A.Narasimha Murthy

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: KRISHNA: AT

MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri A.Narasimha Murthy,

I Addl. Sessions Judge

Friday, this the 8th day of April, 2022

SESSIONS CASE NO.308/2015

(Crime No.282/2014 of Challapalli Police Station)

COMPLAINANT:The State, Station House Officer, Challapalli Police Station, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Challapalli P.S., 

NAME OF THE ACCUSED:

Neelakantam Eswararao @ Eswar, S/o Suribabu, 22 years, Kapu, Pathavadapalem Village, Bandar Mandal, now at Salipeta, H/o Lakshmipuram Village, Challapalli Mandal. 

OFFENCES CHARGED : U/s 302 of IPC

PLEA OF THE COURT : Not guilty

FINDING OF THE COURT: Not guilty

SENTENCE OR ORDER:­

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1, 2 and 4 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.3­cycle is ordered to be returned to the son of the deceased, who is examined as P.W.3 on proper identification, after expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of appeal if any filed. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437­A of Cr.P.C.,

This Spl. Sessions Case is coming on 07.04.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Rama Dasu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri B.V.Subrahmanyeswara Rao and Sri S.Bala Subrahmanyam, Advocates for Accused, upon perusing the entire material on record, having heard arguments on both sides, and the matter stood over till this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:­ 

JUDGMENT

The Sessions Case arises out of Preliminary Registered Case

No.8/2015 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Avanigadda relating to Crime No.282/2014 of Challapalli Police Station under Section 302 of IPC which has been committed to the Principal 2

Court of Sessions by virtue of its order dated 23.06.2015 and thereupon it has been assigned Sessions Case Number and made over to this Court as per Proceedings of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishna,

Machilipatnam for disposal according to law.

2)The case of the Prosecution in brief is that:

(i) The accused was a native of Pathavadapalem village of

Bandar Mandal but residing at Salipeta, H/o Lakshmipuram Village,

Challapalli Mandal and he was studying 3rd year Polytechnic in

Diviseema Polytechnic College, Avanigadda. One Guthikonda

Venkateswararao, S/o Janaki Ramaiah, Padmasali, Salipeta, H/o

Lakshmipuram Village, Challapalli Mandal is the deceased in this case.

He was an agriculturist and younger brother of the defacto­complainant.

(ii) The complainant and the accused are neighbours and there existed dispute between both the families with regard to house­site since long time. About one year prior to the incident the matter was settled before the elders L.W.12­Koneru Vara Balarama Krishna, L.W.13­

Panchumarthi Saibabu, P.W.9­Nukala Srinu. As per advice of the elders, the father of the accused Neelakantam Suribabu paid Rs.35,000/­ to

L.W.5­Tiruveedhula Nageswara Rao, who is husband of P.W.1­

Tiruveedhula Sitaravamma and taken the disputed house­site. In the said settlement the deceased played active role to get the said amount of

Rs.35,000/­ to his brother­in­law L.W.5­Nageswararao. Since then the accused grew wild and waiting for a chance to wreck vengeance against the deceased.

(iii) The accused altercated with the deceased 2 or 3 times and challenged the deceased to do away his life. On 07.10.2014 at 7.30 p.m., the accused was practicing cricket in the vacant site in front of the

Ramalayam. The deceased was returning by walk on the road along with 3 his bicycle to his house and reached in front of Ramalayam. The accused to do away the life of the deceased, went upon him shouting that, “nakoduku dorikadura, veedini champalani samvatsaram nundi chustunnanu” and beat the deceased with cricket bat on his hand, on back side of head and back side of right ear. On that the deceased fell down on the ground with bleeding injuries. Again the accused beat the deceased on his legs and person with cricket bat indiscriminately.

P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 who were present stopped the accused from beating the deceased, then the accused fled away with the cricket bat.

(iv) Thereafter the deceased was shifted to Government

Hospital, Machilipatnam by his relatives in 108 ambulance and from there he was taken to Government Hospital, Vijayawada and on the way the deceased last his breathe. On receipt of the hospital intimation from the Duty Doctor, Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, the Out­post

Police at the Government Hospital P.W.12­W.A.S.I., recorded the statement of complainant­P.W.1 at 9.20 p.m., and forwarded the same to

Challapalli P.S., on the point of jurisdiction. Basing on the same

P.W.13­Y.Sudhakar, Sub­Inspector of Police registered a case in

Cr.No.282/2014 u/s 302 of IPC on 08.10.2014 and took up investigation.

(v) During the course of investigation L.W.22­N.S.V.K.Durga

Rao, Inspector of Police, Challapalli visited the scene of offence, seized material objects, prepared scene observation report in the presence of mediators P.W.10­Parise Kiran Kumar, V.R.O., and L.W.16­Chinnam

Nageswara Rao, V.R.A., photographed the scene, got conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.10, L.W.16 and L.W.17­Akurati Prabhakara Rao and sent the dead body for post mortem examined, examined witnesses. On 10.10.2014 on receipt of reliable information, the Inspector of Police went to Nimmagadda Lakulu 4 katakatta road, arrested the accused in the presence of above mediators

P.W.10 and L.W.16 and in pursuance of his confession seized the blood stained cricket bat under the cover of a mediators report and produced the accused in the Court for remand. The seized material objects were sent to RFSL, Vijayawada through the Sub­Divisional Police Officer,

Avanigadda and received report. The Medical Officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased issued post mortem report opining that the cause of death was due to injury to vital organ, brain.

Hence the charge.

3)The accused made his appearance on receipt of summons, engaged advocate and on hearing both sides, charge under Section 302 of IPC is framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C., and substance of the accusation alleged against him and contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu who denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4)On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 are examined and

Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 8 are marked. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given­up evidence of LW.5­Tiruveedhula Nageswararao,

L.W.6­Goli Devika, L.W.9­Tiramadasu Nageswara Rao, L.W.12­Koneru

Vara Balarama Krishna, L.Ws.13­Panchumarthi Saibabu, L.W.16­

Chinnam Nageswara Rao, L.W.17­Akurati Prabhakara Rao, L.W.18

Dr.J.Rajasekhar, Scientific Officer, L.W.22­N.S.V.K.Durga Rao and

L.W.23­Y.V.Ramana. The prosecution evidence is closed.

5)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C who denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution. The accused reported no defence evidence.

6)After having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 5 for the Prosecution and learned counsel for the Accused, the points that arise for consideration are:

1) Whether the Accused No.1 beat the deceased with cricket bat on the back side of his head and back side of the right ear with an intention to cause death of Guthikonda Venkateswararao and thus committed offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the charge u/s 302 IPC framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINTS 1 & 2:­

7)The prosecution examined the defacto­complainant, who is sister of the deceased – Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao as P.W.1 and she deposed that she knows the accused and her house and house of the accused were adjacent to each other. The deceased died 07 years back and she was informed by the residents of Salipeta Village that her younger brother Venkateswara Rao was found in pool of blood in front of

Ramalayam. According to her evidence, herself and P.Ws.2 to 4 visited the place of dead body and observed that the deceased was in pool of blood. Her younger brother Venkateswara Rao was shifted to the

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam in Ambulance and doctors advised to shift Venkateswara Rao to Vijayawada Hospital and while her brother

Venkateswara Rao was being shifted to Hospital at Vijayawada, he died during the journey. Her signature was obtained on paper and report shown to her contains Ex.P1 signature, but she does not know the contents of the report and she was not examined by the police. 

8)The wife of the deceased­ P.W.2 deposed in her evidence that she knows the accused, about seven years back locals of Salipeta informed that her husband fell down in pool of blood at Salipeta in front of Ramalayam. Then herself and P.W.1 visited the place where her husband found and they shifted her husband in Ambulance to the 6

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam for treatment. In the hospital they were advised to shift her husband to the Hospital at Vijayawada and while they were shifting her husband to the Government Hospital,

Vijayawada, he died during the journey. Their house and house of the accused were situated adjacent to each other and there were no disputes with regard to boundary between their families. She did not know the reason for the death of her husband and she was not examined by the police.

9)The son of the deceased and P.W.2 – P.W.3 deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused and his deceased father ­

Venkateswara Rao died about seven years back and they were informed in the evening at 7.00 p.m., that his father was fallen on the ground near

Ramalayam. They went to that place and noticed that his father was in pool of blood and they shifted his father in Ambulance to the

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam. P.W.3 deposed that the doctors advised them to shift his father to the Hospital at Vijayawada and he did not know as to how his father died and who had assaulted his father and that he was not examined by the police.

10)The daughter of the deceased – P.W.4 deposed in her evidence that she knows the accused and the deceased Venkateswara

Rao was her father, who is no more and he died about seven years back.

P.W.4 further stated that they were informed about seven years back that her father was in a pool of blood in front of Ramalayam at Salipeta village. They proceeded to that place and observed that her father was in pool of blood and they shifted her father to the Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam. On the advise of doctors her father was being shifted to the Hospital at Vijayawada and during the journey her father died. She 7 does not know the reasons for death of her father and that she was not examined by the police.

11)An eye witnesses to the incident are examined as P.Ws.5 and 6 and they deposed in their evidence that they are residents of Salipeta

Village and they know P.Ws.1 to 4, accused and the deceased, who is no more. They further stated that they do not know as to how Guthikonda

Venkateswara Rao died and they were not examined by the police. Other eye witnesses cited in the charge sheet are examined as P.Ws.7 and 8 and they deposed that they know P.Ws.1 to 3, the accused and the

Deceased Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao, who died five years back, but they do not know the reasons for his death and they were not examined by the police. P.W.9 who is the resident of Chintalamada village deposed that he was agriculturist, he does not know the accused and about facts of the case and he was not examined by the police.

12)P.W.10, the then Village Revenue Officer of Laxmipuram village of Challapalli Mandal deposed that on 08.10.2014 Challapali

Police called him and L.W.16­Chinnam Nageswara Rao to

Sivaramadurgapuram, H/o Lakshmipuram village to act as mediators for scene observation and also for the inquest. They visited the above place at 7.00 a.m., and observed M.O.3­bicycle, M.O.1­slippers, M.O.2­ spectacles, M.O.4­thread rolls and M.O.5­wire basket with broken eggs and it were seized by C.I of Police, Challapalli­L.W.22 in their presence.

Identity slips containing their signatures and C.I of Police were subscribed and attached to the M.Os.1 to 5. P.W.10 stated that he prepared Ex.P11 scene observation report at that place and the C.I of

Police photographed the scene of offence and Ex.P12 is 11 photographs with C.D showing scene of offence.

13)It is the evidence of P.W.10 that they proceeded to the 8

Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and conducted inquest over the dead body of Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao. They enquired with the blood relatives of the deceased and prepared Ex.P13 inquest report, which contain his signature. According to his evidence, he observed head injuries to the deceased Venkateswara Rao, and himself and other inquestdars opined that deceased Venkateswara Rao died due to head injuries on account of assault on his head with M.O.6 Cricket Bat and their opinion is mentioned in Ex.P13 inquest report, which was drafted by him and Village Revenue Assistant, and another mediator signed.

