Smt., A.Gayathri Devi

10

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi, B.Sc., B.l., D.P.M., Adddl.Senior Civil

Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.216 of 2012.

--

N.Mohan Kumar, Son of N.Krishna Murthy, - years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.no.45/142/A31-5, Road No.2, Ramalingeswara Nagar,V.R.Colony, Kurnool. … Plaintiff.

Versus

G.Anjaneyulu, Son of Late Hanumanthu, - years, Hindu, working as U.D.c in Electricity Department, R/o Present H.No.76-111-B, Nirmal Nagar, Besides Tagore School, Kurnool. … Defendant.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 18.03.2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.Chand Basha and Sri H.K.Jalandhar

Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri J.Sreedhar, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,70,333/- with costs and with subsequent interest allegedly due under a pronote.

2. The material averments of the respective parties are summarized as under:-

For Plaintiff.

On 18.5.2009, defendant has borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from plaintiff at Kurnool and executed suit pronote agreeing to repay the 10 same with interest at 24% p.a either to plaintiff or to his order on demand.

On repeated demands, defendant has issued cheque bearing

No.179848, dt.5.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards part payment of suit pronote amount and the said cheque was dishonoured and plaintiff has been taking steps under section 138 of NI Act and subsequently defendant has filed to repay the amount due. Though plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.30.01.2012, the same was served upon defendant, but he did not issue any reply.

For Defendant.

The defendant is working as Senior Assistant in A.P.Transco,

Kurnooll. On 18.5.2009, defendant has borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- and executed suit pronote. On repeated demands of plaintiff, at last defendant has issued a blank signed cheque dated 2.11.2011 and handed over the same to plaintiff and he presented the said cheque in his bank on 10.11.2011. The said cheque was returned on the ground referred to drawer. Basing on that, plaintiff got issued legal notice under section 138 of NI Act, dt.19.11.2011 and the same was served upon defendant and he got issued reply, the said legal notice which was served upon plaintiff. Subsequently, plaintiff has not filed any private complaint basing on the said cheque.

Subsequently, no complaint was filed basing on the dishonour of cheque. Some days thereafter, the suit was filed on 22.2.2012. After service of the suit summons, negotiations took place between plaintiff 10 and defendant in the presence of T.Nagaraju, who is working in

A.P.C.P.D.C.L, Kurnool but failed. On 12.8.2012 further negotiations took place in the house of defendant in the presence of K.Nagaraju and Smt.Gagamma and finally plaintiff agreed for a sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the suit amount due.

The defendant has paid the said amount in cash to plaintiff and on the same day, plaintiff has returned the original dishonoured cheque

No.013373, dt.2.11.2011 along with the counter foil dt.10.11.2011 and the bank debit advise form and also cheque return memo of SBI,

Market Yard, Kurnool and also agreed for withdrawing of the suit but surprisingly, he has not withdrawn the suit till this day. The suit is not maintainable since the amount was already discharged on 12.8.2012.

3. Subsequently, plaintiff filed rejoinder with the following averments in brief stating that the cheque dt.2.11.2011 for

Rs.1,00,000/-, bank return memo were lost on 20.1.2012 near new bus stand, Kurnool prior to the filing of the complaint. Plaintiff approached defendant who is working in Electricity Department near new bus stand, Kurnool to give him last chance for payment of the cheque amount to avoid filing of criminal cases. In fact private complaint was prepared and shown the cheque and bank return memo to the defendant stating that the criminal case would be filed against him. The defendant sought time but plaintiff refused to come out of the office when plaintiff thereafter went to the office of his counsel to file the criminal case, he noticed that he misplaced his bag wherein he kept the documents. Plaintiff was under the impression that he lost the bag near new bus stand, Kurnool. Accordingly, complaint was filed 10 with the police who issued certificate as not trace. In the office of the defendant, as plaintiff and defendant heated exchange of words and quarrel, plaintiff might have missed his bag containing his original cheque book, return memo and other papers which subsequently defendant got into possession and taking advantage of it, a false story of discharge of the amount was invented. No settlement took place between the parties and no amount was paid by he defendant.

