3 on the name of Chinnaiah not on the name of Namindla Komuraiah. Witness adds that Chinnaiah and the accused are one and the same. I have a document to show the name of accused Chinnaiah one and the same, I will submit the same before the court if necessary. It is true that the name of Chinnaiah @ Namindla Komuraiah is not mentioned in Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