14)P.W.10 further deposed that on 10.10.2014 C.I of Police,

Challapalli called him and VRA/L.W16 to the place of Bus Stand leading to Daliparru village, where they identified the accused. The C.I of Police questioned the accused, who admitted the offence and his statement was recorded under Ex.P14 mediators report drafted at 2.00 p.m., on 10.10.2014. The accused has led them to his house situated at

Sivaramadurgapuram at 4.00 p.m., and showed the M.O.6 Cricket Bat.

Identity slip containing their signatures was affixed to M.O.6 cricket bat.

He drafted Ex.P15 mediators report at 4.00 p.m., on 10.10.2014. 

15)P.W.11 – the then Civil Asst. Surgeon, District Head

Quarters Hospital, Machilipatnam deposed that on 08.10.2014 at about 2.00 p.m., she conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of

Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao and observed the following injuries on the dead body of Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao:

1. Black eye on left contusion about 3 x 3 inches around left eye­ Ante mortem.

2. Black eye on Right contusion about 3.5 x 3 inches around right eye – Ante mortem.

3. Abrasion about ½ x ½ inches on left cheek – Ante mortem.

4. Abrasion about ½ x ½ inches above upper lip on left – Ante mortem.

5. Cut lacerated injury about 1 inch x ¼ inch on upper part of right ear Ante mortem.

9

6. Lacerated injury about 2 x ½ x ½ behind right ear – Ante mortem.

7. Subdural haematoma about 250 CC noted along right temporal and frontal region ­ Ante mortem.

8. Contusion about 1 x 1 inches noted over right knee – Ante mortem.

9. Contusion about ½ x ½ inches noted over right shin – Ante mortem.

10. Contusion about 1 x 1 inches noted over left knee – Ante mortem.

11. Contusion about ½ x ½ inches noted over left leg – Ante mortem.

The cause of death to the best of her knowledge was injury to the vital organ, brain. The approximate time of death was less than 24 hours prior to commencement of autopsy. She concluded postmortem on 4.00 p.m., and Ex.P16 is the post mortem report given by her. The injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient to cause his death.

16)P.W.12 – the then Woman Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police,

Taluq Police Station deposed that on 07.10.2014 she recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P17 in the Government Hospital,

Machilipatnam as the patient was not in conscious state of mind and she forwarded the statement to the S.I of Police, Challapalli. P.W.13 ­ the then Sub­Inspector of Police, Challapalli P.S., deposed that on 08.10.2014 at 2.15 a.m., he received Ex.P18 death intimation of deceased Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao along with Ex.P17 statement of

P.W.1 from Government Hospital, Machilipatnam and basing on the death intimation and statement of P.W1, he registered Ex.P19 FIR in

Cr.No.282/2014 U/Sec.302 IPC.

17)It is stated by P.W.13 that at 6.00 a.m., Inspector of Police,

Challapalli­L.W.22 collected case diary from him and they visited the scene of offence at Salipeta of Lakshmipuram near Ramalayam and prepared Ex.P20 rough sketch and scene observation report of scene of offence. Inspector of Police­L.W.22 examined P.W.5 at the scene of offence and recorded his statement. Then himself and L.W.22 proceeded to Government Hospital, Machilipatnam along with mediators and 10 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Guthikonda

Venkateswara Rao in the presence of the mediators and examined

P.Ws.2 to 4 and L.Ws.5 & 6 and recorded their statements.

18)It is the evidence of P.W.13 that on 10.10.2014 himself and

Inspector of Police­L.W.22 arrested the accused at Daliparru bus stop under the cover of Ex.P14 mediators report. On questioning the accused, he gave statement about the offence and disclosed about placing of cricket bat in his house. Then they proceeded to the house of the accused along with mediators at 4.00 p.m., and the accused produced M.O.6 cricket bat and it was seized under the cover of Ex.P15 mediators report by affixing identity slips and then they sent the accused to the Court for remand.

19)It is further stated by P.W.13 that on 11.10.2014 himself and

L.W.22 examined P.Ws.6 and 7 and recorded their statements and on 13.10.2014 they examined P.W.8 and on 18.10.2014 examined P.W.9 and recorded his statement. P.W.13 testified that on 16.10.2014 L.W.22 obtained Ex.P16 postmortem certificate and sent Blood stained earth, controlled earth, M.O.5 wire basket, M.O6 cricket bat, M.O.7 full hand shirt and M.O.8 cotton lungi and to RFSL for chemical examination.

L.W.23 Inspector of Police, Challapalli Circle took up investigation from his predecessor­ L.W.22, received Ex.P21 RFSL report on 06.01.2015 and filed charge sheet on 29.01.2015.

20)The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution argued that the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 8 to prove the charge under Section 302 IPC framed against the accused, but there is no incriminating material or evidence against the accused except testimony of investigating officer to prove the guilt for the offence under section 302 IPC against accused as 11 alleged by the prosecution. 

21) The learned counsel for the accused argued that P.Ws.1 to 4 are sister, wife, son and daughter of the deceased Guthikonda

Venkateswara Rao and P.Ws.7 to 9 are eye witnesses, P.W.10 is the inquest panchayatdar and mediator and they did not support the prosecution version. It is further contended that prosecution witnesses did not depose anything against the accused and there is no incriminating material or evidence against the accused to prove the guilt of the offences Under Section 302 of IPC as alleged in the prosecution case and he requested to acquit the accused. 

22)The ingredients to satisfy the offence under section 302 IPC by the prosecution shall be that the accused committed an act with an intention to cause death or inflicted such injury as the offender know that it is likely to cause death of person to whom the harm is caused or such injury which is in normal course of event sufficient to cause death.

In other words the evidence of prosecution has to be seen whether the accused beat the deceased­Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao with cricket bat on his head and secondly whether the injuries on the deceased were caused with an intention to kill or accused had knowledge that in normal course such a blow with cricket bat on his head is likely to cause his death. The prosecution initially has to prove the presence of the accused at the time of incident and then it has to prove the ingredients of the charge levelled against the accused. 

23)The scrutiny of the evidence of defacto­complainant who is sister, wife and children of the deceased Guthikonda Venkateswara Rao reveals that they did not support the prosecution case and did not depose anything against the accused attributing any motive to commit offence and about any assault on the deceased and connecting him for 12 the offence of alleged murder except stating that they found the deceased in a pool of blood in front of Ramalayam in Salipeta Village. The evidence of P.W.1 that about 07 years back her signature, Ex.P1 was obtained on a paper and she does not know the contents of the report and police did not examine her.

24)So also, the wife and children of deceased Guthikonda

Venkateswara Rao i.e., P.Ws.2 to 4 did not depose any incriminating evidence against the accused. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 to 4 deposed that they do not know the reason for the death of Guthikonda

Venkateswara Rao. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that they do not know anything about the case is contrary to the prosecution story. So also

P.Ws.5 to 8 who were described as eye witnesses to the incident of brutal murder of the deceased at scene of offence in front of Ramalayam,

Salipeta Village on 7.10.2014 did not support the prosecution version and as such P.Ws.1 to 9 were declared as hostile. The prosecution is permitted to cross­examine P.Ws.1 to 9 who denied about the respective 161 Cr.P.C., statements under Exs.P2 to P10 respectively made by them to the police.

25)Nothing is elicited from the cross­examination of P.Ws.1 to 9 to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Though prosecution examined P.W.10 who was present at the time of observation of scene of offence under Ex.P11, inquest on the dead body of the deceased under

Ex.P13 inquest report, it is only opinion evidence, but not substantive evidence. The prosecution is relying upon evidence of P.W.10 who recorded disclosure statement of the accused under Ex.P15 mediators report and seizure of M.O.6­cricket bat basing on his statement. It is specifically admitted by P.W.10 in the cross­examination that he drafted all the reports on the dictation of Inspector of Police and he did not 13 mention the details of himself and other mediator in the mediators reports drafted by him, except on Ex.P13 inquest report. 

26)It is elicited in the cross­examination of P.W.10 that M.O.6 cricket bat does not contain the signature of the accused and he pleaded ignorance about obtaining his signature and signature of another mediator on identity slips. The testimony of P.W.10 that some police men were present along with accused in Daliparru bus stop at the time of their visit on noticing the presence of the accused creates doubt about the arrest of the accused at the relevant place and time and making statement voluntarily as alleged by the prosecution. It is to be noticed that P.W.10 did not depose about observing any blood stains on M.Os.5 to 7 which were alleged to be seized in his presence. On the other hand, he deposed that he does not remember whether there are any blood stains on the material objects seized in his presence.

27)The confession is a form of admission consisting of direct acknowledgement of guilt in a criminal charge. The Hon’ble Apex Court long back laid down a principle with regard to evidentiary value of the confession in a case reported in Kashmira Singh Vs. State of M.P.

reported in AIR 1952 S.C. 159 in which Hon’ble Apex Court held that,

“The confession of an accused person is not evidence in

the ordinary sense of the term as defined in Section 3. It

cannot be made the foundation of a conviction and can

only be used in support of other evidence. The proper way

is, first, to marshal the evidence against the accused

excluding the confession altogether from consideration

and see whether, if it is believed a conviction could safely

be based on it. If it is capable of belief independently of

the confession, then of course it is not necessary to call

the confession in aid. But cases may arise where the

Judge is not prepared to act on the other evidence as it

stands even though, if believed, it would be sufficient to

sustain a conviction. In such an event the Judge may call

in aid the confession and use it to lend assurance to the

other evidence and thus fortify himself in believing what

14

without the aid of the confession he would not be

prepared to accept.”

28) The Hon’ble Apex Court also held in another decision in

Sakharam Shankar Bansode Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in

1994 S.C.C. (Crl.) 505 held that,

“A retracted extra­judicial confession, though a piece of

evidence on which reliance can be placed, but the same

has to be corroborated by independent evidence. The

Court must be satisfied that the alleged confession was

true, reliable and voluntary. The conduct of the accused

and the circumstances which impelled him to make such

confession must be above suspicion.”

29) Further the Hon’ble Apex Court also laid down in another decision in Balvindar Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1996

S.C.C. (Crl.) Page 59, Court held that,

“An extra­judicial confession by its very nature is rather a

weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a

great deal of care and caution. Where an extra­judicial

confession be surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its

credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.

The Court generally look for independent reliable

corroboration before placing any reliance upon on extra­

judicial confession.”

30)From the above principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in those decisions, the confession should be voluntary, reliable true and should not be caused by inducement, threat or promise.

Coming to the facts of this case, the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 13 reveals that accused gave disclosure statement under Ex.P15 report in the presence of police and recovered M.O.6 cricket bat from the hosue of the accused. The testimony of P.Ws.10 and 13 do not inspire confidence of the court that the said disclosure statement by the accused is voluntary without any threat or promise or inducement. The prosecution did not adduce cogent evidence suggesting that disclosure statement made by 15 the accused is voluntary leading to discovery of M.O.6. As per the above principles of Hon’ble Apex Court, the Extra­Judicial Confession by its nature is weak type of evidence which requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution.

31)In order to accept and act upon retracted extra­judicial confession, the rule of law and prudence requires corroboration in material particulars by the independent witnesses. In the absence of independent evidence, the un­corroborated retracted extra­judicial confessional statement by the accused and alleged seizure of M.O.6 cricket bat cannot be taken into consideration and cannot be acted upon.

Thus, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P15 disclosure statement, more particularly in the absence of independent reliable corroborative evidence. It is elicited in the cross­examination of Medical Officer­

P.W.11 that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P16 post mortem report are possible in case of any road traffic accident. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of P.W.10 to 13 cannot be taken into consideration to sustain conviction against the accused.