4. On the strength of the aforementioned pleadings the following issues are settle for trial.

1.Whether the plea of discharge is true?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim amount? and

3.To what relief?

On the strength of the additional pleadings, the following

additional issues were framed.

1. Whether returning of dishonoured cheque, cheque retrun memo etc to the defendant at the time of alleged settlement of claim is true.

2. Whether the plaintiff lost the documents as contended in the rejoinder?

5. On behalf of plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A.4 were marked. Whereas, on behalf of the defendant D.W.1 and

D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.A.7 were marked.

6. Heard the counsel for both the sides.

7. Issue No.1 and No.2 and Additional Issue No.1 and No.2:- 10

The sum and substances of the case of plaintiff is having borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from him on 18.5.2009 and executed suit pronote, defendant has failed to pay the amount due and though he issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- towards part payment of the amount due, it was dishonoured.

8. Defendant admits execution of the suit pronote and issuing of cheque. But according to him, he issued blank signed cheque and when the said cheque was dishonoured on the ground of "refer to drawer plaintiff got issued legal notice under section 138 of NI Act and defendant got issued reply notice and thereafter plaintiff filed the suit and after service of the suit summons, on 1.8.2012 negotiations took place and matter was settled and defendant paid Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement and the dishonoured cheque, counter foil and cheque return memo were returned and though plaintiff has promised to withdraw the suit, he subsequently, he failed to do so.

9. In view of the admission of execution of suit pronote issuing of cheque towards the amount due under the suit pronote and pleads discharge, burden is upon him to prove the same. Only on discharge of the said burden, the burden of proving otherwise shifts to plaintiff.

10. To substantiate the plea of discharge, apart from examining defendant himself as D.W.1 he also examined Smt.K.Gangamma who allegedly present at the time of settlement as D.W.2. D.W.1 filed chief examination affidavit which is a replica of the contents in the written statement. Through him, Ex.B.1 cheque bearing No.013373, dt.2.11.2011 for Rs.1,00,000/-, Ex.B.2 is counter foil, Ex.B.3 debit 10 advise letter of Andhra Bank dt.11.11.2013, Ex.B.4 cheque return memo of SBI, Market yard Branch, Kurnool dt.11.11.2011, Ex.B.5 served copy of legal notice dt.19.11.2012 issued by plaintiff to defendant, Ex.B.6 O/c of the reply notice dt.1.12.2011 and Ex.B.7 postal acknowledgement, were marked.

11. Regarding the alleged settlement, the following admissions of D.W.1 are crucial.

"It is true that the suit pronote was executed in my own handwriting. It is true that I did not make any part payment or full payment towards the amount due under Ex.B.1. It is true that Ex.A.1 do not show that the amount due was paid or stamp affixed was torn.

It is true that the cheque filed by him did not show that amount was paid or it was crossed. It is true that the writings on the cheque and pronote belongs to him. It is true that there is no receipt in respect of the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/-".

12. The afore mentioned admissions clearly shows that though in the written statement he contended that blank signed cheque was obtained from him, it is not true and he himself written the contents in the cheque also and neither part payment nor full payment was made towards the amount due under Ex.A.1 and there is no discharge endorsement on Ex.A.1 pronote or any such endorsement on cheque or any separate receipt was obtained in respect of alleged payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement. Further DW1 himself admits that Ex.B.1 got issued by him to the legal notice of plaintiff and he even denied the execution of pronote and receiving of 10 consideration. On the other hand, he explained that since plaintiff denied the receipt of payment made by him though he received the same, he issued false reply notice. Defendant further admits as follows regarding the alleged settlement.

"It is true that plaintiff requested him to settle the issue with him to avoid rushing to the court unnecessarily. It is true at that juncture, plaintiff has shown him the return bank memo. He denied the suggestion that he behaved in high handed manner and beat plaintiff and due to that behaviour, settlement did not took place".