32)When the defacto­complainant i.e., P.W.1, other close relatives P.Ws.2 to 4 and eye witnesses to the scene of offence­P.Ws.5 to 9 did not support the prosecution version, the complaint and the statements recorded under 161 Cr.P.C., will not have legal proof it can only be used for contradiction. So also, no probative value can be attached to the inquest report, scene observation report, mediators report and photographs filed by the prosecution. The blood relatives of the deceased cited by the prosecution did not depose anything against the accused. The evidence of the prosecution does not establish presence of the accused at the time of incident at 19.30 hours on 7.10.2014. Thus, Ex.P19 FIR is not substantive evidence to bring home 16 the guilt of the accused for the charge levelled against the accused.

Further the evidence of P.W.11­Medical Officer about the cause of death of the deceased creates any amount of doubt about the prosecution story. Thus, there is no evidence or material on record that the accused caused injuries on the deceased on account of blow with M.O.6 cricket bat on his head and thereby caused the death of the deceased.

33)The prosecution failed to introduce the evidence collected during the course of investigation apart from deficit evidence that is brought on record. Having regard to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and also as per the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material on record, the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for the proof of charge Under Section 302 IPC levelled against the accused. The scrutiny of evidence on record shows that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 302 IPC. Therefore, these points are answered accordingly against to the prosecution.

34)In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. M.Os. 1, 2 and 4 to 8 are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.3­cycle is ordered to be returned to the son of the deceased, who is examined as P.W.3 on proper identification, after expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of appeal if any filed. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437­A of Cr.P.C.,

Typed to my dictation by the Grade­I Steno of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 8th day of April, 2022. 

Sd/­ A.Narasimha Murthy, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

17

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

Prosecution:

P.W.1Tiruveedhula Sitaravamma. P.W.2Guthikonda Subbamma. P.W.3Guthikonda Saikrishna. P.W.4Guthikonda Pavani. P.W.5Lanke Naga Veera Venkata Brahmam. P.W.6Akurathi Adinarayana. P.W.7Aretla Sudhakar. P.W.8Ketana Devi Vara Prasad. P.W.9Nukala Srinu. P.W.10Parise Kiran Kumar, V.R.O., P.W.11Dr.K.Aruna Kumar, Civil Surgeon. P.W.12N.Lakshmibai, A.S.I., P.W.13Y.Sudhakar, S.I., 

Documents marked for Prosecution:­

Ex.P107.10.2014Signature of P.W.1 statement. Ex.P208.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1. Ex.P308.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2. Ex.P408.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3. Ex.P508.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4. Ex.P608.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5. Ex.P708.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6. Ex.P811.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7. Ex.P913.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8. Ex.P1008.10.2014Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9. Ex.P1108.10.2014Scene of offence observation report prepared by P.W.10. Ex.P1208.10.2014Eleven photographs with C.D., showing scene of offence. Ex.P1308.10.2014Inquest report Ex.P1410.10.2014Mediators report prepared at 2.00 p.m., recording the confession of accused. Ex.P1510.10.2014 Mediators report prepared at 4.00 p.m., for seizure of cricket bat. Ex.P16---Postmortem report. Ex.P1707.10.2014Statement of P.W.1 recorded by P.W.12. Ex.P1808.10.2014Hospital Intimation. Ex.P1908.10.2014FIR in Cr.No.282/2014 u/s 302 IPC of Challapalli P.S., Ex.P2008.10.2014Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P2131.12.2014RFSL Report.

Material Objects:­

M.O.1Two slippers/footwear. M.O.2Broken spectacles M.O.3Cycle.

18

M.O.4Thread rolls. M.O.5Wire basket with broken eggs. M.O.6Cricket bat. M.O.7Full hands shirt. M.O.8Cotton Lungi.

Sd/­ A.Narasimha Murthy,

I Addl. Sessions Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: KRISHNA:

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:­ Sri A.Narasimha Murthy,

I Additional District Judge,

FAC/ X Addl. District Judge

Monday, this the 7th day of March, 2022

APPEAL SUIT NO.56/2018

Between:­

Puppala Subba Rao. ...Appellant/Defendant.

AND

Sabbisetty Srirama Chandra Murthy. ...Respondent/Plaintiff.

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED IN

O.S.NO.101/2012, DT.03.04.2017 BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM.

Between:­

Sabbisetti Sri Ramachandra Murthy. ...Plaintiff.

AND

Puppala Subba Rao. ...Defendant.

This appeal has come up on 07.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for the appellant/defendant and of Sri J.M.Prasad (J.P.), Advocate for the Re­ spondent/Plaintiff and upon perusing the material available on record, haring the counsel and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:­

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant in the suit O.S.No.101/2012 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam filed this appeal questioning the judgment and decree dt.03.04.2017, wherein Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, Machilipatnam decreed the suit of the plaintiff which was

filed for recovery of the amount basing on the suit promissory note.

2

2)The parties in the appeal are hereinafter be referred as narrated before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3)The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.101/2012 on the file of

Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam, in brief, as per the averments of the plaint is as follows:

On 05.05.2009 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/­ from the plaintiff for tanks and household expenses by executing a promissory note promising to repay the same with interest at 12% p.a., But when the defendant did not discharge the loan inspite of demands, on 15.03.2011 the plaintiff got issued legal notice, but it evoked no response. Then the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

4)The defendant before the trial Court got filed the written statement denying the averments in the plaint. The brief facts of the written statement are as follows:

The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 5.5.2009 and he never executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the promissory note dt.5.5.2009 is a rank forged document. The plaintiff never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff on 10.8.2010 and the promissory note is a rank forged document. The plaintiff did not file the suit with regard to the other alleged document.

The defendant has got longstanding disputes with the plaintiff and to wreck vengeance the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5)Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled by the trial Court:

1) Whether the borrowing and execution of suit promissory 3 note is true?

2) Whether the suit promissory note is a forged one?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for the suit claim?

6)During the course of trial before the trial Court, the plaintiff, attestors, scribe and wife of the plaintiff were examined as P.Ws.1 to 5 and exhibited documents Exs.A1 and A2. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 but no document is marked on his behalf.

7)The trial Court on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence came to conclusion that the plaintiff has produced prima facie evidence regarding execution and passing of consideration under Ex.A1 promissory note and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 has categorically proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note. The defendant failed to discharge his burden that the suit promissory note is forged. The expert opined that there were no fundamental differences between questioned and standard signatures. As the plaintiff established his case, he was entitled to recover the suit promissory note debt. With these findings the trial

Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

8)As against the findings of the trial Court, the unsuccessful defendant filed the appeal questioning the impugned judgment and contention of the appellant/defendant, in brief, as per the memorandum of appeal grounds are as follows:

(i) The decree and judgment of the trial Court is against to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The trial Court failed to believe the evidence on record and also defence taken by the defendant. The trial Court did not appreciate the defence of the appellant/defendant in judicious manner. The trial Court ought to have 4 seen that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit.

(ii) The trial Court ought to have seen that there is discrepancy with regard to execution and manner of execution of the promissory note. The trial Court ought to have extended one more opportunity to the come to the witness box. The trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence on record. The judgment of the trial

Court suffers from material irregularities, equity and balance in appreciating the truth or otherwise of contention of both parties. The trial Court ought to have seen that the plaintiff failed to prove his financial capacity to lend the suit amount.

(iii) The trial Court ought to have seen that the admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 speak volumes about the falsity of the case of the plaintiff. The trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence and judgment of the trial Court suffers from material irregularities, which is liable to be set aside. The appellant requested to allow the appeal. 

9)Now, in deciding the appeal the points that arise for consideration are as follows:­

1) Whether the plaintiff before the trial Court has proved that the suit promissory note is true, valid, executed

by defendant and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the plaintiff before the trial Court has proved that he is entitled to recover the suit amount?

3) Whether the findings given by the trial Court are sustainable and there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court?

4) To what relief?

POINT NOS.1 to 3:­

10)The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant argued in 5 accordance with the averments in the written statement before the trial

Court and by adverting to the memorandum of appeal grounds and contended further that the defendant used to purchase fertilizers on credit basis for the last 25 to 30 years from the plaintiff, who was doing the fertilizers business and he used to sign on empty promissory notes.

The defendant never admitted his signature on the suit promissory note and his signature is forged. He contended that the plaintiff stated in his cross­examination that he is income tax asseessee and he did not show the lending of the amount under the suit promissory note in his income tax returns and he did not lend any amount to the defendant under the suit promissory note and it is amount of his wife (P.W.3). The plaintiff being holder of the promissory note the law presumes that it is his money which is legally recoverable debt. As such the plaintiff is supposed to mention the transaction under the promissory note in his income tax returns. If the plaintiff did not show the promissory note debt in his income tax returns, it is unaccounted money and law never recognizes and he relied on decision reported in 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 259 (A.P.) between K.Venkata Krishna Prasad v. Peram Sai Swarupa,

Vijayawada and another.

11)The learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the trial Court did not rely upon the above decision and termed it as that decision was rendered in criminal case u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Non­filing of the income tax returns is one of the grounds to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff and the analogy drawn by the Hon’ble High Court can be applied to Sec.118 of N.I. Act for the suit as presumption u/s 139 of N.I.Act is equal to the presumption u/s 118 of N.I. Act. He further submitted that the defendant need not prove his case and he can show the loopholes in 6 the case of the plaintiff and he can probablise his defence from the defects in the evidence of the plaintiff and the presumption can stand rebutted. He finally contended that as the plaintiff did not prove source of income for lending the amount to the defendant, the plaintiff failed to prove legally recoverable debt and he relied on the decision reported in (2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 576 between K.Subramani Vs. K.Damodara Naidu but the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence and the legal position cited by the defendant and erroneously decreed the suit and he requested to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and allow the appeal.

12)The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted arguments in accordance with the averments in the plaint that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/­ on 05.05.2009 and executed

Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 12% p.a., and the defendant failed to repay the promissory note debt inspite of issuing Ex.A2 legal notice which was received by him. He further contended that the plaintiff examined both the attestors, wife and scribe as P.Ws.2 to 5 to prove the promissory note transaction and source of income. He further contended that the wife of the plaintiff is not income tax assessee and she requested her husband to obtain promissory note from the defendant in his name. P.W.3 stated in her evidence that at her instance, amount was lent to the defendant through her husband. No reply notice was given by the defendant after receiving the notice and no other witness was examined on behalf of the defendant.

13)The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further submitted that the plea of the defendant is forgery and he filed petition 7 u/s 45 of Evidence Act and the trial Court allowed the said petition and the suit promissory note was sent to the hand writing expert, who gave opinion that signatures on the promissory note, vakalat and promissory note are one and the same. But the defence of the defendant is changed that the promissory note is not supported by consideration. Two inconsistent versions were taken by the defendant. He further canvassed that the amount lent under the promissory note belongs to the wife of the plaintiff who is not income tax assessee but the debt is not reflected in his income tax returns.

14)He further submitted that Binami Prohibition Act applies to the immovable properties and it will not be applicable between husband and wife and father and son. The plaintiff has discharged his initial burden by examining attestors, scribe and his wife and then the burden shifts to the defendant, but the defendant failed to discharge his defence and failed to explain reasons for forgery of his signatures. The trial

Court appreciated the evidence and material brought before the trial

Court and came to correct conclusion and there are no grounds to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court and he requested to dismiss the appeal.