13. The aforementioned admissions shows that it was the plaintiff who requested for settlement of issue for avoiding to go to courts and he himself shown return cheque and bank return memo to the defendant. Hence, even according to him, plaintiff was in the custody of the dishonoured cheque and cheque return memo at the time of showing the same to him. Defendant deposes that he does not know that plaintiff filed the cheque dishonour case by enclosing certificate issued by the police that the cheque was lost and it is pending for numbering. Regarding the source of Rs.1,00,000/- for the alleged payment towards settlement D.W.1 deposed that by selling four tulas of gold of his wife in the first week of August, 2012 to the pan broker, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to plaintiff and he does not know the pan broker and his shop number since it was sold through his friend. But in support of the same, defendant has examined his own wife as D.W.2 to make her say that her gold was sold for paying the amount.

10

14. The suit was filed on 22.2.2012 and the alleged payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- is dated 12.8.2012 i.e., 6 months after filing of the suit.

Admittedly, by that time summons were received and according to the defendant even prior to the alleged settlement date on some other day, negotiations took place but failed.

15. Admittedly, legal notice was issued prior to the filing of the suit and reply was issued denying execution of the suit pronote and stating that prior to the filing of the suit, plaintiff has requested him for giving an amount of Rs.50,000/- and when he expressed his inability to give the same, plaintiff insisted him to give blank signed cheque and due to that pressure he has given blank signed cheque bearing No.01373 of SBI, Market Yard Branch, Kurnool and that discloses the intention and cheque was misused to harass him. The very fact that in the written statement, there is no whisper about the request of plaintiff for the amount of Rs.50,000/- from defendant and when he expressed his inability and on the pressure by plaintiff only he issued blank signed cheque to him. Further the very introduction of versions in the written statement that on repeated demands of plaintiff about the amount due under the suit pronote atlost he issued blank signed cheque which was dishonoured subsequently, itself shows the conduct of defendant in changing the version that he issued cheque towards the amount due under Ex.A.1. Further when by the date of the alleged settlement suit was pending, legal notice was also issued and reply was issued by the defendant, the alleged payment of

Rs.1,00,000/- which is substantial amount by selling gold of his wife 10 towards full and final settlement of the amount due under Ex.A.1 to plaintiff, without obtaining any discharge endorsement of pronote on a separate receipt or even getting the plaintiff file FS memo in court itself shows the improbability of the said version. It is not the case of defendant that he alone was present at that time. On the other hand, his version is in the presence of one K.Nagaraju and his wife, the alleged settlement and payment of amount took place. The said elder

K.Nagaraju was not examined though defendant has chosen to examine his wife as D.W.2. Why nobody insisted for receipt on discharge endorsement on suit pronote and even filing of withdrawal memo in court or FS memo in court is not explained by defendant.

Without filing any positive evidence except oral evidence in support of the said version the very introduction of version that the cheque and cheque return memo were returned to defendant on such payment to plaintiff and that itself reflects discharge cannot be considered, because according to plaintiff, defendant stealthily got into custody of cheque and cheque return memo when he went to the office of defendant and demanded payment, heat of exchange of words took place in the office and thereafter he went to the office of his counsel for filing of private complaint basing on the dishonour cheque and at that time he noticed loosing of cheque and given police complaint and thereupon police gave Ex.A6 certificate stating that the cheque is not traced.

16. In view of the admission of D.W.1 that plaintiff came to him and requested him to settle the issue to avoid rushing to the court unnecessarily and at that juncture, plaintiff has shown even returned 10 cheque and bank memo itself shows the efforts of plaintiff for settlement and it was not done and access for defendant to get custody of the said cheque and cheque return memo. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that without obtaining any receipt or acknowledgement or filing memo in court, defendant has parted with substantial amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of the amount due. Hence, though plaintiff has strongly denied the alleged settlement and payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and return of the cheque and cheque return memo to defendant, defendant has miserably failed to substantiate his version of discharge. Whereas the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1, pronote,

Ex.A.2 legal notice, Ex.A.3 reply and Ex.A.4 Certificate issued by IV town P.S regarding not tracing of the cheque issued in favour of the plaintiff. Nothing useful to the case of defendant was elicited from

P.W.1. The defendant admits execution of the pronote and issuing of the cheque towards the amount due under the suit pronote. Since he failed to prove the plea of discharge, defendant is entitled for suit amount as prayed for. Hence, I answer the issues accordingly in favour of plaintiff.