15)The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the averments in the plaint that the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,50,000/­ on 05.05.2009 for his agricultural expenses and prawn culture and executed Ex.A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount with interest of 12% p.a., According to his evidence, Ex.A1 promissory note was attested by P.Ws.2 and 4 and scribed by P.W.5. It is the evidence of the plaintiff that he got issued Ex.A2 legal notice on 15.3.2011 demanding the defendant to discharge the promissory note 8 debt and defendant received the same and failed to pay any amount and gave any reply.

16)The plaintiff examined both the attestors and scribe on the suit promissory note as P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 respectively, who supported the version of the plaintiff about borrowing amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ by the defendant on 05.05.2009 and execution of Ex.A1 suit promissory note in their presence. P.Ws.2 and 4 deposed that they signed as attestors on the suit promissory note whereas P.W.5 stated that he scribed the suit promissory note and the entire transaction took place in their presence.

The plaintiff also examined his wife as P.W.3 who stated that her parents presented amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ at the time of her marriage as ‘pasupu kumkuma’ and at her instance her husband i.e., plaintiff lent amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ to the defendant on 05.05.2009 and promissory note was executed in favour of her husband. It is further stated by P.W.3 that she is not income tax assesseee.

17)The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and he narrated his version in the written statement that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note on 05.05.2009 to the plaintiff and the suit promissory note is rank forged and he has got longstanding disputes with the plaintiff and to wreck vengeance this suit is filed agaisnt him. It is the evidence of the defendant that the plaintiff filed this suit basing on the promissory note by forging his signatures on the promissory note to have wrongful gain and to have wrongful loss to him. 

18)Perused the pleadings and oral and documentary evidence let in before the trial Court. The plaintiff filed the suit on the foot of the 9 promissory note and defendant has taken defence that the suit promissory note is forged. Now, the evidence adduced before the trial

Court has to be scrutinized to find out correctness of the conclusion arrived by the trial Court. In order to prove his version in the plaint, the plaintiff apart from examining himself as P.W.1, had examined both the attestors and scribe and his wife as P.Ws.2 to 5 to prove passing of consideration and execution of the promissory note by the defendant and source of income. In order to evaluate the evidence of the defendant and in order to arrive at correct conclusion, it is necessary to mention the cross­examination of D.W.1, which is as follows:­ “I know the plaintiff. I do not have any disputes with him. He does

business. It is true that Bantumilli is a centre for surrounding

villages. It is true that the plaintiff issued legal notice before he

filed the suit. I do not have any disputes with either the scribe or

the attestors as I never knew them. Signature shown to me on Ex.A3

and vakalat dt.5.6.2012 filed by Sri S.Balaji Rao does not contain

my signatures. The second signature on Ex.A1 promissory note

shown to me is not mine. I would like to send Ex.A1 promissory

note to the expert questioning my signatures.…..”

19)The above cross­examination of defendant reveals that he does not have any disputes with the plaintiff who had issued legal notice to him before filing the suit. It is the specific defence of the defendant that he never received any legal notice and there is no foundation of pleading that he got issued reply notice. Thus, the version of the defendant in the cross­examination that he does not have any disputes with the plaintiff utterly falsify the version of the defendant in his written statement that he has got longstanding disputes with the plaintiff who filed the suit by forging his signatures on the promissory note. It is interesting to note that the defendant denied his own signatures on the vakalat filed by his counsel in the suit apart from denying one of the signatures on Ex.A1 suit promissory note.

10

20)The defendant also categorically stated in his cross­ examination that he does not have any disputes with the attestors and scribe. When there are no disputes with the attestors and scribe, there is no need and necessity for them to speak any falsehood agaisnt the defendant, much less with any motive. Though the defendant had taken steps by sending the suit promissory note containing disputed signatures to the hand writing expert, who examined and gave his opinion that the signatures on the suit promissory note and the admitted signatures on Vakalat and written statement are one and the same. The defendant did not choose to examine the hand writing expert to disregard his opinion expressed by the hand writing expert and to discard his report. Thus, the defendant failed to establish his defence that his signature is forged on the suit promissory note as alleged by him.

21)When the defendant did not have disputes with the plaintiff as admitted by him in his cross­examination, no motive is proved against the plaintiff and there is no necessity for the plaintiff to forge the signature of the defendant on the suit promissory note. It is also pertinent to note that there is no foundation of pleading in the written statement that the defendant used to purchase fertilizers on credit basis from the plaintiff who used to obtain signatures on the empty promissory notes. When there is no specific plea or evidence by defendant, the said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is untenable and argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is not substitute to the pleading and evidence of the defendant.

22)The provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act do not contemplate that lending of the amount under promissory note shall be shown in the income tax returns. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff, 11 particularly the testimony of his wife i.e., P.W.3 reveals that her amount was given to the defendant under the suit promissory note through her husband. There is no provision under law that lending the amount of the wife by the husband cannot be presumed that the said amount is not legally recoverable debt and it is unaccounted money. It is suggested in the cross­examination of the plaintiff by the defendant that he does not have financial capacity to lend the amount under the promissory note.

23)It is not the defence of the defendant that the plaintiff or his wife has no financial capacity to lend the amount under the suit promissory note. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in K.Venkata Krishna Prasad’s case reveals that the decision was rendered in a case filed u/s 138 of N.I.Act where the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity and the attestors and scribe of the promissory note were not examined. But facts in this case are totally different and the plaintiff examined the attestors, scribe and also his wife for the source of income and there is no pleading that the plaintiff has no financial capacity to lend the amount. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, which were rendered in the transaction u/s 138 of N.I.Act are not all applicable to the present facts of the case and these decisions are not helpful to the case of the defendant.

24)Except the self­serving testimony of the defendant, absolutely no cogent evidence is adduced by the defendant to prove his plea of forgery of his signatures on the suit promissory note. The case of the defendant suffers with inconsistent versions and inherent infirmities.

On the other hand, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff is in accordance with the pleadings and his testimony is corroborated with the testimony 12 of P.Ws.2 to 5. The admissions made by the defendant in his cross­ examination that he has no disputes with the plaintiff and receipt of the legal notice falsify his defence.

25)If really the defendant did not borrow any amount and did not execute suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, nothing prevented the defendant to issue suitable reply notice to put forth his present contention. Thus, non­issuance of reply notice by the defendant is one of the circumstances to disbelieve the defence of the defendant.

The trial Court considered all these aspects and gave appropriate finding that the suit promissory note is true, valid and executed by defendant after receiving consideration under the promissory note. The findings recorded by the trial Court are proper and these are based on evidence brought before the trial Court by appreciating the contentions of both parties.

26)Having regard to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and considering the material brought before the trial Court, it is inevitable to hold that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.2,50,000/­ and executed suit promissory note agreeing to repay the said amount but failed to discharge the said debt inspite of issuing legal notice by the plaintiff before filing the suit. The defendant utterly failed to prove his plea of forgery. The appraisal of evidence by the trial Court does not suffer from any material irregularity or is based on inadmissible evidence. Thus, the findings given by the trial Court are sustainable and absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, these points are answered accordingly against to the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

13

POINT NO.4:

27)In view of the findings and observations in points 1 to 3 decided supra, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs.

28)In the result, appeal suit is dismissed, with costs by confirming the judgment and decree dt.03.04.2017 in O.S.No.101/2012 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Machilipatnam.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade­I Steno of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of March, 2022. Sd/­.A.Narasimha Murthy,

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

FAC/ X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

NIL

Sd/­.A.Narasimha Murthy,

I ADJ.,

 FAC/X ADJ.,

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE: KRISHNA:

MACHILIPATNAM

Present:­ Sri A.Narasimha Murthy, I Additional District Judge

Tuesday, this the 22nd day of March, 2022

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.51/2018

Between:­

Ponnuru Venkata Subrahmanyam. ...Plaintiff.

AND

Chaparala Sasikala. ...Defendant.

This suit is coming on 21.03.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri L.Balaji, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri Ch.V.Phanikesava Rao, Advocate for the defendant and upon perusing the material available on record, hearing the counsel and the matter hav­ ing stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the fol­ lowing:­

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.15,01,300/­ with costs and subsequent interest on the foot of the promissory note dt.01.05.2016 on the following averments:­

The defendant borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff for her family expenses and business of her son and executed demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff at Machilipatnam agreeing to repay the said amount with interest of 24% p.a., either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant handed over her original title deeds i.e., registered sale deeds vide Document

Nos.4153/2009, dt.11.09.2009 and 4152/2009, dt.11.09.2009 towards surety to the plaintiff on the date of the execution of the promissory note.

The defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the promissory note inspite of repeated oral demands made by the plaintiff and she has been postponing the same on some pretext or other. The 2 plaintiff got issued legal notice on 22.05.2018 to the defendant demanding to repay the sum due under the promissory note. As the defendant did not repay the amount, suit is filed for recovery of the amount due under the promissory note. Hence the suit.

2)The defendant filed the written statement denying the averments in the plaint. The brief facts of the written statement of the defendant are as follows:

The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff much less the amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ and she has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff. On enquiry the defendant came to know that the plaintiff is a close associate of one Abhiram with whom her son had financial dealings. The said Abhiram lent some amount to the son of the defendant through his father­in­law Narasinga Rao in the years 2013 and 2014. The son of this defendant paid amounts to him and by the end of March, 2015 the son of this defendant fell in due of a sum of

Rs.9,00,000/­ to the said Abhiram after finalization of account. The said

Abhiram obtained blank signed cheques, promissory notes, stamp papers and white papers as security for the due amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­. Subsequently disputes arose between the defendant and the said Abhiram, as said Abhiram started claiming more amount than the due amount. The said Abhiram created an agreement of sale and got filed a suit in O.S.No.65/2018 on the file of XI Addl. District Court,

Gudivada through his mother Kudaravalli Rajani for the relief of specific performance of sale against this defendant. The said Abhiram also got filed a suit in O.S.No.52/2018 on the file of this Court against the son of this defendant through one M.Sekhar by creating a promissory note by forging signatures of son of this defendant. The signatures on the suit promissory note are rank forgery and do not belong to this defendant.

3

The plaintiff fabricated the suit promissory note in active collusion with the attestors and scribe only with a dishonest intention to make wrongful gain and the defendant requested to dismiss the suit with costs.

3)Basing on the above pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant, the following issues were settled by my predecessor­in­office:

1) Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and supported by consideration?

2) Whether the promissory note is rank forged one as contended by the defendant?

3) To what relief?

4)On perusal of the pleadings and the issues framed, the Court is of the considered opinion that it is just and necessary to frame

additional issue to determine the real controversy between the parties to

the suit. Thus, the following additional issue is framed:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount?”

5)During the course of trial, the plaintiff, Mogili Venu and

Maroji Nagaraju are examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 on behalf of the plaintiff and documents Exs.A1 to A5 are exhibited by the plaintiff. Defendant is examined as D.W.1, but no document is exhibited by the defendant.

6)Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant. 