17. Issue No.3:- In the result, the suit is decreed for

Rs.1,70,333/- with costs and with subsequent interest on

Rs.1,00,000/- at 9% p.a from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of decree till realization.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court this the 29th day of April, 2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

10

FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff For Defendant.

P.W.1.N.Mohan Kumar. D.W.1. G.Ramanjaneyulu. D.W.2. K.Gangamma.

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff.

Ex.A.1. Pronote. Ex.A.2. Legal notice. Ex.A.3. Reply notice. Ex.A.4. Police Certificate.

Exhibits marked for the defendant.

Ex.B.1. Original Cheque Ex.B.2. Original counter foil. Ex.B.3. Advice Letter. Ex.B.4. Original Cheque return memo. Ex.B.5. Legal notice dt.1.12.2011. Ex.B.6. Reply notice. Ex.B.7. Served Postal Acknowledgement. Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. Fac/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

10

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi, B.Sc., B.l., D.P.M., Adddl.Senior Civil

Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.216 of 2012.

--

N.Mohan Kumar, Son of N.Krishna Murthy, - years, Hindu, Business, R/o H.no.45/142/A31-5, Road No.2, Ramalingeswara Nagar,V.R.Colony, Kurnool. … Plaintiff.

Versus

G.Anjaneyulu, Son of Late Hanumanthu, - years, Hindu, working as U.D.c in Electricity Department, R/o Present H.No.76-111-B, Nirmal Nagar, Besides Tagore School, Kurnool. … Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of Rs.1,70,333/- with costs and with subsequent interest allegedly due under a pronote. On 18.5.2009, the defendant has borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff at Kurnool and executed the suit pronote agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. On repeated demands, the defendant has issued cheque bearing No.179848, dt.5.12.2011 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards part payment of the suit pronote amount and the said cheque was dishonoured and the plaintiff has been taking steps under section 138 of NI Act and subsequently the defendant has filed to repay the amount due. Though the plaintiff got issued legal notice dt.30.01.2012, the same was served upon the defendant, but he did not issue any reply.

Plaint presented on 09.10.2012 and filed on 31.10.2012. J.V of

Rs.1,08,896/- and C.F of Rs.3,526/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 18.03.2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.Chand Basha and Sri H.K.Jalandhar

Rao, Advocates for the plaintiff and of Sri J.Sreedhar, Advocate for the 10 defendant, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, the sum of

Rs.1,70,333/- with subsequent interest on Rs.1,00,000/- at 9% p.a from the date of the presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of the decree till realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff, the sum of

Rs.____________ being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 29th day of April, 2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Memo of Costs.

For plaintiff For Defendant

Sl.No. Description In Rs. In Rs.

1. Stamp on plaint 4,226-00 ---

2. Stamp on vakalath 2-00 ---

3. Stamp on process 57-00 ---

4. Advocate’s Fees ---

5. Advocate’s Fees (Jr) -- ---

6. P.W.charges ---

7. Typing Charges ---

8. Publication Charges --- ---

Total Nil.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE: KURNOOL.

Present: Smt A. Gayathri Devi, B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday the 12th day of May, 2015.

SESSIONS CASE NO.60/2015

State represented by:

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kodumur P.S. … Complainant

- Versus -

1. Harijana Bollavaram Chinna Ramudu, S/o. Late Rajanna, aged 53 yrs.(A1)

2. Harijana Gadi Samuel, S/o. late Chinna Giddaiah, aged 38 yrs. (A5)

3. Harijana Gadi Anandam, S/o. late Chinna Giddaiah, aged 35 yrs. (A6)

4. Harijana Gadi Sadgunam, S/o. late Chinna Giddaiah, aged 45 yrs. (A7)

5. Harijana Gadi Dubbodu @ David, S/o. late Sarai Ramudu, aged 26 yrs. (A9)

All are residents of Laddagiri village, Kodumur mandal.… Accused

This case coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Ch. Prabhakar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the complainant and of Sri N. Narayana Reddy, Advocate for the accused and having perused the material available on record, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sessions case arises out of PRC No.77/2012 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool in Cr.No.75/2011 of

Kodumur Police station, U/Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC. It has been committed to the court of Sessions by virtue of order dt.07-01-2014 by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool.

2. The grave men of the charge against the accused is, in-laws of one Raju (deceased), who is son of LW.1, came along with their relatives, came to her son and beat with hands and legs and also abetted him to commit suicide, on the ground that her daughter-in- law by name Rajeswari, who is wife of her son Raju, died and her son alone is responsible for that, on which, having fear of accused Nos.1, 2 5 to 7 and 9 and other accused, her son committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and thereby all the accused are liable to be convicted U/Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.

3. The case of prosecution in brief is as follows:

(i)On 10-11-2010 marriage of B. Raju (deceased), who is son of LW.1/B. Rathnamma @ Yerrakka was solemnized with one Rajeswari (deceased in Cr.No.67/2011) of Laddagiri, who is daughter-in-law of LW.1.

(ii)At the time of 5th month pregnancy, her daughter-in- law went to her parents’ house as customary procedure and during her stay in her parents’ house, gold ornaments of her daughter-in-law were taken by her sister-in-law and when her son Raju (deceased) and her daughter-in-law asked her parents about the ornaments, then A5 to A7 obstructed her son.

(iii)Keeping the above issues in the mind, daughter-in- law of LW.1 committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison on 17-07-2011 in her parents’ house and died on 18-07-2011 while undergoing treatment, on which, accused herein and other accused, having felt that the husband of Rajeswari by name Raju (deceased) alone is responsible for the death of Rajeswari, attacked Raju and beat him with hands and legs and abetted him to commit suicide by consuming any poison, if not, they would kill him.

(iv)Due to the fear of accused, son of LW.1 i.e., Raju committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison.

Though he was shifted to Government General Hospital,

Kurnool, he died on 31-07-2011 while undergoing treatment.

(v)Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.12 registered a case in Cr.No.75/2011 U/S.306 r/w.34 IPC and investigated into.

(vi)During the course of investigation 7 witnesses were examined and recorded their statements. Since LWs.3 to 7 have not supported the case of version of complainant with regard to the participation of other accused i.e., A2 3 to A4, A8 and A10 to A15, on which, their names were deleted by LW.13, after obtaining permission.

(vii)LW.11, Asst.Professor, Kurnool Medical College,

Kurnool, after conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased B. Raju, opined that the deceased died due to Consumption of organophosphate an insecticide poisoning.

(viii)During the course of investigation, LW.13 arrested A1,

A5, A6, A7 & A9 on 01-12-2011 and sent them to judicial custody.

4.With this back drop of factual scenario, the prosecution has set out its case making the accused liable for the offence punishable

U/Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.

5.On examination U/Sec.228 Cr.P.C., accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the charge U/Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.

Consequently accused have been tried for the charge U/Section 306 r/w.34 of IPC.

6.On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P5 were marked, whereas on behalf of the accused, neither oral nor documentary evidence is let in.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, examination of accused U/S.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

8.Heard the learned Addl.P.P. on behalf of prosecution and learned defence counsel for accused.

9. Upon hearing the rival contentions and on consideration of the material evidence available on record, the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution established the guilt

of the accused for the charges U/Section 306

r/w.34 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?” 10. POINT:

According to the prosecution, since the wife of deceased Raju died, accused herein grew wild and beat one Raju (deceased), 4 husband of deceased with hands and legs and also abetted him to commit suicide, on which, having fear of the accused, the said Raju committed suicide by consuming an insecticide poison and thereby the accused herein are liable to be convicted U/S.306 r/w.34 I.P.C.

11.PW1/B. Rathnamma @ Yerrakka, who is mother of deceased

Raju, deposed that the accused herein are not responsible for the death of her son, since her son died due to stomachache and her daughter-in-law also predeceased to her son and she put her signature in Ex.P1/report without knowing the contents of it and she was not examined by police.

12.PW.2/B. Anil Kumar, who is brother of deceased Raju, deposed that his deceased brother and sister-in-law were committed suicide due to stomachache and accused are no way concerned for their death and he was not examined by police.

13.PW.3/P. Sumithra, who is sister of deceased Raju, deposed that her brother and his wife died due to stomachache and accused are not responsible for their death and she was not examined by police.