ISSUES 1, 2 & ADDITIONAL ISSUE:­

7)The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and he reiterated the averments in the plaint that defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.10,00,000/­ from him on 1.5.2016 for her family expenses and business of her son and executed Ex.A1 demand promissory note in his favour at Machilipatnam agreeing to repay the said amount with interest of 24% p.a., in the presence of attestors P.Ws.2 and 3 and in the 4 presence of scribe G.Raju. According to his evidence, the defendant has handed over Exs.A2 and A3, which are her original title deeds dt.11.09.2009 towards the surety of the promissory note debt at the time of borrowing the amount. It is in the evidence of the plaintiff that the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under the promissory note inspite of the repeated demands made by him. Then he got issued

Ex.A4 notice on 22.5.2018 demanding the defendant to repay the promissory note debt, but the defendant did not pay any amount, as such he filed the suit for recovery of the amount due under the suit promissory note.

8)The plaintiff examined both the attestors of Ex.A1 suit promissory note as P.Ws.2 and 3, who supported the version of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff on 1.5.2016 and executed demand promissory note in his favour in their presence and in the presence of G.Raju, who scribed the suit promissory note. They further deposed that they signed as attestors on suit promissory note after execution of the promissory note by the defendant. The defendant handed over her original title deeds dt.11.09.2009 to the plaintiff towards security to the promissory note debt at the time of promissory note transaction and entire transaction took place in their presence.

9)As against the above evidence, the defendant is examined as

D.W.1 and she narrated her version in the written statement that she never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and she has no facial acquaintance with the plaintiff, who is a close associate of one Abhiram, with whom her son had financial dealings. Her son was indebted to a sum of Rs.9,00,000/­ to the said Abhiram after finalization of the accounts and Abhiram obtained blank signed cheques, promissory notes, 5 stamp papers and white papers towards security for the said amount of

Rs.9,00,000/­ and subsequently disputes arose between her son and

Abhiram, who created agreement of sale and got filed the suit

O.S.65/2018 before XI Addl. District Court, Gudivada through his

mother for specific performance of agreement of sale. It is further stated by D.W.1 that said Abhiram also got filed suit O.S.52/2018 against her son through one Shekar by forging the signatures of her son. It is further testified by defendant that her signatures on the suit promissory note are rank forged and do not belong to her and the promissory note is fabricated in collusion with the attestors and scribe and she did not receive any consideration.

10) The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff at Machilipatnam, which is categorically mentioned on the suit promissory note and at that time the defendant delivered her original title deeds to the plaintiff as surety for the promissory note debt. In order to prove the claim in the suit the plaintiff examined himself and examined both the attetors, who are

Government employees. The defence of the defendant is that empty promissory notes were obtained by Abhiram, but she did not examine her son to prove her defence.

11)He submitted that the cross­examination of the defendant reveals that several suits and cases are filed against her, her son and her husband in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana State and she is in the habit of borrowing amounts and avoiding repayment of the amount due to the creditors. He finally contended that except inconsistent evidence of the defendant, there is no cogent evidence by the defendant to prove her defence and evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 proved the suit promissory note transaction and passing of consideration and requested to decree the 6 suit.

12)The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is resident of Hyderabad, defendant is resident of Gudivada and attestors are residents of Hyderabad and none of the parties are residing at Machilipatnam. It is highly improbable to believe the claim of the plaintiff that the promissory note transaction took place at

Machilipatnam. It is canvassed that the defence of the defendant is that her signatures are forged on the promissory note and two other promissory notes are fabricated and another suit was filed on the same day. The attestors and scribe in both the suits are common. Though the plaintiff contended that the scribe is resident of Machilipatnam he was not examined to prove the promissory note transaction. As the defendant did not execute the promissory note and plaintiff failed to prove the lending of amount and execution of the promissory note, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendant and he requested to dismiss the suit.

13)In order to substantiate the claim in the suit, the plaintiff apart from examining himself had examined both the attestors of Ex.A1 promissory note that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from him on 1.5.2016 for the purpose of her family expenses and business of her son and executed suit promissory note at Machilipatnam in the presence of attestors and scribe. Thus, the plaintiff discharged his initial burden by examining both the attestors apart from examining himself. The plea of the defendant in the written statement is that her signature is forged on the promissory note and fabricated by one

Abhiram who is friend of her son. It is to be noticed that the defendant did not file any petition u/s 45 of Evidence Act to send the suit promissory note to the hand writing expert to prove her plea of forgery of 7 her signature. It is to be noticed that no suggestion is given in the cross­ examination of plaintiff and his witnesses that Ex.A1 suit promissory note is forged and Ex.A1 does not contain signature of the defendant. In order to evaluate the evidence of the defendant for trustworthiness, it is necessary to mention the cross­examination of the defendant, which is as follows:­

“I studied up to 8 th class. I am sign in English. I know the

contents of the plaint. Exhibit A2 and A3 belongs to me.

Witness admitted after perusing the document. My house

address is Door No.8/310/10, Rajendra Nagar, Gudiwada. I

don’t know whether the plaintiff got issued legal notice

exhibit A4. It is true I did not give any reply notice exhibit

A4. It is true myself and my husband and my son have been

residing in house Door No.8/310/10. After filing of the suit I

have not seen the Exhibit A1 promissory note. I don’t know

the contents of the Exhibit A1 till today. I filed my written

statement with knowing contents of the in Exhibit A1. I got

issued to legal notice to plaintiff. I don’t know when I got

issued legal notice. I don’t know contents of my written

statement. I was not present at the time of examination of

PW1 to PW3 were examined. After filing of the suit I never

come to Machilipatnam court. I never enquired about the

plaintiff. It is true, I did not file any document to show that

my son borrowed an amount from Abhiram. It is true I did

not file any document to prove that my son Midhun borrowed

amount from Abhiram in 2013 and 2014 is my son repaid in

the 2015. So also I did not file any document to show that

my son has become due Rs.9,00,000/­ to Abhiram. It is true I

did not file any document to show that plaintiff related to

Abhiram. I can’t say the blank sign cheques, promissory

notes, stamp papers, white papers with Abhiram. I did not

send any legal notice Abhiram demanding return of above

mentioning documents. It is true I did not sign over any

above referred documents to Abhiram. After filing of the suit

I got issued legal notice to plaintiff return of Exhibit A2 &

A3. It is true in exhibit A1 mentioned Hallmakam in

Machilipatnam and it was also mentioned that in exhibit A2

and A3 given as surety in exhibit A1. It is true the house was

attached in this suit. I don’t know how many cases pending

in my son and husband. I got two sons. It is true on

V.T.Srinivasan filed CC.176/2017 before Judl. Magistrate of I

Class, Tadipathry, Anantapur District against my husband

8

and my two sons. The suit filed by one Sonti Venu against

my son in O.S.1734/2019 was disposed off. The another suit

O.S.1733/2019 on the file of 1 st Addl. Metropolitan

Magistrate Court, Vijayawada disposed off. It is true Crime

No.183/2019 in Gudivada II Town police station registered

against my husband and my two sons u/s 420 IPC. It is true

O.S.16/2019 was filed against me, my husband, my son

Midhun on the file of I Addl. Chief Judge, Secunderabad. It is

true my son attending in C.C.524/2018 on the file of XX Addl.

Chief MM Court, Secunderabad. It is true myself and son

Midhun are accused in C.C.530/2018 in XXth Addl. Chief MM

Court, Secunderabad. It is true apart from above cases

another 8 cases are pending against my sons and husband. I

constructed my house by obtaining housing loan and same

was discharged. It is true I also obtained loan for Fish

Tanks and subsequently the same was discharged. I am not

in the habit to sign on empty promissory notes. I never

handed over unfilled promissory note to the plaintiff. I don’t

know whether I lodged complaint with police station that

Ex.A2 and A3 were missed from me. I don’t know full details

of my chief affidavit. It is true I did not mention in my chief

affidavit that I did not hand over Ex.A2 and A3.”

14)The cross­examination of defendant reveals that Exs.A2 and

A3 title deeds are related to her property. Though the defendant stated that she got issued legal notice to the plaintiff for return of Exs.A2 and

A3 documents and gave police report, there is neither pleading nor deposed by her in her chief­examination to accept her version in the cross­examination. So also the defendant did not deny her address mentioned in Ex.A4 legal notice. The defendant also admitted that it is mentioned in Ex.A1 promissory note that it was executed at

Machilipatnam.

15)If really the defendant did not borrow amount of

Rs.10,00,000/­ and did not execute Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, there is no proper explanation as to how the plaintiff came into possession of her original title deeds Exs.A2 and A3. So also the defendant did not lodge any report against the plaintiff for retaining 9 her title deeds Exs.A2 and A3 with the plaintiff unauthorisedly without any right. When the defendant did not deny her address mentioned in

Ex.A4 legal notice, it can be safely inferred and presumed that the defendant received said notice, but she did not issue suitable reply notice. No prudent person would keep quiet without taking any steps against the person who issued notice demanding debt and having custody of her title deeds. Non­issuing of reply notice by the defendant is one of the circumstances to disbelieve her defence of forgery and alleged disputed with Abhiram. Further inaction on the part of the defendant for not taking steps for return of Exs.A2 and A3 title deeds from the plaintiff is another circumstance to disbelieve her defence that plaintiff forged her signature and not borrowing any amount from the plaintiff.

16)It is also pertinent to note that except interested testimony of the defendant, she did not choose to examine her son, who is a material witness to prove that her son had financial transactions with Abhiram, who got filed this suit and other suits against her to have unlawful gain as alleged by her. Further nothing wrong is elicited from the cross­ examination of plaintiff and his witnesses to discredit their testimony, whose evidence is consistent throughout their examination and their evidence is corroborated with the material averments in the plaint.

17)The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.A1 to A5 conjointly establishes that the defendant borrowed amount of

Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest of 24% p.a., and also delivered Exs.A2 and A3 her original title deeds in respect of the property of the defendant as surety for the repayment of the promissory note debt. The facts elicited in the cross­examination of 10 the defendant reveals that there are several suits filed against her, her husband and her son apart from this suit while borrowing amounts. The defendant had taken similar defence in the other suits in order to avoid her liability and in order to evade repayment of the debt due under the promissory notes.

18)When the plaintiff had examined both the attestors of the suit promissory note, their evidence coupled with the evidence of the plaintiff establishes that the suit promissory note was executed at

Machilipatnam. Non­examination of the scribe by the plaintiff is not a ground to disprove the case of the plaintiff and prove the defence of the defendant. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant in this regard. The scrutiny of the evidence adduced before the Court establishes that the defendant failed to discharge the Ex.A1 promissory note debt due inspite of receiving Ex.A4 legal notice and thus the plaintiff is entitled to recover the promissory note debt from the defendant with interest.

19)Having regard to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 conjointly establishes that the defendant borrowed amount of Rs.10,00,000/­ from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A1 suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest. But the defendant failed to repay the promissory note debt inspite of the demands made by the plaintiff. As such plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due under the promissory note from the defendant. Therefore, the issues 1 and 2 and additional issue are accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiff and against to the defendant.

ISSUE NO.3:

11

20)In view of the findings and observations on Issues 1 and 2 and additional issue decided supra, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed, with costs.

21)In the result, the suit is decreed for a sum of Rs.15,01,300/­ with costs and subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree with further interest at 6% p.a., till realization on the sum of Rs.10,00,000/­.