14.PW.4/P. Manohar Babu, who is brother-in-law of deceased Raju, deposed that since Rajeswari, wife of his deceased brother-in-law died of stomachache, his brother-in-law, who was in depression, also committed suicide and accused are no way responsible for their death and he was not examined by police.

15.Due to the hostile evidence of PWs.1 to 4, prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including Investigation

Officer. Thus, on perusal of the entire evidence available on record, there is no incriminating material available against accused, and therefore, it is clear that prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused, and they are entitled for acquittal.

16.In the result, accused Nos.1, 5, 6, 7 & 9 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Section 306 r/w.34 I.P.C. and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused along with their sureties shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this Judgment under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

5

The un-marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation to the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 12 th day of May, 2015.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: None.

PW1: B. Rathnamma @ Yerrakka.

PW2: B. Anil Kumar.

PW3: P. Sumithra.

PW.4: P. Manohar Babu.

Exhibits marked For Prosecution: For Defence: Nil.

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 in complaint.

Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

A.A.S.J., KNL.

6

Copies submitted to: 1.The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P., Hyderabad, through the

Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

3. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

4. Copy to the Director of Prosecution, D.G.P., Complex, Saifabad,

Hyderabad.

5. Copy to the Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kurnool.

7

1

In the Court of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Present:­ Smt.A.Gayathri Devi, B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Assistant Sessions

Judge, Kurnool., FAC/Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2015.

S.C.No.434 of 2014 ­­ Inspector of Police, Kurnool Mahila P.S. … Complainant.

Versus

K.Prasad Rao, 41years,Son of Late Venkoji Rao, R.M.P.Doctor, House No.8­140­28­3, Srinivasa Nagar, behind R.T.C Bus Stand, Dhone. … Accused.

This case coming on this day i.e., on 17.04.2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the

complainant and of Sri S.Babu Saheb and Sri B.Venkatesh, Advocates

for the accused, upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for

consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

Judgment

This Sessions case arose out of the charge sheet laid by the Sub­

Inspector of Police, Kurnool Mahila P.S against the accused in

Cr.No.30/2013 for the offences said to have been perpetrated which invites the penal provisions under section 498­A, 323, 307 and 506 IPC and under section 4 of D.P Act.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool, on consideration of the material available on record and having satisfied that this case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions committed the same under section 209 Cr.P.C to the Court of Sessions Division at

Kurnool.

3. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Kurnool, who has taken cognizance of the case under Cr.P.C as Sessions Case No.434/2014 was 2 pleased to make over the same under section 194 Cr.P.C to this court for disposal according to law.

4.The brief facts of prosecution case are that:­

The accused married the de­facto complainant by name K.Rama

Bai by loving her at Bugga Rameswara Swamy Temple on 9.5.2001.

After the marriage they lived happily for some period and were blessed with two children. But unfortunately, the de­facto complainant was attacked with Vitiligo and her entire skin became white. From then onwards, the accused started harassment towards the de­facto complainant without any reasonable cause stating that she is not beautiful and suitable to him. Though parents of the de­facto complainant gave cash and gold as demanded by the accused, but there is no change in the attitude of the accused towards the de­facto complainant. Several panchayats held for reforming the accused to mend his behaviour but in vain. The accused necked out the de­facto complainant from his house. On 22.3.2013 and on 28.03.2013 the accused went to the house of de­facto complainant, beat her and tried to kill and threatened her with dire consequences.

Basing on the report of the de­facto complainant, a case in the above said crime was registered by L.W.10­Inspector of Police and investigaed into. During the coruse of investigaiton, the Inspector of

Police, Kurnool arrested the accused on 03.05.2013 and sent him for remand. Hence, the charge.

5.After accused made his appearance and upon hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and learned defence 3 counsels, and on consideration of the material available on record, charges under secton 498­A, 307, 323 and 506 IPC and under section 4 of D.P Act have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges under section 498­A, 307, 323 and 506 IPC and under section 4 of D.P Act altogether examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4, and on defence side, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. 

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, examination of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses. 

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and learned defence counsel for accused. 

9. Upon hearing the rival contentions on both sides and upon considering the material available on record, the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution has established

the guilt of the accused for the charges

framed against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt?”

10. POINT:­

The case of the prosecution is that the accused married the de­ facto complainant­P.W.1 by loving her and lived happily for some period 4 and were blessed with two children. Later P.W.1 was attacked with

Vitilego. Thereafter the accused started harassment towards her both physically and mentally demanding to bring additional dowry and also tried to kill her. On the complaint the above said crime was registered and investigated into and later Inspector filed charge sheet. 

11.P.W.1 who is the de­facto complainant deposed in her evidence that accused is her husband and he is treating her well and never harassed her. She suffered injuries when she fell down in kitchen.

She was examined by the police. Ex.P.1 is her signature on the private complaint. Since four months they have living together happily. 

12.P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are sister and son in law of P.W.1 deposed that they do not know anything about the case and P.W.1 and the accused are living amicably. They were not examined by the police.

13. Due to the hostile evidence of PWs.1 to 3, prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses including Investigation

Officer and so Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4 section 161 Cr.P.C statements could not be confronted to him. Therefore, there is no evidence left on record to prove the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, this court found that the proscution has failed to prove its case against the accused and as such he is entitled for acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under

Sections 498­A, 323, 307 and 506 IPC and u/s 4 of D.P Act and he is therefore acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused along with their sureties shall remain in force for 6 months from the date of this Judgment under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C. The un­ marked property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

5

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17th day of April, 2015. 

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, 

FAC PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1. Rama Bai. P.W.2. K.Madhusudhan. P.W.3. Jayasurya.

For Defence:

­ None ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1. Signature portion of P.W.1 on private complaint. Ex.P.2. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.3. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4. 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3.

For Defence:

­ NIL ­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

­ NIL ­

A.A.S.J.,

FAC P.A.S.J.,

KNL .

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi., B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Addl.Sr.Civil

Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.341 of 2014.

--

Y.Surendra Reddy, Son of Y.Narayana Reddy, 48 years, Hindu, R/o Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. .… Plaintiff.

Versus

Kuruva Minnulla, Son of Minnulla, 52 years, Muslim, Business, R/o Krishna Puram Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District. Now at Plot No.510, Indira Gandhi colony, Pedda Padu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendants.

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,25,219/- being the Principal and interest due on a pronote dt.8.6.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of

Rs.73,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. In spite of repeated demands, and issuance of legal notice dt.10.04.2014, the defendant did not repay any amount till today. Hence, the suit for the suit amount and for costs.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 30.4.2015 for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.K.Jalandhar Rao and Sri

G.Gopala Krishnaiah and P.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following:

.Judgment.

Plaintiff affidavit filed. P.W.1 is present. Ex.A1 to Ex.A.3 are marked. Reported no further evidence.

Perused the record. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Plaintiff has thus proved the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,25,219/- with subsequent interest on Rs.73,000/- pa at 9% pa from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of the decreed to the date of realization.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 30th day of April,

2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff. For Defendant.

P.W.1. Y.Surendra Reddy.. None.

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff.

Ex.A1. Original Suit Promissory note dt.8.6.2014. Ex.A2. O/c of the legal notice dt.10.4.2014. Ex.A3. Original unserved postal cover two in number

Exhibits marked for the Defendant.

Nil.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi., B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

O.S.No.341 of 2014.

--

Y.Surendra Reddy, Son of Y.Narayana Reddy, 48 years, Hindu, R/o Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. .… Plaintiff.

Versus

Kuruva Minnulla, Son of Minnulla, 52 years, Muslim, Business, R/o Krishna Puram Village, Kodumur Mandal, Kurnool District. Now at Plot No.510, Indira Gandhi colony, Pedda Padu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. … Defendants.

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,25,219/- being the Principal and interest due on a pronote dt.8.6.2011 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of

Rs.73,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. In spite of repeated demands, and issuance of legal notice dt.10.04.2014, the defendant did not repay any amount till today. Hence, the suit for the suit amount and for costs.

Plaint presented on 07.06.2014 and filed on 12.06.2014.