Typed to my dictation by the Grade­I Steno of this Court, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 22nd day of March, 2022. Sd/­ A.Narasimha Murthy, 

I ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF

PLAINTIFFS:

P.W.1 – Ponnuru Venkata Subrahmanyam. P.W.2 – Mogili Venu. P.W.3 – Maroju Nagaraju.

DEFENDANT:

D.W.1 – Chaparala Sasikala.

Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs:­

Ex.A1 Promissory note dt.01.05.2016 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A2 Original sale deed dt.11.09.2009 vide Doc.No.4153/2009 standing in the name of defendant. Ex.A3 Original sale deed dt.11.09.2009 vide Doc.No.4152/2009 standing in the name of defendant. Ex.A4 Office copy of legal notice got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, dt.22.5.2019. Ex.A5 Origianl courier receipt dt.22.5.2019.

Documents marked on behalf of the defendant:­ NIL

Sd/­ A.N.M.,

I ADJ.,

1

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

In the Court of the Principal District Judge,

Krishna, Machilipatnam

Present: - Sri A.Narasimha Murthy, X Additional District Judge, FAC/Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam

Monday, this the 27th day of September, 2021

Adoption O.P.No.6/2021

(In the matter of Appointment of Prospective Adoptive Parents for Minor Child ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Male) New Name as “SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK”, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020) Between:

1. The Assistant Project Director, District Women & Child Development Agency, 1st Line, Uma Shankar Nagar, Kanuru, Vijayawada Rural – 520007. … Applicant

2. Shaik Bashid, S/o Shaik Khadar, Muslim, 38 years, Assistant Manager, MARCOM, Sri Sri Anthahpuram colony, Plot No.132, Patelguda road, Bongulooru gate, Telangana State, Ranga Reddy District-501510.

3. Shaik Sonia, W/o Shaik Bashid, Muslim, 32 years, Housewife, Sri Sri Anthahpuram colony, Plot No.132, Patelguda road, Bongulooru gate, Telangana State, Ranga Reddy District-501510. …Prospective Adoptive Parents

A n d . . . N I L . . . … Respondent

This petition is coming before me on this day for final hearing in the presence of Smt. S.Srigowri, Advocate for Applicant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day and this Court made the following:

O R D E R

Applicant filed petition under Section 58 (3) of the Juvenile

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (2 of 2016) (hereinafter referred to ‘The Act’ for brevity) read with Regulation 12 (2) of the Adoption Regulations seeking to grant permission to the applicant to give the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth:

04.08.2020, in adoption to the Prospective Adoptive Parents (for

Page 1 of 12 2

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

brevity ‘PAPs’) and to direct the Birth Certificate Issuing Authority i.e.,

Municipal Corporation, Machilipatnam to issue Birth Certificate for the said child within five working days from the date of application, as per the provisions of regulation 36 of the Adoption Regulations and for other reliefs.

2. Averments, in brief, of the petition are as follows:-

The Government of Andhra Pradesh recognized the Specialized

Adoption Agency (SAA) Sisugruha, Machilipatnam under Section 65 of the Act for rehabilitating orphan, abandoned and surrendered children through adoption in accordance with the provisions of the Act and

Adoption Regulations.

2.1. The Co-Applicant is a registered Child Care Institution, which is having the care and custody of the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name),

Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 intends to give the child in adoption to the above named PAPs through the applicant/Specialized Adoption

Agency as per the provision of Section 66 of the Act.

2.2. The minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 has been declared legally free for adoption by the Child Welfare

Committee (CWC), Krishna District (copy of order is annexed), as per the provisions of Section 38 of the Act and the said child is registered in the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System with

Registration No.PrTe101997493 for the purpose of adoption as envisaged in Section 56 (1) of the Act.

Page 2 of 12 3

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

2.3. The Prospective Adoptive Parents are Indians, presently living at Sri Sri Anthahpuram colony, Plot No.132, Patelguda road,

Bongulooru gate, Telangana State, Ranga Reddy District-501510.

2.4. The Prospective Adoptive Parents are registered in the

Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System with

Registration No.PrTe101997493. They have been found eligible and suitable to adopt the above named child as per the criteria mentioned in Section 57 of the Act and regulation 5 of the Adoption Regulations, based upon their Home Study Report annexed. They have been found suitable by the Adoption Committee to adopt the above named child. A true copy of the decision of the Adoption Committee is also annexed.

2.5. The above named child has been referred to the said

Prospective Adoptive Parents online through Child Adoption Resource

Information and Guidance System and has been accepted by the said

Prospective Adoptive Parents by signing the Child Study Report and

Medical Examination Report on 11.02.2021. The child has been given in pre-adoption foster care to the said prospective adoptive parents on 11.02.2021 after obtaining a Pre-adoption Foster Care Affidavit, as per the provisions of Section 58 (3) of the Act and Regulation 11 (1) of the

Adoption Regulations.

2.6. The Prospective Adoptive Parents have undertaken in the said Pre-adoption Foster Care Affidavit that they will allow the authorized social worker/functionary of the Specialized Adoption

Agency/District Child Protection Unit/State Adoption Resource Agency to visit their home for undertaking post-adoption follow up to ascertain the progress and well-being of the child in the adoptive family.

Page 3 of 12 4

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

2.7. The Prospective Adoptive Parents have further undertaken to inform that any change in the place of their residence (other than as stated in this application), to the Applicant, State Adoption Resource

Agency concerned and to this Court for the purpose of post adoption follow-up.

2.8. The Prospective Adoptive Parents have also undertaken to up-bring the said child as their own and to accord the same status/ rights/privileges to the child at par with the natural born child as provided in pre-adoption foster care affidavit annexed with the application. The Applicant has decided to place the child in adoption as per decision of Adoption Committee vide its meeting dt.11.02.2021 (copy annexed).

2.9. The conditions laid down in Section 61 (1) of the Act have been complied with in this adoption case.

2.10. The giver and takers have no interest directly or indirectly adverse to that of the child. The applicant(s) are within the jurisdiction of this Court and this court has jurisdiction to pass Adoption Order as per the provisions of Section 2 (23), 58 (3) and 61 of the Act.

2.11. The applicant understood that the adopted child shall become the lawful child of the prospective adoptive parents with all rights, privileges and responsibilities that are attached to a biological child. The applicant has not filed any other application for the adoption of the said child in any other court of law. Hence, the petition.

3. On behalf of applicant, the Assistant Project Director is examined as P.W.1 on behalf of Applicant after obtaining permission from the Court under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice and under

Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity ‘the CPC’)

Page 4 of 12 5

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

and got exhibited Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.17 documents. The Prospective adoptive parents examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

5. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the Prospective Adoptive Parents are entitled to adopt the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 from the Applicant, as prayed for?

P O I N T: -

6. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the

Government of Andhra Pradesh recognized Sishu Gruha, Project

Director Women and Child Development Agency i.e., the applicant as the Adoption Placement Agency vide G.O.Ms.No.7 of 2000, dt.01.03.2000 to provide shelter and also to take care of neglected and abandoned children. It is further taken to judicial notice that as per G.O.Ms.No.8 of 2000, dt.23.03.2000 the Government of Andhra

Pradesh gave permission to give children for in-country adoption, who are in the care and custody of applicant in accordance with guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource Agency from time to time.

Thereby, the applicant has become defacto-guardian of those children, who are in the care and custody of Sishugruha.

7. Undoubtedly, the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth:

04.08.2020 was kept in care and custody of Sishu Gruha,

Machilipatnam being surrendered at Sishu Gruha, Machilipatnam vide reference No.645/2020, dt.12.08.2020.

8. Ex.A.7 Attested copy of Marriage Certificate of Prospective

Adoptive Parents, dt.21.05.2011, shows that the Prospective Adoptive

Page 5 of 12 6

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

Parents were married according to Special Marriage Act, 1954 and they are living together as wife and husband. Ex.A.8 are two reference letters from acquaintance of Prospective Adoptive Parents issued on 09.12.2021 and 27.01.2021 in support of adoption. The child is normal child, having good health, very active and not suffering from any kind of diseases as evidenced under Ex.A.9 Child Study Report and Ex.A.10

Medical Examination Report signed by the Prospective Adoptive

Parents, shows that the Prospective Adoptive Parents read and understood the contents of Medical Examination Report and they are willing to accept the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 as their adoptive child. Under Ex.A.11, dt.18.12.2020, the Child

Welfare Committee, which is formed to declare whether the child is fit for adoption, has declared that the said child being surrendered on 16.10.2020 and he is legally free for adoption vide Proceedings dt.18.12.2020.

9. Ex.A.12 Home Study Report signed by Prospective

Adoptive Parents along with their recent family photograph dt.17.04.2018 reveals that the prospective adoptive parents have requisite qualifications for being eligible to adopt and do not suffer from any physical, mental, financial, legal or any other disability whatsoever and the application of prospective adoptive parents was approved by the applicant. The Specialized Adoption Agency (SAA) situated at D.No.21-324-9, Sharkey Colony, Nobel Colony,

Machilipatnam is a recognized agency by the Department of Juvenile

Welfare Correctional Services & Welfare of Street Children i.e.,

Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Ex.A.13 photocopy of Certificate

Page 6 of 12 7

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

of Registration. Under Ex.A.14 the applicant vide Proceedings No.03/

SAA/MTM/2021, dt.11.02.2021 given the child for adoption pending legal formalities, as the prospective adoptive parents agreed to take care and look after the welfare of the child. In support of adoption of child, the Chief Functionary of the Specialized Adoption Agency gave an affidavit to the court on 17.04.2021. Under Ex.A.15 prospective adoptive parents executed Pre-Adoption Foster Care Undertaking in favour of applicant on 11.02.2021. Since then the child was in their care and custody. Ex.A.16 Surrender Deed dt.16.10.2020, discloses that the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 was relinquished at Child Welfare Committee, when he was aged 9 days, by a distraught, hapless and helpless mother named Sk. Shaheena @ Laxmi, resident of Kothagullu centre,

Mallikharjunapet, Vijayawada. Under Ex.A.15 the applicant handed over the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK

SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020, for adoption pending legal formalities, as the prospective adoptive parents agreed to take care and look after the welfare of child.

10. Ex.A.1 is current family photograph along with CD of

Prospective Adoptive Parents shows their identity. Ex.A.2 is attested copies of PAN cards of Prospective Adoptive Parents show their financial position. Ex.A.3 attested copies of proof of date of births of

Prospective Adoptive Parents. Ex.A.4 is Proof of residence i.e., attested copies of Aadhar Cards of Prospective Adoptive Parents, dt.15.10.2014. Ex.A.5 proof of income of prospective adoptive parent/

P.W.2 i.e., Form-16 for three years, shows the annual income of

P.W.2. Ex.A.6 Medical Certificates issued by the Civil Assistant

Page 7 of 12 8

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District certifying that the Prospective Adoptive Parents do not suffer from any chronic contagious or fatal diseases and they are fit to adopt a child.

11. As per the chief-examination affidavits of P.Ws.2 and 3/ prospective adoptive parents, they are issueless and their efforts for children, became futile. They approached the applicant for the purpose of taking a child in adoption to give health, education and life to under-privileged child. Accordingly, they made an application intending to adopt a child. P.W.2 affirmed in his affidavit that he is working as

Assistant Manager and earning an amount of Rs.8,71,572/- per annum and his wife i.e., P.W.3 is a homemaker, they are educated. As such,

P.W.2 and P.W.3 are economically in a sound position to take care and see the well-being of minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth:

04.08.2020.

12. The Act provides for adoption of the child with a view to ensue right to family for the orphan, abandoned and surrendered children under Section 56 of the Act. The adoption taken place in between the applicant and Prospective Adoptive Parents is not under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption in the instant case is an in-country adoption, which has to be done only under the provisions of the Act. As per the affidavits of the

Prospective Adoptive Parents and the Medical Certificate under Ex.A.6 issued by the Doctor, it is evident that Prospective Adoptive Parents are physically fit to adopt the child. As per Ex.A.2 Pan Cards, Ex.A.3

Proof of date of births, Ex.A.4 proof of residence, Ex.A.5 proof of income and Ex.A.8 reference letters from relatives of Prospective

Page 8 of 12 9

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

Adoptive Parents, it is clear that Prospective Adoptive Parents are financially sound, mentally alert and highly motivated to adopt the child for providing a good upbringing to him. Both Prospective

Adoptive Parents gave consent for adoption as mandated under sub- section 2 of 57 of the Act. Section 58 of the Act provides for

Prospective Adoptive Parents of India to adopt an orphan or abandoned or surrendered child for adoption to a Specialized Adoption

Agency (SAA). The SAA prepared Home Study Report under Ex.A.12 on 17.04.2018, which reveals that P.W.2 and P.W.3 have requisite qualifications for being eligible to adopt and do not suffer from any physical, mental, financial and legal or any other disability and found that they are eligible for adoption. The child is in fact, declared legally free for adoption to Prospective Adoptive Parents. As mandated under sub-section 3 of Section 58 of the Act, in this case on receipt of acceptance of the child from Prospective Adoptive Parents along with

Child Study Report and Medical Report of the child, the Specialized

Adoption Agency gave the child in Pre-Adoption Foster Care and filed an application before this court under Section 58 (3) of the Actfor obtaining adoption order.

13. This court is satisfied that the adoption of minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 to Prospective Adoptive

Parents is for the welfare of the child. Due consideration cannot be given to ascertain the wishes of the child as he is only 13 (thirteen months) old. He is not in a position to understand the things and meaning of adoption, because he is in tender age. This court orally ascertained from Prospective Adoptive Parents that they had not given

Page 9 of 12 10

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

or agreed to give any payment or reward in consideration of the adoption, except as permitted under the Rules, so also, with

Specialized Adoption Agency.

14. The proceedings were held ‘in-camera’. However, the case could not be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of filing, since the applicant did not appear before this Court, either through virtual mode or physical mode due to Covid-19 pandemic effect, intervention of summer vacation and partial functioning of the

Courts as per the Notification of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra

Pradesh.

15. After passing of this Adoption Order, the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 will become the child of

Prospective Adoptive Parents and the PAPs will become the parents of the said child as if the child had been born to them, for all purposes, including intestacy with effect from the date of this Adoption Order.

The question of severance of ties of the child in the family of his birth doesn’t arise as the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 was an orphan as he was discarded by his mother intentionally, as mandated under Section 63 of the Act.

16. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is ALLOWED, without costs in the circumstances of the case, granting permission to the applicant to give the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth:

04.08.2020 in adoption to the prospective adoptive parents/P.W.2 and P.W.3 as per Section 58 of the Act.

Page 10 of 12 11

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

The Birth Certificate Issuing Authority i.e., Municipal Corporation at Machilipatnam is directed to issue Birth Certificate for the minor child by name ‘HARIDARSHAN’ (Old name) ‘SHAIK SALAAR MAALIK’ (New name), Male, Date of Birth: 04.08.2020 within five working days from the date of application as per the provisions of Regulation 36.

The Office is directed to issue a Certified Copy of the Court Order to the applicant/SAA on payment of requisite fee under Sub-Section 4 of Section 58 of the Act for sending immediately to the Prospective

Adoptive Parents with a direction to the applicant to pursue a follow-up action and to ascertain as per the rules about the progress and well- being of the child in the adoptive family as mandated under Sub-

Section 5 of Section 58 of the Act and file a report before this Court to that effect for every one year for a period of three years.

Dictated to the Stenographer, on desktop, corrected and pronounced by me through

Blue Jeans Video Conference application on this the 27 th day of September, 2021.

X Additional District Judge, FAC/Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam. Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Applicant:

P.W.1: Sunkara Jaya Lakshmi, Assistant Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency, Vijayawada. P.W.2: Shaik Bashid

P.W.3: Shaik Sonia

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Applicant: -

S.No. Date Description of document

Ex.A.1 --- Current Family Photograph of Prospective Adoptive Parents along with CD.

Ex.A.2 CBOPS1056H Attested copies of PAN Cards of Prospective LRVPS4096M Adoptive Parents.

Ex.A.3 26.05.1998 Attested copy of SSC Marks List of PAP-1 & 17.10.2015 Affidavit of PAP-2 (Proof of Date of Birth of the prospective adoptive parents).

Page 11 of 12 12

Principal District Judge,

Adoption O.P. No.6/2021 Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Dt: 27.09.2021.

Ex.A.4 15.10.2014 Proof of residence i.e., attested copies of Aadhar Cards of both Prospective Adoptive Parents.

Ex.A.5 10.08.2020 Attested copies of Proof of Income of Prospective Adoptive Parent/P.W.2 – Form-16 for 3 years.

Ex.A.6 25.01.2021 Certificate from Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Center, Kovur, SPSR Nellore District certifying that the Prospective Adoptive Parents do not suffer from any chronic, contagious or fatal disease and they are fit to adopt.

Ex.A.7 21.05.2021 Attested copy of Marriage Registration Certificate of Prospective Adoptive Parents.

Ex.A.8 09.02.2021 Two reference letters from acquaintances or 27.01.2021 relatives in support of adoption.

Ex.A.9 11.02.2021 Child Study Report singed by the Prospective Adoptive Parents along with recent photograph of the child.

Ex.A.10 11.02.2021 Medical Examination Report of the child signed by the Prospective Adoptive Parents.

Ex.A.11 18.12.2020 Original Certificate of Child Welfare Committee declaring the child “Legally free for adoption”,

Ex.A.12 17.04.2018 Home Study Report given by Prospective Adoptive Parents along with their recent family photograph.

Ex.A.13 12.06.2018 Attested copy of Recognition Certificate of the agency as Specialized Adoption Agency.

Ex.A.14 11.02.2021 Original Report of Decision of the Adoption Committee (only in case of in-country adoption).

Ex.A.15 11.02.2021 Noratized Pre-Adoption Foster Care Undertaking, dt.11.02.2021.

Ex.A.16 16.10.2020 Deed of Surrender.

Ex.A.17 29.04.2020 Authorization of Proceedings in Circular Memo No.19023/3/2020-Estt.,

X Additional District Judge, FAC/Principal District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Page 12 of 12

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM

Present: Sri A. NARASIMHA MURTHY,

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE

FAC/SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-X ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KRISHNA, MACHILIPATNAM

Thursday, this the 17thday of February, 2022

Spl.S.C.No.39/2020

(Crime No.233/2019 of Musunuru Police Station)

Name of the Complainant :The State, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid Sub-Division, Nuzvid.

Name of the accused:Kuncham Pavan Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, 27 years, Kapu, Cheruvu Madhavaram village, G.Konduru Mandal, now working as computer (Outsourcing Employee), Tahsildar Office, Agripalli Mandal, Krishna District.

Nature of Offences :Under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offences Under Section 323 IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Prosecution Conducted by:Sri. K. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Spl. Court for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum- X Addl. District Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

Name of the Defence :Sri Md. Rafi, Advocate for Accused. Counsel

This Spl. Sessions Case coming on 17.02.2022 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Chandra Sekhar Rao, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Md. Rafi, Advocate for Accused and having stood over this day for consideration, this court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

The Spl. Sessions Case is taken on file for the offences punishable Under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the Accused.

2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that:

(i) The defacto-complainant-P.W.1 belong to SC - Madiga

Community, resident of Musunuru village and Mandal. Accused used to work as computer operator in Tahsildar office, Musunuru, now he is working in Tahsildar Office, Agripalli Mandal on outsourcing basis. The defacto- complainant-P.W.1 worked as press reporter about 18 years and for the last two years he is not attending his job due to ill-health.

(ii)On 23.11.2019 P.W.1 applied his caste certificate through Mee

Seva centre in Chintalavalli village to obtain the same through Tahsildar

Office, Musunuru Mandal to apply for a loan in SC-Corporation. On 25.11.2019 P.W.1 went to Tahsildar Office, Musunuru and enquired about his caste certificate and the office authorities informed him to come after two days. On 27.11.2019 at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.1 went to Tahsildar Office,

Musunuru and enquired about his caste certificate with P.W.5 who is working as attender-cum-sweeper in Tahsildar Office and he advised him to meet accused-computer operator.

(iii)P.W.1 approached the computer operator room and asked accused about his caste certificate, for which the accused argued with him and abused him by touching his caste name as “ICCHE VARAKU

AGALEVERA MADIGA NA KODAKA” in a public place. On that P.W.1 warned the accused not to abuse and to speak politely. Thereafter he questioned the accused to disclose his name and the accused answered his name and challenged P.W.1 to do whatever he want. Then P.W.1 came out 3 of the office room that he would make a complaint against the accused to higher officials.

(iv)On hearing his words, the accused got wild, came out from office room, assaulted P.W.1, pushed him to ground and beat with hands on his face, due to which he sustained a bleeding injury on his upper lip. P.Ws.2 to 4 and L.Ws.3 to 5 and 7- Matthe Kishore, Gaddala Aseervadam,

Ventrapati Krishna and Maadala Veera Venkaiah witnessed the occurrence and P.Ws.5 to 7 and L.W.12-Chappidi Chitti Babu intervened and pacified the matter. On 27.11.2019 at 18.00 hours P.W.1 came to Musunuru police station and presented a report to L.W.16-Sub-Inspector of Police, Musunuru

Police Station, who received the report from P.W.1 and registered the same as FIR in Crime No.233/2019, Under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1)

(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

(v)As per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Krishna

District, vide memo in C.No.7376/C-3/2019, dated 27.11.2019, P.W.9-Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid took up investigation, visited the crime scene and prepared rough sketch and examined 12 witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.1 was sent to area hospital, Nuzvid for medical treatment. L.W.3-Matthe Kishore produced DVD which is an extract from his cell phone video containing that the accused assaulted P.W.1 and same was seized under cover of police proceedings on 12.02.2020

(vi)On reliable information the accused was arrested on 18.03.2020 at 12.00 noon near Tahsildar Office, Agiripalli and sent him to the court for judicial remand. L.W.13-Dr. D. Srikanth, C.A.S, Area Hospital, Nuzivd issued wound certificate of P.W.1 opining that he received injury simple in nature. L.W.14-T.Madan Mohan Rao, Tahsildar, Musunuru, issued caste certificate of P.W.1 that he belongs to SC- Hindu Madiga Community which is a schedule caste. L.W.15-Shaik Imtiaz Basha, Tahsildar, G.Konduru, 4 issued caste certificate of accused that he belongs to OC- Hindu Kapu

Community. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences

Under Section 323 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015. Hence the charge.