J.V of Rs.1,25,219/- and C.F of Rs.3,726/- is paid under section 20 of A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 30.4.2015 for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.K.Jalandhar Rao and Sri

G.Gopala Krishnaiah and P.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, the sum of

Rs.1,25,219/-with subsequent interest at 9% pa on

Rs.73,000/- from the date of the presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of the decree to the date of realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the said plaintiff, the sum of Rs.6,581/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 30th day of April, 2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Memo of Costs. For Plaintiff inFor Defendant in Rs.Rs. Stamp on Plaint3,726-00--- Stamp on Vakalath2-00--- Stamp on Process65-00--- Advocate’s Fee2,728-00--- Typing charges50-00--- P.W.charges10-00 Total 6,581-00 Nil.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi., B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Addl.Sr.Civil

Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2015.

O.S.No.227 of 2015.

--

N.Vijayudu, Son of Late Hostel Buddanna, 60 years, Hindu, R/o Peddapadu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool. .… Plaintiff.

Versus

S.Shadrak, Son of Harijana Abraham, 40 years, R/o H.no.14/141, Near ABM Church, Gudur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. .… Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- being the Principal and interest due on a pronote dt.28.11.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. In spite of repeated demands, and issuance of legal notice dt.23.02.2015, the defendant did not repay any amount till today. Hence, the suit for the suit amount and for costs.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 1.5.2015 for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.K.Jalandhar Rao and Sri G.Gopala

Krishnaiah and P.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, this court delivered the following::-

.Judgment.

Plaintiff affidavit filed. P.W.1 is present. Ex.A1 to ex.A.3 are marked. Reported no further evidence.

Perused the record. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Plaintiff has thus proved the suit claim as prayed for.

Hence, the suit is decreed for Rs.1,56,000/- with subsequent interest on Rs.1,00,000/- pa at 9% pa from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% p.a from the date of the decree to the date of realization.

Pronounced by me in open Court this the 1st day of May,

2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Appendix of Evidence.

Witnesses examined.

For Plaintiff. For Defendant.

P.W.1. N.Vijayudu None.

Exhibits marked for the Plaintiff.

Ex.A1. Original Suit Promissory note dt.28.11.2012. Ex.A2. O/c of the legal notice dt.23.2.2015. Ex.A3. Original unserved postal cover.

Exhibits marked for the Defendant.

Nil.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

In the Court of the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Present:- Smt.A.Gayathridevi., B.Sc., B.L., D.P.M., Addl.Sr.Civil

Judge, Kurnool FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2015.

O.S.No.227 of 2015.

--

N.Vijayudu, Son of Late Hostel Buddanna, 60 years, Hindu, R/o Peddapadu Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool. .… Plaintiff.

Versus

S.Shadrak, Son of Harijana Abraham, 40 years, R/o H.no.14/141, Near ABM Church, Gudur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District. .… Defendant.

This is a suit filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,56,000/- being the Principal and interest due on a pronote dt.28.11.2012 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a on demand. In spite of repeated demands, and issuance of legal notice dt.23.02.2015, the defendant did not repay any amount till today. Hence, the suit for the suit amount and for costs.

Plaint presented on 30.03.2015 and filed on 31.03.2014. J.V of Rs.1,56,000/- and C.F of Rs.4,026/- is paid under section 20 of

A.P.C.F and S.V. Act.

This suit coming on this day i.e., on 1.5.2015 for final disposal in the presence of Sri H.K.Jalandhar Rao and Sri G.Gopala

Krishnaiah and P.Satyanarayana Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and of the defendant remained exparte, upon perusing the material on record, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

1. that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff, the sum of

Rs.1,56,000/-with subsequent interest at 9% pa on

Rs.1,00,000/- from the date of the presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a from the date of the decree to the date of realization.

2. that the defendant do also pay to the said plaintiff, the sum of Rs.7,353/- being the costs of the suit.

Given under my hand and the seal of this court this the 1st day of May, 2015.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.

Memo of Costs. For Plaintiff inFor Defendant in Rs.Rs. Stamp on Plaint4,026-00--- Stamp on Vakalath2-00--- Stamp on Process85-00--- Advocate’s Fee3,190-00--- Typing charges50-00--- P.W.charges-- Total 7,353-00 Nil.

Addl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool. FAC/Prl.Sr.Civil Judge, Kurnool.