3)On appearance of the Accused on receipt of summons, he engaged Advocate. On hearing both sides, charges under section 323 IPC and under section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused is framed under Section 228 of Cr.P.C and contents of the charges were read over and explained to the him in Telugu who denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4)On behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to 9 are examined and documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.17 are marked. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given-up evidence of LWs.3 to 5, 7 and 13 to 16 Matthe

Kishore, Gaddala Aseervadam, Ventrapari Krishna, Maadala Veera

Venkaiah, Dr. D. Srikanth, Civil Assistant Surgeon, T. Madan Mohan Rao,

Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal, Shaik Imtiaz Basha, Tahsildar, G.Konduru

Mandal and V. Seshu Kumar, Sub-Inspector of police, Musunuru. The prosecution evidence is closed.

5)After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C who denied incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence of prosecution against him and he reported no defence evidence.

6)After having heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and learned counsel for the Accused, the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the Accused beat the defacto-complainant with hands and caused bleeding injuries and thus punishable under section 323 IPC?

5

2. Whether Accused abused defacto-complainant – Maddala Babu Rao in the name of his caste in public view knowing that he belong to SC- Madiga and thus committed offence punishable Under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015?”

7)POINTS 1 and 2:

The Prosecution examined the defacto-complainant-cum-injured as P.W.1 and he deposed that he is resident of Musunuru village and previously he worked as Video Journalist in ABN News and at present he has no avocation, he knows P.Ws.2, 5 and L.W.3-Matthe Kishore, but he does not know P.Ws.3, 4, 6 to 8 and L.Ws.4, 5 and 7 -Gaddala Aseervadam,

Ventrapati Krishna and Maadala Veera Venkaiah. P.W.1 stated that he does not know the Accused present in the court and while he was proceeding on his motorcycle, he fell down and sustained injury to his upper lip. He did not give any report to the police and his village elders obtained his signature,

Ex.P.1 on blank white paper. According to his evidence, the report shown to him contains Ex.P.1 signature, but he does not know contents in the report and police did not examine him.

8)P.W.2 resident of Musunuru village deposed that he is an auto driver, he knows P.W.1, but he does not know P.Ws.3 to 8, L.Ws.3 to 5-

Matthe Kishore, Gaddala Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and the Accused present in the court and facts in this case and police did not examine him.

P.W.3 resident of Balive village deposed that he is an agricultural coolie, but he does not know P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 8 and L.Ws.3 to 5- Matthe Kishore,

Gaddala Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna. P.W.3 stated that he does not know the accused present in the court and he does not know the facts in this case and police did not examine him.

9)P.W.4 resident of Chillaboinapalli village of Musunuru Mandal deposed that he is working as Village Revenue Assistant, he knows P.Ws.2, 6 3 and 5, but he does not know P.Ws.1, 6 to 8 and he does not know the accused present in the court. He stated that on 27.11.2019 at 4.00 p.m., while he was working in upper floor of Tahsildar office, Musunuru, there was galata in the ground floor and he came to know that there was demand for caste certificate between P.W.1 and accused and police did not examine him.

10)P.W.5 resident of Musunuru village and Mandal deposed that he is working as Sweeper in Tahsildar Office, he knows P.Ws.1 to 4, but he does not know P.Ws. 6 to 8, L.Ws.3 to 5- Matthe Kishore, Gaddala

Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and he knows the accused present in the court who was working as computer operator in Tahsildar Office. He stated that on 27.11.2019 he came to know that there was dispute between P.W.1 and accused for the caste certificate and he does not know other facts and police did not examine him.

11)P.W.6 resident of Gandepalli village of Kanchikacherla Mandal deposed that he is working as Junior Assistant in Tahsildar Office,

Musunuru, he knows P.Ws.1 to 5, 7 and 8, L.Ws.4, 5 and 7 - Gaddala

Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and Maddala Veera Venkaiah. He stated that he knows the accused present in the court who is working as computer operator in Tahsildar office and on 27.11.2019 at 4.00 p.m., there was dispute between P.W.1 and accused in the office and police did not examine him.

12)P.W.7 resident of Jaggaiahpeta deposed that he is working as

Deputy Tahsildar, Musunuru, he does not know P.Ws.1 to 6, L.Ws.3 to 5, 7-

Matthe Kishore, Gaddala Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and Maadala

Veera Venkaiah. He knows P.W.8 and the accused present in the court who is working as Computer Operator in the office. P.W.7 further stated that on 27.11.2019 at 4.00 p.m., one unknown person came to the office and 7 enquired with the accused about his caste certificate and after some discussion, he left. Subsequently, he came to know that there was dispute between the accused and P.W.1 and police did not examine him.

13)P.W.8 – Deputy Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal deposed that he does not know P.Ws.1 to 3, L.Ws.3 to 5, 7- Matthe Kishore, Gaddala

Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and Maadala Veera Venkaiah, he knows

P.Ws.4 to 7 and accused present in the court who is working as Computer

Operator in Tahsildar Office. He stated that on 27.11.2019 at 4.00 p.m., while he was in the office by talking with farmers, he came to know that there was quarrel between P.W.1 and accused and police did not examine him.

14)The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nuzvidu and

Investigation Officer in this case is examined as P.W.9 and he deposed that on 27.11.2019, Sub-Inspector of police, Musunuru- L.W.16 registered a case

F.I.R in Cr.No.233/2019 U/s.323 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (s) of SC and ST (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 as Ex.P.10 and he received Ex.P.11 proceedings from Superintendent of police, Krishna vide C.No.7376/C3/2019, appointing him as investigating officer in Cr.No.233/2019. On 28.11.2019 he took up investigation in this case, he visited the scene of offence at Tahsildar Office,

Musunuru Mandal and secured P.W.1 and recorded his statement.

15)P.W.9 deposed that he examined scene of offence at

Tahsildar Office Musunuru and prepared Ex.P.12 rough sketch of the scene of offence and secured the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 8, L.Ws.3 to 5, 7- Matthe

Kishore, Gaddala Aseervadam, Ventrapati Krishna and Maadala Veera

Venkaiah examined them and recorded their statements. According to his evidence, on 12.02.2020 at 1.00 p.m., he seized Ex.P.13 D.V.D under cover of Ex.P.14 police proceedings and on the same day he received Ex.P.15 wound certificate of P.W.1. On 24.02.2020 he received Ex.P.16 caste certificate of P.W.1 from Tahsildar Musunuru. On 16.03.2020 he received 8

Ex.P.17 caste certificate of accused. P.W.9 deposed that on 18.03.2020 at 12.30 p.m., he arrested the accused in front of MRO office, Agiripalli and he was sent to the court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

16)The learned Additional Public prosecutor fairly conceded that the defacto-complainant/P.W.1 and material witnesses P.Ws.2 to 8 did not support the prosecution version and there is no incriminating material or evidence against the accused to prove the guilt for the offences under section 323 IPC and section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 framed against him as alleged in the prosecution case.

17)The learned counsel for the accused argued that the defacto- complainant-cum-injured i.e., P.W.1, eye witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4 and other material witnesses P.Ws.5 to 8 did not support prosecution case as they turned hostile. It is urged that in the absence of evidence of the P.W.1 and other witnesses, the evidence of investigating officer-PW.9 do not prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and he requested to acquit the accused.

18)According to prosecution version, defacto-complainant – cum- injured-P.W.1 belong to SC Madiga Community, which is Schedule Caste and the accused belong to Kapu community which is other than the schedule caste. It is prosecution case that the Accused voluntarily caused hurt with hands on P.W.1 while he was enquiring about his caste certificate in order to apply for a loan and the accused committed offence by knowing that P.W.1 belong to SC- Madgia and thereby the accused committed the offences leveled against him. Thus the burden is on the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offences under section 323 IPC and section 3 (1) (s) of

SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Now the evidence adduced by the prosecution has to be 9 scrutinized to find out whether the evidence of the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused.

19)The scrutiny of evidence of defacto-complainant-cum-injured-

P.W.1 reveals that while he was proceeding on the motorcycle he fell down and sustained injury to his upper lip and he does not know the accused and he did not give any report to the police who did not examine him. The testimony of eye-witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 4 and other material witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.5 to 8 reveals that they did not support the prosecution case and did not depose anything against the accused connecting for the offences of alleged assault of P.W.1, abusing him in the name of his caste and committing offence by knowing that P.W.1 belong to S.C caste. As P.Ws.1 to 8 did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from their previous statements, they were declared as hostile. The prosecution is permitted to cross-examine PWs.1 to 8 and they denied about their respective Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements, Exs.P.2 to P.8 respectively made by them to the police.

20)Nothing is elicited from the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 8 to substantiate the case of the prosecution. Absolutely there are no incriminating circumstances in the testimony of PWs.1 to 8 whose evidence is not useful to the case of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the charges framed against the accused. When the defacto-complainant-cum- injured and eye-witnesses and circumstantial witnesses did not support the prosecution version, the complaint and the statements recorded under 161

Cr.P.C., will not have legal proof as it can be used only for contradiction.

21)Further the report of P.W.1, Ex.P.10-FIR, Ex.P.12 rough sketch,

Ex.P.13 D.V.D and Ex.P.15 wound certificate of P.W.1 are not substantive evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him, more particularly in the absence of ocular evidence of the 10 injured and eye-witness. When none of the witnesses stated any incriminating material against the accused, the evidence of investigating officer-PW.9 is no way helpful to the prosecution case to connect the accused to the alleged offences.

22) On careful scrutiny of the evidence brought before the court reveals that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and material brought on record are not sufficient to prove the ingredients of the charges framed against the accused. Thus, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses will not advance the case of prosecution. As such, the court is impelled to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges under section 323 of IPC and section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against the accused.

23)Having regard to the discussion in the foregoing paragraphs and in the light of the above reasons, absolutely there is nothing on record to fasten the criminal liability against the accused and the prosecution did not prove the charges framed against the accused. Thus, the court is impelled to pass order of acquittal in favour of the accused. Hence, these points are answered against to the prosecution.

24)In the result, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C., for the offences Under Section 323 IPC and Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs and STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Directly typed to dictation to the Stenographer Gr-II on computer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 17thday of February, 2022.

Sd/-. A. Narasimha Murthy.

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/ Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum- X Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

P.W.1: Maddala Babu Rao. P.W.2: Kodavali Pavan Kumar. P.W.3: Pamarthi Veera Venkata Satyavathi. P.W.4: Kommu Venkateswara Rao. P.W.5: Variganji Sujanamma. P.W.6: Sira Ashok Kumar. P.W.7: Uppeli Kishore Babu. P.W.8: Chappidi Chitti Babu, Deputy Tahsildar, Musunuru Mandal. P.W.9: B. Srinivasulu, Deputy Superintendent of police.

FOR THE DEFENCE: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.p.1 : Signature of P.W.1 on report. Ex.P.2 : 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6. Ex.P.8 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.7. Ex.P.9 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.8. Ex.P.10: F.I.R. Ex.P.11: Memo in C.No.7376/C.3/2019 dt; 27.11.2019. Ex.P.12: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.13: D.V.D Ex.P.14: Police proceedings dated 12.02.2020. Ex.P.15: Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.16: Caste Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.17: Caste Certificate of accused.

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil-Sd/-. A. Narasimha Murthy. I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, FAC/ Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum- X Addl. District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam.