Smt. A. Sunitha Rani

Page.No.1 of 17 C.C.No.280/17

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

–CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: AT NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha rani, II Addl. J.C.J –Cum- II Addl. J.M.F.C, Narasaraopet.

Thursday, this the 28th day of May, 2020.

C.C. No. 280 of 2017.

[Cr. No. 210 of 2017 of Nekarikallu P.S.]

Between:- The State, Through The S.H.O, Nekarikallu P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Gujjala Chennakesava reddy, S/o. Chandra reddy, A/o. 47 years, R/o. Challagulla Adda road village, Nekarikallu mandal, Guntur district. . . . Accused.

-o0o-

This calendar case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and of Sri. Y. Rama Krishna Reddy, Learned counsel for accused, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The S.H.O, Nekarikallu police station, filed charge sheet against arraigned sole accused in Cr. No. 210 of 2017 alleging that he committed an offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C with a prayer to punish him accordingly for the said offence.

[2.] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this; the defacto complainant Gujjala Krishna Reddy/P.W.1 and accused are own brothers and both of them are residents of Challagundla Adda road village. There exists property disputes in between them and for

Page.No.2 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 that reason there were no talking terms in between them; while so on 15-10-2017, P.W.1 returned to his house after attending agricultural work and at about 12-30 p.m while taking bath in the open place situates infront of his house, accused went there armed with long stick (mancham adda patte) and beat P.W.1 with that stick thereby caused bleeding injuries on right side of head and right side eye. On hearing the cries of P.W.1, P.W’s.2 to 5 came for his rescue and shifted him to hospital.

[3.] On the same day of incident i.e., on 15-10-2017 P.W.1 lodged written report with the police basing on which F.I.R was registered. During the course of investigation the statements of witnesses of P.W’s.1 to 5 were recorded, and scene observation report was prepared in the presence of P.W’s.6 and 8 who acted as mediators, and seized one long stick which was used for commission of offence, so also rough sketch of scene of offence was drawn. Medical Officer/P.W.7 issued wound certificate opining that the injuries suffered by P.W.1 are simple in nature. Presence of accused was secured by issuing section 41-A Cr.P.C notice, and after his appearance before the court accused submitted sureties for his future presence. Now the accused is on bail. After completion of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that accused committed an offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C and accordingly filed charge sheet. Hence, the accusation.

[4.] Basing on the charge sheet and material available on record, this court took the case on file for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C and issued process against accused. In response to the process accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents in compliance to section 207 of Cr.P.C upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

Page.No.3 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 [5.] During the course of first examination a charge under section 324 of I.P.C was framed, and accused was examined under section 239 of Cr.P.C where under the substance of charge and accusation was read over and explained to him in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for adducing evidence, the prosecution, in order to bring home the accusation leveled against accused has examined TEN witnesses as

P.W’s.1 to 10, and exhibited as many as NINE documents as Ex’s.P.1 to P.9, besides ONE material object as M.O.1.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C where under the incriminating material available against him in the prosecution evidence was put to him for which he denied the same. Defence adduced no evidence on its behalf either oral or documentary.

[7.] Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence.

[8.] Now the point that arises for determination is that:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 324 of I.P.C .?” [9.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

In essence the accusation against accused is that on 15-10-2017 at about 12-30 p.m while P.W.1 taking bath infront of his house in

Challagundla Adda road village accused beat P.W.1 with a long stick (mancham adda patte) resulting bleeding injuries on right side of head and right side eye which are simple in nature.

[10.] In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a

Page.No.4 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Herein this case, the claim of defence of accused is that he is innocent of the alleged accusation and was falsely implicated. In the first examination conducted under section 239 of Cr.P.C and even in the second examination which was conducted after completion of prosecution side evidence under section 313 of Cr.P.C accused stood strongly on the claim that he did not committed the alleged offence.

[11.] During hearing, it is submitted by the Learned A.P.P that the evidence of injured person stands on higher footing, and the injuries on the body of P.W.1 were proved with ocular evidence of

P.W.1 and documentary evidence of Ex.P.5 wound certificate, and this version of P.W.1 was supported by the other eye witnesses, so also exhibiting of M.O.1 long stick strengthening the version of prosecution. It is also submitted by the Learned A.P.P that the evidence of injured/P.W.1 stood for the test of cross-examination, and further that Ex.P.1 report was lodged by P.W.1 soon after the incident without any delay, and the prompt investigation done by the police pointing out the guilt of accused, and with this submissions the prosecution prayed to record conviction against accused and to punish him.

[12.] On the other hand it is submitted by Learned defence counsel that the accused did not committed the alleged offence and he was falsely implicated in the case, and the investigating agency without conducting fair and proper investigation filed the charge sheet. It is also submitted by the Learned defence counsel that the version of P.W.1 that he was beat by accused was not corroborated

Page.No.5 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 by any other witnesses, as though the prosecution projected P.W’s.2 to 5 as eye witnesses, among them P.W’s.3 and 5 turned hostile and did not supported the version of prosecution, and even P.W’s.2 and 4 did not claimed that they actually seen the incident. It is also submitted by the Learned defence counsel that as per the own case of prosecution there exists property disputes between P.W.1 and accused, and by keeping the said disputes in mind P.W.1 implicated accused in this false accusation, and further that the material on record not able to prove the guilt of accused with the standard in which the prosecution has to prove the same, and for all these reasons and grounds accused is entitled for acquittal from the charge framed.

[13.] Before proceeding with the point that whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, it is appropriate to see the nature of evidence produced by the prosecution and the gist of testimonies of witnesses. As already stated the defence adduced no oral or documentary evidence on its behalf.

[14.] With regard to evidence of prosecution, it has examined

P.W’s.1 to 10 and exhibited Ex’s.P.1 to P.9 and M.O.1. P.W.1 is defacto-complainant cum injured, P.W’s.2 to 5 are eye witnesses,

P.W’s.6 and 8 are mediators for preparing of scene observation report, P.W.7 is Medical officer, P.W.9 and 10 are investigating officers. With regard to documents, Ex.P.1 is Report of P.W.1 dated 15-10-2017, Ex.P.2 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3, Ex.P.3 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.4 is Signature of P.W.6 on scene observation report, Ex.P.5 is Wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P.6 is

Signature of P.W.8 on scene observation report, Ex.P.7 is F.I.R,

Ex.P.8 is Scene observation report, and Ex.P.9 is Rough sketch. With regard to material object, M.O.1 is One Long stick.

Page.No.6 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 [15.] The version of P.W.1 as per his evidence is that accused is his brother and residing adjacent to his house, and prior to the incident in this case there were property disputes among them, and on 15-10-2017 in between 12-00 to 12-30 p.m he was taking bath in front of his house, and at that time accused came there and beat him with a cot leg (mancham patte) resulting injuries on the right side of head and right side of eye. It is also the version of P.W.1 that the incident was witnessed by P.W’s.2 to 5, and he lodged report with the police. In his cross-examination P.W.1 admitted that he did not stated the names of the persons who gathered at the scene of offence in his statement to the police, and however P.W.1 denied the suggestion that he foisted false case against accused.

[16.] P.W.2 is wife of P.W.1 and said to be one of the eye witness to the incident, and her version is that on one day in the month of October, 2017, between 12-30 to 01-00 p.m she heard sounds from outside of her house and on that she rushed outside and noticed that accused running from the scene of offence along with a wooden stick (mancham patte) and also noticed P.W.1 with injuries on right side of head and right side of eye. In her cross- examination P.W.2 denied the suggestion that no such incident as stated by her was occurred and she is deposing so to help her husband.

[17.] P.W.4 is another eye witness, and her evidence is that two years prior to recording of her evidence in the court, on one day she came out of her house on hearing the cries, and was informed that accused beat P.W.1 with cot stick. It is also the evidence of

P.W.4 that she had seen bleeding injuries on head and left eye of

P.W.1. In her cross-examination P.W.4 admitted that she is own sister to accused and P.W.1, and however denied the suggestion that the alleged incident was never happened and she is deposing false.

Page.No.7 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 [18.] P.W’s.3 and 5 who are said to be other eye witnesses turned hostile and they did not supported the case of prosecution.

According to these witnesses they do not know anything about this case, and they did not seen anything, and further that they were not examined by the police. In their cross-examination by Learned

A.P.P, both these witnesses denied the suggestion that they are deposing false to help the accused. P.W’s.6 and 8 are mediators for preparation of scene observation report and it is their evidence that they do not know the contents of scene observation report and the same was not drafted in their presence, and their signatures were obtained by the police on some written papers. In their cross- examination by Learned A.P.P, both these witnesses denied the suggestion that they are deposing false in order to help the accused.

[19.] P.W.7 is Medical Officer and his evidence is that on 15- 10-2017 upon requisition from police he examined P.W.1 and found the injuries viz., (1) 3 cm X ½ cm fresh bleeding laceration present over the right frontal region above the right eye, (2) 4 cm X 1 cm fresh bleeding laceration present on the right parietal region of the skull, and (3) Right peri orbital swelling noted greenish in colour. It is also the evidence of P.W.7 that as per his opinion all the injuries are simple in nature. In his cross-examination P.W.7 admitted that there is possibility of receiving noted injuries even by falling from a running motor cycle.

[20.] P.W.9 and 10 are investigating officers and they deposed about registration of F.I.R, conducting of investigation including examination of witnesses, visiting the scene of offence and preparation of scene observation report and rough sketch, seizure of M.O.1 and securing the presence of accused, and filing of charge sheet. In their cross-examination both these witnesses denied the suggestion that without conducting proper investigation they filed charge sheet against accused.

Page.No.8 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 [21.] Till now we have seen the accusation against accused, the rival submissions of prosecution and defence, and the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The plea of accused is one of total denial, and he is contending that he was falsely implicated in the case. In a criminal case it is for the prosecution to prove the alleged accusation beyond reasonable doubt without leaving any ambiguity in the mind of the court, and we will see in the next part of judgment that whether the material relying upon by the prosecution is sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged.

[22.] Herein this case the charged offence is punishable under section 324 of I.P.C, and as such it is apposite to see what that par- ticular section is providing.Section 324 of I.P.C is dealing with ‘Vol- untarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means’, and it is providing that; “Whoever except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shoot- ing, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive sub- stance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.” [23.] Section 324 of I.P.C is the aggravated form of causing hurt to any person. The term ‘Hurt’ is defined under section 319 of

I.P.C. Hurt simply means when a person causes bodily harm, pain, injury or any kind of damage to the person. Section 324 of I.P.C, however, extends the scope of hurt and states the circumstances when it is caused by using dangerous weapons or by adopting dif- ferent means of intentionally causing hurt to a person. To establish an offence under section 324 of I.P.C, the necessary

Page.No.9 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 ingredients are; (i) the accused caused bodily pain, disease or in- firmity; (ii) that such a hurt was in exception to cases provided un- der section 334 of I.P.C, (iii) the accused intentionally did such an act, (iv) it was caused by an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting etc.,.

[24.] Reverting to the present case, the prosecution has examined total ten witnesses and among them four witnesses (P.W.3, 5, 6 and 8) turned hostile and that their evidence would not helpful to the prosecution in anyway. P.W.9 and 10 are investigating officers who are official witnesses and deposed about conducting of investigation and that their evidence would assumes significance only when the evidence of material witnesses is cogent and reliable.

[25.] Ex.P.1 report is basis for registration of F.I.R, and in that report P.W.1 claimed that on 15-10-2017 in the afternoon hours while he was taking bath infront of his house, accused came and beat him with a long stick (mancham adda patte) resulting bleeding injuries to him on right side of head and right side of eye. These same facts were stated by P.W.1 in his evidence on oath also. Even the evidence of P.W.7 who is Medical Officer is that he found injuries which are simple in nature on the body of P.W.1. There is no occasion to doubt the evidence of P.W.7. The seat of injuries mentioned in Ex.P.5 report are matching with the ocular evidence of

P.W.1. As such when we see the ocular evidence of P.W.1 and 7 along with Ex.P.5 Wound certificate, there is every possibility to accept the presence of injuries on the body of P.W.1 on 15-10-2017.

The next question is whether these injuries are sustained by P.W.1 as stated by him.?. Whether the accused caused these injuries.?.

Whether the version of prosecution can be accepted to decide the guilt of accused.?

[26.] Hereinbefore this court already recorded a finding that the injuries of P.W.1 on 15-10-2017 are believable. The other

Page.No.10 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 questions remaining are whether accused caused these injuries, and other one is whether the prosecution proved usage of M.O.1 stick in commission of offence.?. According to the version of prosecution there exists property disputes between P.W.1 and accused, and out of that grudge only accused caused injuries to P.W.1. The scene of offence in this case is infront of the house of P.W.1 within compound wall. Ex.P.9 Rough sketch is suggesting that the scene of offence is surrounded by several houses. The incident in this case was said to be happened in between 12-00 to 12-30 p.m as such in a broad day light.

[27.] P.W’s.2 to 5 are crucial witnesses in this case as they are said to be eye witnesses to the incident. It is not the case of prosecution that none witnessed the incident, indeed it is its specific case that P.W’s.2 to 5 witnessed accused beating P.W.1 with a long stick. Whereas when coming to evidence it became non corroboration from P.W’s.3 and 5. Though P.W’s.2 and 4 supported the version that P.W.1 suffered injuries, their evidence is unable to provide material details relating to the incident. P.W.2 deposed that she came outside of the house upon hearing sounds and noticed that accused is leaving their house with a wooden stick. P.W.2 did not deposed that she witnessed the incident. Similarly P.W.4 also did not deposed that she witnessed the incident, and according to P.W.4 she was informed that accused beat P.W.1. P.W.4 did not deposed who informed her about the incident. Both these witnesses i.e.,

P.W’s.2 and 4 distanced themselves from the role of eye witnesses to circumstantial witnesses at the stage of trail.

[28.] The prosecution claiming that P.W’s.2 to 5 witnessed the incident; whereas the discussion undertaken in the preceding paragraph suggesting us that none of those witnesses claimed that they witnessed the incident. The other aspect is seizure of M.O.1 stick. Ex.P.8 scene observation report showing us that M.O.1 stick was seized from the scene of offence in the presence of P.W’s.6 and

Page.No.11 of 17 C.C.No.280/17

P.W.8 who are mediators. Both these mediators turned hostile and according to them no such material object was seized in their presence. Here the evidence of P.W.2 is also need to be taken into consideration. P.W.2 in her evidence categorically deposed that she had seen accused leaving the scene of offence along with a wooden stick. If the said version is true there is no occasion for seizure of

M.O.1 stick from scene of offence and it must be from somewhere else. When we see all these aspects in a tunnel view the seizure of

M.O.1 stick from scene of offence is highly doubtful.

[29.] In a decision decided in between ‘Jose Vs The Sub

Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Others’ reported in ‘2016(10) S.C.C 519’ the Hon’ble Supreme Court pleased to held that; “It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of "must be true". In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or nonexistent but as entertainable by an impartial prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.”.

[30.] There is another aspect in this case i.e., prior enmity between the parties. Though P.W.1 and accused are own brothers,

Page.No.12 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 according to the own case of prosecution there exists long standing property disputes between them, and prior to the incident there were no talking terms in between them. The prosecution has cited four witnesses as eye witnesses to the incident, among them P.W.2 is wife, and P.W.4 is own sister. The other two witnesses i.e., P.W.3 and 5 are residents of scene of offence area and these two witnesses are outsiders from the family of P.W.1, and curiously these witnesses turned hostile and according to them they did not seen any such incident projected by the prosecution. Even own family members of P.W.1 i.e., his wife P.W.2 and sister P.W.4 also did not supported the version of prosecution to full extent, but they are supporting the case of prosecution to the extent that P.W.1 suffered injuries. In earlier paragraphs we have already seen that besides proving of injury, the prosecution is bound to prove the role of accused and his intention as well, which is missing in the present case.

[31.] It is not as though that uncorroborated testimony of sole witness should not be relied upon. Infact when the evidence of sole witness is found to be wholly reliable the court should not insist for corroboration. It is a sound and well-established rule of Law that the Court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in a decision decided in between ‘Laxmibai and an- other Vs Bhagwantbuva and others’ reported in ‘(2013)4 S.C.C 97’ pleased to held that; “In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses but quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time honoured principle, that evid- ence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value provided by

Page.No.13 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 each witness, rather than the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.

It is quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided by section 134 of the Evidence Act.” [32.] When there is bitter long standing enmity between the parties, rule of prudence demands corroboration from other witnesses. If it is said in better way, when there is admitted enmity between the parties it is not safe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of injured to decide the guilt. The Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh in a decision decided in between ‘P. Tirupathi Vs

State of Andhra Pradesh and others’ reported in '2012(1) A.L.D (Crl.) 88 A.P' pleased to held that “It is not as though in every case, the uncorroborated testimony of the victim deserves to be ignored. The uncorroborated testimony of a victim nevertheless can form the basis of a conviction, so long as the same is inspiring. In the present case, it is not as though PW.2 claimed that no one was present at the time of the attack on him by A.1 to A.4. It is his case that PWs.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. The evidence of PWs.3 and 4, consequently, is not a case of non-corroboration but a case of rejection of the case of PW.2. That apart, admittedly, there is enmity between the accused on the one side and PWs.1 and 2 on the other side. Thus, where there is admitted enmity between the accused on the one side and the PWs.1 and 2 on the other side, it is not safe at all to record a conviction on the basis of the uncorroborated testimony of PW.2.” [33.] Coming to final discussion, on summing up we can conclude that there is material to show that P.W.1 suffered bleeding injuries on 15-10-2017, and however at the same time there is no satisfactory material to believe that these injuries were actually caused by the accused and M.O.1 stick was used in commission of offence.

Page.No.14 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 [34.] It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven beyond doubt. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision decided in between ‘Harbir Singh Vs Sheeshpal & Others’ reported in ‘(2016) SCC 418’; pleased to held that; “it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts.” Under the circumstances of present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussed infirmities and shortcomings in the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of accused persons in the commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Thereby, the point is decided in negative.

[35.] In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and surety bonds of his sureties shall stands cancelled, after six (6) months period, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Long Stick which is non-valuable shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Directly Typed to my dictation by stenographer. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me through video conference, today, this the 28 th day of May, 2020, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-Cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Narasaraopet.

Page.No.15 of 17 C.C.No.280/17

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: P.W.1: Gujjala Krishna reddy. P.W.2: Gujjala Venkata Laxmi. P.W.3: Atchala Dhanalaxmi. P.W.4: Modduri Chennamma. P.W.5: Dorasala Madhavi. P.W.6: Shaik Jilani. P.W.7: Dr. Sudeer Chandra. P.W.8: Shaik Mahammedsha. P.W.9: P.V. Anjaneyulu. P.W.10: G. Anil kumar. (I.O)

For defence:- -None- Documents marked: For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 dated 15-10-2017. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.4: Signature of P.W.6 on scene observation report. Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.6: Signature of P.W.8 on scene observation report. Ex.P.7: F.I.R. Ex.P.8: Scene observation report. Ex.P.9: Rough sketch.

For defence:- -Nil-

Material objects marked: For prosecution:-

M.O.1: One Long stick.

For defence:- -Nil-

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

Page.No.16 of 17 C.C.No.280/17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT NARASARAOPET.

C.C.NO.280 of 2017

Date of: Offence on Complaint Apph. of Released on CommencemeClosure of Result or beforeaccusedBailnt of TrialTrial 15-10-201715-10-2017 21-10-201721-10-201721-06-201825-02-202028-05-2020 Between:

The State, Through The S.H.O, Nekarikallu P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Gujjala Chennakesava reddy, S/o. Chandra reddy, A/o. 47 years, R/o. Challagulla Adda road village, Nekarikallu mandal, Guntur district. . . . Accused.

Offence: U/Sec: 324 of IPC.

Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding : Found Not guilty.

Sentence of Order :

In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused and surety bonds of his sureties shall stands cancelled, after six (6) months period, as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 Long Stick which is non-valuable shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Explanation for the delay:

The case was taken on file under Section 324 of IPC on 31.10.2017. Copies furnished to the accused on 13-12-2017 and on 05.06.2018 accused was examined u/sec.239 Cr.P.C and charge was framed for the offence u/sec.324 of IPC, explained him in telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 01.8.2018 PW.1, on 13.8.2018 P.W.2, on 29.7.2019 P.W.3, on 22.8.2019 P.W.4, on 21.11.2019 P.W.5, on 26.11.2019 P.W.6, on 04.12.2019 P.W.7, on 23.12.2019 P.W.8, on 10.02.20 P.W.9 and on 17.02.2020 P.W.10 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and MO.1 and the prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 25.02.2020 accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which accused denied and reported no defence evidence. On 16.03.2020 heard arguments of P.T.O

Page.No.17 of 17 C.C.No.280/17 both sides and due to suspension of judicial work in courts in view of out break of covid-19 pandemic, judgment could not be pronounced and now as per the circular instructions of Hon’ble High court dt.17.05.2020, judgment pronounced on 28.05.2020 through video conference. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasararaopet.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal.

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

Page: 1 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE

–CUM- II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS :: NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha rani, B.A. B.L., II Addl. J.C.J –Cum- II Addl. J.M.F.C, Narasaraopet.

Friday, this the 20th day of March, 2020.

C.C. No. 250 of 2017.

[Cr. No. 28 of 2017 of Phirangipuram P.S.]

Between: The State, Through The S.H.O, Phirangipuram P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Ratnala Sreenivasa rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, A/o. 26 Years, C/o. Telaga, O/o. Driver, R/o. Puttakota Kothapalem village, Edlapadu mandal, Guntur District. . . . Accused.

-o0o-

This calendar case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and Sri. S. Chandra sekhar, Learned counsel for accused, and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a case of road accident which caused simple, grievous injuries to numerous people and also took away one human life. The case was brought before the Court of Law, by way of charge sheet, by the concerned jurisdictional police in Cr. No. 28 of 2017 alleging that the arraigned sole accused was the perpetrator for the said offence; as such he is liable for punishment under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C.

Page: 2 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 [2.] Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is like this; the defacto complainant Shaik Nazma/P.W.1 is daughter of deceased by name Shaik Nazeerunnisa. Accused is owner cum driver of crime vehicle Auto trolley bearing number A.P.07-TF-0991. The scene of offence is near Granite factory, Phirangipuram – Kondaveedu road.

On 11-04-2017 the deceased along with other coolies proceeded in crime vehicle and when they reached near scene of offene area, the accused drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner while chitchatting in mobile phone, resulting accused lost control over vehicle and the vehicle was overturned. The deceased sustained grievous injuries and died instantaneously. In the same incident

P.W’s.2 to 14, L.W.6/Shaik Areefa and L.W.12/Sayyad Fatima Bee who are inmates of crime vehicle sustained injuries. P.W.19 who is also inmate of crime vehicle at the time of incident escaped unhurt.

P.W.15 and 18 who are residents of scene of offence area witnessed the incident. The injured persons were shifted to hospital for treatment.

[3.] Basing on the statement of P.W.1, F.I.R was registered.

During the course of investigation statements of witnesses were recorded. P.W.16/Investigating officer visited scene of offence and prepared scene observation report. L.W.28/Private Doctor issued wound certificates of injured witnesses. L.W.29/Medical officer conducted PME over the body of deceased and issued report.

L.W.30/B.L. Narasiga rao, M.V.I inspected the crime vehicle and issued report to the effect that accident occurred not due to any mechanical defect. P.W.16/Investigating officer effected the arrest of accused on 17-04-2017 and produced him before the court for judicial remand, and later he was enlarged on bail. Now the accused is on bail. No material objects were seized during the course of investigation. After completion of investigation, P.W.16/Investigating officer came to the conclusion that the accused committed an

Page: 3 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 offence punishable under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C and accordingly filed charge sheet to that effect. Hence, the accusation.

[4.] Basing on the charge sheet and material available on record this court took the case on file for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act and issued process against accused. In response to the process accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents in compliance to section 207 of Cr.P.C upon which the prosecution relied to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the course of first examination under section 251 of Cr.P.C the substance of accusation was read over and explained to the accused in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for adducing evidence, the prosecution, in order to bring home the accusation leveled against accused examined NINETEEN witnesses as P.W’s.1 to 19, and exhibited FORTY ONE documents as Ex’s.P.1 to P.41.

[6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C where under the incriminating material available against him in prosecution evidence was put to him for which he denied the same. Defence adduced no evidence on its behalf, either oral or documentary.

[7.] Heard the arguments of prosecution and defence.

[8.] Now the point that arises for consideration is that:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act .?”

Page: 4 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 [9.] ARGUMENTS OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENCE:-

During hearing, it is submitted by the Learned A.P.P that the prosecution with its oral and documentary evidence has successfully established the ingredients to prove the offence under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and P.W’s.1 and 2 who are injured –cum- eye witnesses to the accident has given true account of the incident and their evidence stood for the test of cross-examination, and that prayed to convict the accused.

[10.] Per contra, the Learned defence counsel submitted that the accused is no way concerned with the accusation involved, and he was falsely implicated in this case, and further that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such for all these reasons and grounds accused is entitled for acquittal.

[11.] DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:-

In essence the accusation against accused is that on 11-04-2017 at about 7 a.m he drover the crime vehicle near the scene of offence rash and negligently while chit chatting in mobile phone thereby lost control over vehicle resulting the crime vehicle was overturned, which caused death of deceased and injuries to other material witnesses.

[12.] In a criminal trial, one has to start with the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused which is also regarded as human right because no one can be convicted and punished merely on the ground of suspicion, however strong it may be. Every person has a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to “proof” is an exercise particular to each case. The prosecution is required to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Page: 5 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 [13.] Herein this case, the claim of defence of accused is that he is innocent of the alleged accusation and he was falsely implicated in the case. In the first examination conducted under section 251 of Cr.P.C and even in the second examination which was conducted after completion of prosecution side evidence under section 313 of Cr.P.C accused stood strongly on the claim that he did not committed the alleged offence.

[14.] Before proceeding with the point that whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt or not, it is appropriate to see the nature of evidence produced by either side and the gist of testimonies of witnesses.

[15.] With regard to evidence of prosecution, it has examined

P.W’s.1 to 19 and exhibited Ex’s.P.1 to P.41 documents. P.W.1 is defacto-complainant –cum- circumstantial witness, P.W’s.2 to 14 are injured persons –cum- eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.19 is eye witness to the incident, P.W’s.15 and 18 are eye witnesses to the incident, P.W.16 is investigating officer who conducted investigation, and P.W.17 is previous owner of crime vehicle. With regard to documents, Ex.P.1 is Signature of P.W.1 on report, Ex.P.2 is 161

Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.3 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2,

Ex.P.4 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4, Ex.P.5 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5, Ex.P.6 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6, Ex.P.7 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7, Ex.P.8 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.W.8, Ex.P.9 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9, Ex.P.10 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10, Ex.P.11 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11,

Ex.P.12 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.12, Ex.P.13 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.13, Ex.P.14 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.14,

Ex.P.15 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.15, Ex.P.16 is Report of

P.W.1, Ex.P.17 is F.I.R, Ex.P.18 is Scene observation report, Ex.P.19 is Rough sketch, Ex.P.20 is Inquest panchanama, Ex.P.21 is P.M.E report, Ex.P.22 is M.V.I Report, Ex’s.P.23 to 37 are (15) wound certificates of injured persons, Ex.P.38 is (6) positive photographs

Page: 6 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 along with C.D, Ex.P.39 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.17, Ex.P.40 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.18 and Ex.P.41 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.19.

[16.] P.W.1 is daughter of deceased and her evidence is that on 11-04-2017 while she was present at her house she came to know that her mother (deceased) died in an Auto accident. It is also evidence of P.W.1 that she proceeded to hospital, and thereafter lodged report with the police. Though P.W.1 testified with regard to lodging of report according to her she is unaware of the contents of report, as such at the request of prosecution P.W.1 was declared as hostile. In her cross-examination P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she is deposing false.

[17.] P.W.2 evidence is that on 11-04-2017 he travelled in crime vehicle driven by accused and as the accused drove the crime vehicle rash and negligently the crime vehicle over turned resulting injuries to him and other inmates, and in the same incident deceased died due to injuries. In his cross-examination P.W.2 deposed that he sustained injuries by falling down on the road, but not in Auto accident. P.W.2 also deposed that accused is not the driver of crime vehicle at the time of incident.

[18.] P.W.3 evidence is also in the same lines as that of P.W.2, and however when coming to cross-examination this witness also did not supported the prosecution version and according to him accused did not committed the offence alleged in this case.

[19.] P.W’s.4 to 15, 17 to 19 turned hostile and according to them they do not anything about this case. After obtaining permission from court these witnesses were cross-examined by

Learned A.P.P, and in their cross-examinations all these witnesses denied the suggestion that they are deposing false. P.W.16 is investigating officer who conducted investigation, and he deposed

Page: 7 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 about registration of F.I.R, conducting of investigation thereto and filing of charge sheet. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the accused is unconcerned with the alleged offence.

[20.] In a criminal case it is for the prosecution to prove the alleged accusation beyond reasonable doubt without leaving any ambiguity in the mind of the court. To prove an offence U/sec. 304-

A of I.P.C the prosecution needs to prove death of deceased, identity of offender and the rash or negligent act of offender. Not only that, prosecution also needs to prove that the rash or negligent act of offender is direct cause for the death of deceased. By exhibiting Ex.P.20 inquest panchanama of deceased and Ex.P.21

P.M.E report the prosecution successfully brought into record the death of deceased. Even the defence also not disputed the death of deceased. The first aspect i.e., death of deceased was proved by the prosecution before this court and we will examine further that whether the prosecution also proved the identity of offender and his act of either rash or negligent.

[21.] P.W.1 daughter of deceased and her evidence goes to show that she was informed by others about accident. P.W.1 had no occasion to witness the incident and her status remained to be as hearsay witness. Thus, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W’s.2 to 14 who are injured witnesses and eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.15, 18 and 19 are also material witnesses as they are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W’s.4 to 15, 18 and 19 straight away turned hostile and according to them they do not know anything about this case. These witnesses were projected as eye witnesses to the incident. But when coming to evidence these witnesses turned hostile and failed to disclose the identity particulars of either the driver or crime vehicle. Coming to

P.W’s.2 and 3 though they supported the case of prosecution in their

Page: 8 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 chief examination, in their cross-examination they given complete go bye to the version of prosecution. Both these witnesses i.e.,

P.W’s.2 and 3 exhibited hostile attitude in the cross-examination as such these witnesses evidence cannot be relied upon to prove a particular fact. The evidence of P.W.16/Investigating officer evidence will not be sufficient to decide the guilt of accused in the absence of support from independent witnesses. Since the prosecution failed to establish the identity of accused as driver of crime vehicle, taking up the task of deciding that whether there is rash or negligent act of driver of crime vehicle would becomes unnecessary ritual, and that I am not venturing to that.

[22.] It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that accused is presumed to be innocent until his guilt is proven beyond doubt. Burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. This general burden never shifts, and it always rests on the prosecution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision decided in between ‘Harbir Singh Vs Sheeshpal & Others’ reported in ‘(2016) SCC 418’; pleased to held that; “it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts.” Under the circumstances of present case, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussed infirmities and shortcomings in the prosecution case, there is no cogent and reliable evidence to believe the complicity of accused persons in the commission of the offence. The material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence charged. Thereby, the point is decided in negative.

[23.] In the result , accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act, and accordingly he is

Page: 9 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017 acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after the expiry of (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation and that there is no order as to property.

Directly typed to my dictation by stenographer, corrected by me. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 20 th day of March, 2020, under the hand and seal of this court .

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: P.W.1: Shaik Nazma. P.W.2: Shaik Murthija. P.W.3: Shaik Naseema. P.W.4: Shaik Silarbi. P.W.5: Mujavar@ Shaik Maleembi. P.W.6: Mujavar@ Shaik Munni. P.W.7: Shaik Mabula. P.W.8: Kurapati Adambi. P.W.9: Shaik Hazarabi. P.W.10: Mujavar Nurjahan. P.W.11: Shaik Hazarabi. P.W.12: Babini Hussainbee. P.W.13: Shaik Jameela. P.W.14: Shaik Shameem. P.W.15: Ravulapalli Venkateswarlu. P.W.16: M. Ananda rao, I.O. P.W.17: Mancha Suresh. P.W.18: Katta Lurduraju. P.W.19: Shaik Shakeela.

For defence:- -None- Documents marked:

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Page: 10 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017

Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9. Ex.P.10: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10. Ex.P.11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.11. Ex.P.12: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.12. Ex.P.13: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.13. Ex.P.14: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.14. Ex.P.15: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.15. Ex.P.16: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.17: F.I.R. Ex.P.18: Scene observation report. Ex.P.19: Rough sketch. Ex.P.20: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P.21: P.M.E report. Ex.P.22: M.V.I Report. Ex’s.P.23 to 37: (15) wound certificates of injured persons. Ex.P.38: (6) positive photographs along with C.D. Ex.P.39: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.17. Ex.P.40: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.18. Ex.P.41: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.19.

For defence:- -Nil-

Material objects marked: -Nil on either side-

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasararaopet.

Page: 11 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-II ADDITIONAL

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT NARASARAOPET.

C.C.NO. 250 of 2017

Date of: Offence on or Complaint Apph. of Released on CommencemeClosure of Result

beforeaccusedBailnt of TrialTrial

Prior to11-04-201717-04-201717-04-201728-11-201710-03-202020-03-2020 11-04-2017 Between: The State, Through The S.H.O, Phirangipuram P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Ratnala Sreenivasa rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, A/o. 26 Years, C/o. Telaga, O/o. Driver, R/o. Puttakota Kothapalem village, Edlapadu mandal, Guntur District. . . . Accused.

Offence: U/Sec:337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act. Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding : Not guilty. Sentence of Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under sections 337, 338 & 304-A of I.P.C, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act, and accordingly he is acquitted U/sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancelled after the expiry of (6) months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Police seized no material objects during the course of investigation and that there is no order as to property.

Explanation for the delay: The case was taken on file under Sections 337, 338, 304-A of IPC, and section 66 r/w 192-A of M.V. Act on 11.10.2017. Copies furnished to the accused on 20-10-2017. On 10-11-2017 accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C and explained him in telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. From29.01.2018 to 30.01.2020 PWs.1 to 19 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.41 and the prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 10.03.2020 accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which accused denied and reported no defence evidence. On 13.03.2020 heard arguments of both sides and judgment

pronounced on 20.03.2020. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani,

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasararaopet. Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal.

Page: 12 of 12 C.C.No.250/2017

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasararaopet.

1 Page.No.1 of 8 C.C.No.280/17

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt.A. Sunitha Rani, B.A.B.L., II AJCJ-cum-II AJMFC, Narsaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 27th day of May, 2020.

C.C. No.81/2016.

[Cr. No.84 of 2014 of P.S Nakirekallu.]

Between: The State, Through S.I of Police, Nakirekallu P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Ganta Srinivasa Rao, S/o Linga Rao, Occ:Driver, R/o Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal. . . . Accused.

-o0o-

This calendar case came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Learned A.P.P, for the State, and of Sri A.V.V.Brahmanandam, Learned counsel for accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1.] The Sub-Inspector of Police, Nakirekallu P.S, filed charge sheet in

Cr.No. 84 of 2014 with a prayer to punish the accused by alleging that he committed an offence punishable U/sec. 337, 338 of IPC.

[2.] Brief Facts:- The accused is driver of School bus bearing No.AP

TA 2743 belongs to Sri Chaitanya Educational Society. P.W.1/Chandu China

Sambaiah is resident of Brugubanda Village of Sattenapalli Mandal and he is auto driver by occupation. On 08.09.2014 P.W.1 loaded the house hold articles of L.W.2/B.Appi Reddy in his auto bearing No.AP17 TT 9283 at 2 Page.No.2 of 8 C.C.No.280/17

Bruguband Village to deliver at Vellaturu Village of Bollapalli Mandal and thereafter L.W.2/B.Appi Reddy and L.W.3/B.Gollamma boarded his auto and while going to Vellaturu Village and when reached near Inimentla road of Nakirekallu Mandal, the accused driver of school bus drove his bus in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed without blowing horn and dashed the auto of P.W.1, resulting the auto turned turtle, resulting P.W.1,

L.W.s.2 and 3 received injuries. PWs.2, 4 and 5 present and witnessed the incident and informed to 108 Ambulance. Thereafter the injured were shifted to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet and from there they were shifted to GGH, Guntur for better treatment. On 10.09.2014 P.W.6/ASI of police visited the hospital and recorded the complaint statement of P.W.1 and forwarded to Nakirekallu P.S on the point of Jurisdiction. Basing on which, P.W.7/S.I of Police registered FIR in Cr.No.84/14 U/sec.337, 338 IPC and took up investigation, recorded the statements of witnesses, drawn scene observation report and rough sketch and secured wound certificates.

[3.] On 11-10-2014 PW.7/S.I of police arrested the accused and released him on bail by obtaining bail bonds. Basing on the investigation

I.O came to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec. 337, 338 IPC and filed charge sheet. Hence, the accusation.

[4.] Considering the charge sheet and material on record, the court took the case on file for the offence punishable u/sec.337, 338 IPC and issued process. In reply to the process accused entered his appearance and he was provided with the copies of documents on which the prosecution is relying to prove the proposed guilt.

[5.] During the examination U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C, the substance of accusation u/sec.337, 338 IPC was read over and explained, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Upon invitation for trail, the prosecution examined SEVEN witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and NINE documents as Exs. P1 to P9.

3 Page.No.3 of 8 C.C.No.280/17 [6.] After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C, by explaining the incriminating material available against accused, for which accused denied the same and adduced no evidence on his behalf.

[7.] Heard arguments of both sides.

[8.] Now the point that arises for determination is:

“ Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record a

conviction against the accused for the offence punishable

u/sec.337, 338 IPC?

[9.] Point: As stated above the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 7 and exhibited Exs. P1 to P9 documents. PW.1 is Complainant/injured, PW.2, 4 and 5 are eye witnesses, P.W.3 is owner of school bus/Crime Vehicle, P.W.6 is ASI of police recorded the Complaint statement of P.W.1, and P.W.7 is investigating officer. With regard to Exhibits, Ex.P1 is Complaint statement of P.W.1. dt.10.9.2014, Exs.P2 to P.4 are 161 Cr.P.C statements of PW.2 to

P.W.4, Ex.P.4 is Hospital intimation dt.10.9.2014, Ex.P.5 is FIR, Ex.P.6 is

Rough Sketch, Exs.P.7 to P.9 are wound certificates of LWs.2, 3 and P.W.1.

It is relevant to mention here that inadvertently Ex.P.4 series was assigned to two (02) documents and that for convenient sake, this court has given bye numbers to them, those are Ex.P.4/1 is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 and Ex.P.4/2 is Hospital intimation dt.10.9.2014.

[10.] Evidence on Record: PW.1 who is the defacto complainant/ injured deposed that previously he used to run auto bearing No.AP 27 TT 9283. About three (03) years ago, one day at about 6.00 a.m, he along with L.W.2/Appi reddy and L.W.3/Gollamma started in the auto to go to vellaturu from Brugubandla and when they reached near outskirts of

Enimetla at about 7.00 a.m, one school bus bearing No.2743 came in a opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto of P.W.1, resulting P.W.1 sustained fracture injury to his right knee and injuries to his right hand and head. L.W.2/Appi reddy sustained injuries 4 Page.No.4 of 8 C.C.No.280/17 on his right hand and right leg, L.W3/Gollamma sustained injuries to her right hand. Immediately they were shifted to Area Hospital, Narasaraopet in an ambulance and from there shifted to GGH, Guntur for better treatment. P.W.1 got treated in the hospital for 16 days. There police recoded his statement. Witness identified the accused in the court hall as driver of crime vehicle on the date of incident.

[11.] PWs. 2, 4 and 5, who are said to be an eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. P.W.3 who is the owner of crime vehicle and produced the accused before the Police also not supported the prosecution case and turned Hostile. Learned APP declared the witnesses as hostile and sought permission to cross examine the witnesses, but nothing was elicited to suggest they are speaking false hood.

[12.] P.W.6 is ASI of police recorded the complaint statement of P.W.1 in the hospital and forwarded to Nakirekallu P.S on the point of Jurisdiction.

PW.7 who is an Investigating officer, clearly deposed about the registration of the case, apprehension of the accused and filing of charge sheet.

[13.] Now it has to be seen whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record the conviction of accused as alleged. To prove the case, the prosecution mainly relied upon PW.1, 2, 4 & 5, who are injured and eye witnesses and wound certificates of injured. No doubt that, basing on the wound certificates of injured, it is clear that P.W.1 and LWs.2 and 3 sustained injuries. But in the accident cases of this nature, the prosecution has to prove the main ingredients i.e, involvement of accused in the present crime and rash and negligent act of the accused at the time of accident.

[14.] On perusal of material available on record, P.W.1, who is one of injured deposed about the accident and involvement of crime vehicle, rash and negligent act of accused at the time of accident, so also identified the accused in the court hall as driver of crime vehicle. The prosecution could not produce the other two injured before the court. P.W.1 deposed in his 5 Page.No.5 of 8 C.C.No.280/17 cross examination that he do not have any prior acquaintance with the accused and after accident he saw the accused in the court hall at the time of deposing his evidence before the court after lapse of four (04) years.

The evidence of P.W.7/Investigating officer assumes significance only when the evidence of material witness is cogent and reliable. It is not the case of prosecution that none witnessed the incident, indeed it is its specific case that P.W’s.2, 4 & 5 witnessed the incident and shifted the injured to hospital, whereas when coming to evidence it became non corroboration from P.W’s.2, 4 and 5. Therefore, this court feels that the sole evidence of

P.W.1 is not sufficient for convicting the accused without corroboration.

Herein this case, the eye witnesses and owner of crime vehicle did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, this court feels that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record to implicate the complicity of the accused in commission of offence. It is well known that Penal Statutes should be strictly construed in the prosecution need to prove the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt, which is lacking in the present case on hand. The material produced by the prosecution is hardly sufficient to brought home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. There by the point is decided in favour of the defence.

[15.] IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty, for the offence under sections 337, 338 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancel after the expiry of 6 months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Police seized no material objects during course of investigation and that no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by through video conference, today, this the 27 th day of May, 2020, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class,

Narasararaopet.

6 Page.No.6 of 8 C.C.No.280/17

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: P.W.1: Ch.China Sambaiah -None- P.W.2: Shaik Bude P.W.3: M.Chowda Reddy Pw.4: Ch.Venkateswarulu Pw.5 : B.Nageswara Rao Pw.6 : D.Venkateswara Rao Pw.7 : K.Ananda (I.O)

Documents marked: For prosecution: Ex.P1 : Complaint statement of P.W.1. dt.10.9.2014 Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4/1 : 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P.4/2 : Hospital intimation dt.10.9.2014 Ex.P.5 : FIR Ex.P.6 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.7 :Wound certificate of LW.2/Appi Reddy Ex.P.8 : Wound certificate of LW.3/Gollamma Ex.P.9 : Wound certificate of P.W.1

For defence:- - NIL-

Material objects marked: - Nil on either side -

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

7 Page.No.7 of 8 C.C.No.280/17

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS AT NARASARAOPET.

C.C.NO.81 of 2016

Date of: Offence on Complaint Apph. of Released on CommencemeClosure of Result or beforeaccusedBailnt of TrialTrial 08-09-201410-09-2014 11-10-201411-10-201423-08-201810-03-202027-05-2020 Between: The State, Through S.I of Police, Nakirekallu P.S. . . . Complainant.

And

Ganta Srinivasa Rao, S/o Linga Rao, Occ:Driver, R/o Ganapavaram Village, Nadendla Mandal. . . . Accused.

Offence: U/Sec: 337, 338 of IPC.

Plea of accused: Not guilty.

Finding : Found Not guilty.

Sentence of Order : In the result, accused is found not guilty, for the offence under sections 337, 338 of IPC and according he is acquitted u/sec.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and his sureties shall stands cancel after the expiry of 6 months as per U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C. Police seized no material objects during course of investigation and that no order as to property.

Explanation for the delay:

The case was taken on file under Sections 337, 338 of IPC on 23.04.2016. Copies furnished to the accused on 27-06-2016 and on 08.08.2018 accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C and explained him in telugu for which accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. On 18.12.2018 PW.1, on 26.7.2019 P.W.2, on 02.8.2019 P.W.3, on 15.10.2019 P.W.4, on 26.11.2019 P.W.5, on 04.12.2019 P.W.6, and on 02.03.2020 P.W.7 were examined and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and the prosecution evidence was closed on 30.01.2020. On 10.03.2020 accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material for which accused denied and reported no defence evidence. On 12.03.2020 heard arguments of both sides and due to suspension of judicial work in courts in view of out break of covid-19 pandemic, judgment could not be

pronounced and now as per the circular instructions of Hon’ble High court dt.17.05.2020,

judgment pronounced on 27.05.2020 through video conference. Hence, the delay.

Sd/-A.Sunitha Rani

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

Copy Submitted to: The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guntur for kind perusal.

8 Page.No.8 of 8 C.C.No.280/17

Copy to : The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural.

// True Copy //

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum- II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Narasaraopet.

1

IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

AT GUNTUR.

Present: Smt A.Sunitha Rani., IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

Monday, this the 03rd day of April, 2023.

O.S. No. 141 of 2019.

Between:-

1. Sk.Shakeela.

2. Sk.Shakira, Rep. by Special Power of Attorney, Sk.Nagur Sharief, S/o.Mastan.… Plaintiffs.

And

1. Sk.Shaheda Begum.

2. Sk.Riaz.

3. Sk.Eliaz. ...Defendants.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. G.Venkateswara Rao, Learned counsel for plaintiffs, and 1st defendant in person, and defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1] This is a suit filed U/sec.26 and Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C, for partition of plaint schedule properties into 21 equal shares and to allot 6 such shares to plaintiffs by passing preliminary decree and final decree for division according to good and bad qualities and for separate possession; for future mesne profits of property from the date of suit till the date of division of schedule properties and for such other reliefs as this court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

[2] The brief averments of plaint are like this; that plaintiffs 1 and 2 are 1st and 2nd daughters and 1st defendant is 3rd daughter and defendants 2 and 3 are sons of late Sk.Jani, who died intestate on 11-2-2018 and their mother also died on 12-8-2000.

2 [2.1] It is further averred that plaint A, B and C schedule properties are self-acquired properties of late Sk.Jani and after his death, plaintiffs and 1st defendant became entitled to 6 shares and 8 shares to defendants 2 and 3 as per Muslim law.

[2.2] It is further averred that during the life time of Shaik

Jani, he executed registered gift deeds relating to commercial shops in Auto nagar, Guntur in favour of defendants 2 and 3 vide document Nos.4536/2017 and 4357/2017 dt.14-12-2017 and he promised to give shares in plaint schedule properties to plaintiffs along with defendants. After death of their father, plaintiffs requested defendants for amicable partition, but they are postponing the same on one pretext or the other. On that, plaintiffs got issued legal notice to defendants to come forward for partition of schedule properties, but they are not cooperating for the same, On the other hand, defendants 2 and 3 are residing in ground floors of A, B and C schedule properties and collecting rents from the tenants who are residing in first floor and not giving those rents to plaintiffs. Hence the plaint.

[3] The 1st defendant filed written statement submitting that she is entitled for share in plaint schedule properties as per

Muslim Law and she prayed to allot shares to all children of late

Shaik Jani.

[4] Defendants 2 and 3 remained exparte.

[5] Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties, this court settled the following issues for trial;

1. Whether plaintiffs have proved their right of share over the suit schedule properties?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for grant of

preliminary decree for partition of suit schedule

properties?

3

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for future mesne profits of the property as prayed for?

4. To what other relief if any, the plaintiffs are entitled for?

[6] After framing of issues, plaintiffs have adduced oral and documentary evidence on their behalf. On behalf of Plaintiffs,

P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A 12.

The 1st defendant failed to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on her behalf, so also failed to conduct cross- examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

[7] Heard the arguments of plaintiffs. In addition to Oral arguments, counsel for plaintiffs filed written arguments, and inspite of passing conditional order, the 1st defendant did not taken any steps to submit arguments, hence the arguments of 1st defendant was closed.

[8] EVIDENCE ON RECORD:- At the event of trial, the

Special Power of Attorney/Sk.Nagur Sharief of 2nd plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, 1st plaintiff got examined herself as

P.W.2 and exhibited Ex’s.A1 and A12 documents and those are,

Ex.A.1 is certified copy of registered document No.3988/1996 dt.7-7-1966, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A.2 is certified copy of registered document No.2745/1973 dt.20-8-1973, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A.3 is certified copy of registered document No.1366/1975 dt.16-4- 1975, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A.4 is certified copy of registered document No.1646/1988 dt.27-5-1988, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A.5 is certified copy of registered document No.4356/2017 dt.14-12- 2017, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A.6 is certified copy of registered document No.4357/2017 dt.14-12-2017, SRO, Guntur, Ex.A7 is death certificate of Sk.Jani, S/o.Bude Saheb dt.11-2-2018, Ex.A8 is office copy of legal notice dt.14-3-2019, EX.A9 is three postal receipts dt.15-3-2019, 15-3-2019 and 14-3-2019, Ex.A10 is postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant dt.19-3-2019, Ex.A11 is 4 postal acknowledgment of 2nd defendant dt.19-3-2019 and

Ex.A12 is notarized copy of Special Power of Attorney.

[8-A] In their chief affidavits, PWs.1 and 2 reiterated averments in plaint.

[9] ISSUES No.1 to 4:- The issues Nos.1 to 4 are inter related, and as such, this court is taking up the task of appreciating all these issues under one head. It is the version of plaintiffs that during the life time of their father by name Shaik

Jani, he executed registered gift deeds relating to commercial shops in Auto nagar, Guntur in favour of defendants 2 and 3 vide doc.Nos.4356/2017 and 4357/2017 dt.14-12-2017 and after his death, defendants are not cooperating for amicable partition of plaint schedule properties. To bring into record the above facts, as stated supra, the Special Power of Attorney/Sk.Nagur Sharief of 2nd plaintiff got examined as PW1, plaintiff No.1 also examined as PW2 and marked the relevant documents on their behalf. The oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with the documents marked on behalf of plaintiffs are proving the facts, such as; father of plaintiffs is owner of schedule properties under Exs.A.1 to A4 and he executed Ex.A5 in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and Ex.A6 in favour of 3rd defendant.

[9-A.] The 1st defendant though filed written statement, failed to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2. Every party is obliged to put his/her case in cross-examination of witnesses of opposite party. The effect of non-cross examination is that the statement of witness has not been disputed. The rule of putting one’s version in cross-examination is one of essential justice and not merely technical one. In view thereof, the failure of 1st defendant to conduct cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 making her evidence an unchallenged one.

5 [9-B] The 1st defendant not only failed to cross-examine

P.Ws.1 and 2, but she also failed to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary on her behalf. Usually, when a plea is put forth a plea by way of pleading, the parties are required to adduce evidence in support of their respective case. It is a settled principle that pleadings are not evidence and that parties who wants to prove anything as made out in their pleadings, have to adduce evidence in support of the same.

[9-C] In view of failure of 1st defendant to adduce her side of evidence, her resistance in written statement remained as mere plea only, and in the absence of any evidence on her behalf, no value can be attached to her pleading. The conduct of the 1st defendant in failing to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2, and further failure to adduce evidence on her behalf suggesting that she has no point to say regarding the averments of plaint.

Whereas, the plaintiffs with oral and documentary evidence have proved their case against defendants, and as such, this court holds that the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief prayed.

The issues nos.1 to 4 are decided accordingly.

[10] In the result,the suit of the plaintiffs is preliminary decreed without costs, and the plaint schedule properties shall be divided into twenty one (21) equal shares and six such shares shall be allotted to the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Future mesne profits shall be decided by filing a separate petition by plaintiffs.

Directly typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-III, and the judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 03 rd day of April, 2023, under the hand and seal of this court.

Sd/- A.Sunitha Rani,

IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge,

GUNTUR.

6

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For Plaintiffs:

PW1: Sk.Nagur Sharief/Spl.Power of Attorney of 2nd plaintiff. PW2: Sk.Shakeela.

For 1st Defendant: -None-

Documents marked:

For Plaintiffs: Ex.A.1: certified copy of registered document No.3988/1996 dt.7-7-1966, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A.2: certified copy of registered document No.2745/1973 dt.20-8-1973, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A.3: certified copy of registered document No.1366/1975 dt.16-4-1975, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A.4: certified copy of registered document No.1646/1988 dt.27-5-1988, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A.5: certified copy of registered document No.4356/2017 dt.14-12-2017, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A.6: certified copy of registered document No.4357/2017 dt.14-12-2017, SRO, Guntur. Ex.A7: death certificate of Sk.Jani, S/o.Bude Saheb dt.11-2-2018. Ex.A8: office copy of legal notice dt.14-3-2019. EX.A9: three postal receipts dt.15-3-2019, 15-3-2019 and 14-3-2019. Ex.A10: postal acknowledgment of 1st defendant dt.19-3-2019. Ex.A11: postal acknowledgment of 2nd defendant dt.19-3-2019. Ex.A12: notarized copy of Special Power of Attorney.

For 1st Defendant: -Nil-

Sd/- A.Sunitha Rani,

IV ASCJ,

Guntur.

Page No.1 O.S No. 345/2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha rani, B.A.B.L., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. F.A.C :: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 4th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No. 345 of 2019.

Between:-

Bhatraju Krishna Prasad, S/o Lakshmaiah, Age : 63 years, Caste : Hindu, Occ : Photographer, R/o Dr.No.1-4-29/4B, Redlabazaar, Muthaihthota, Barampet, Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur District. . . . Plaintiff.

And

Gurazala @ Gurizavolu Venkateswara Rao, S/o koteswara Rao, Age :40 years, Caste : Hindu, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. D.No.1-119, Minnekallu Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District.. . . Defendant.

-o0o-

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Ch.Ch. Lakshmana Rao, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendant, as the defendant set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following;

J U D G M E N T

[1.] This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,29,005/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine

Thousand and Five only) based on the promissory note dated 02-10- 2016, and to award interest and costs.

[2.] The brief averments of plaint are like this; that out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, the defendant has borrowed an amount

Page No.2 O.S No. 345/2019 of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) from the plaintiff on 02-10-2016 for his family expenses and executed suit promissory note on the same day, agreeing to repay the same along with interest @ 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Subsequently, the defendant paid an amount of Rs.4,500/- on 10-01-2017, Rs.4,500/- on 06-02-2017, Rs.4,000/- on 25-04-2017, Rs.4,500/- on 08-05-2017 and

RS.4,500/- on 09-06-2017 through his bank account of State Bank of

India, Manikalabhavi Bazaar Branch, Narasaraopet towards part payment of the due amount. Thereafter the defendant failed to repay the promissory note amount along with accrued interest thereon and on 09-10-2018 the defendant has issued a cheque towards part payment of the due amount, and the same was dishonoured when presented, and on that the defendant failed to repay the due amount. Hence the plaint.

[3.] The defendant set exparte.

[4.] To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1, and got marked Original promissory note dated 02-10-2016 as Ex.A.1 and Statement Account from State Bank of India Manikalabhavi Bazaar

Branch, Narasaraopet as Ex.A2.

[5.] Heard the Learned counsel for plaintiff.

[6.] Now, the point that arises for consideration is that;

“ Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit

amount.?” [7.] POINT:- In his chief affidavit P.W.1 re-iterated pleadings in plaint. The version of plaintiff is that defendant borrowed amount from him under Ex.A.1 promissory note and later failed to repay the same. The defendant did not choose to contest the suit proceedings, and as such he was set exparte. Since the defendant set exparte, the version claimed by plaintiff remains unchallenged and unrebutted. Ex.A.1 promissory note showing us that the defendant borrowed amount from the plaintiff. The plaintiff with his oral and documentary evidence proved his case against the defendant, and as such the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of suit amount along with interest and costs. The point is decided in affirmative.

Page No.3 O.S No. 345/2019 [8.] In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.4,29,005/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine

Thousand and Five only), along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

Directly Typed to my dictation by stenographer. The judgment is delivered and operative part of the same is pronounced by me in the open court, today, this the 4th day of March, 2020, under the hand and seal of this court.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, F.A.C : Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined:

For plaintiff: P.W.1: Bhatraju Krishna Prasad

For defendant: -None-

Documents marked:

For plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 02-10-2016. Ex.A.2: Statement Account from State Bank of India Manikalabhavi Bazaar Branch, Narasaraopet.

For defendant: -Nil-

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge,

F.A.C : Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Narasaraopet.

Page No.4 O.S No. 345/2019

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NARASARAOPET.

Present: Smt. A. Sunitha rani, B.A.B.L., II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. F.A.C :: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

Wednesday, this the 4th day of March, 2020.

O.S. No. 345 of 2019.

Between:-

Bhatraju Krishna Prasad, S/o Lakshmaiah, Age : 63 years, Caste : Hindu, Occ : Photographer, R/o Dr.No.1-4-29/4B, Redlabazaar, Muthaihthota, Barampet, Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur District. . . . Plaintiff.

And

Gurazala @ Gurizavolu Venkateswara Rao, S/o koteswara Rao, Age :40 years, Caste : Hindu, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. D.No.1-119, Minnekallu Santhamagulur Mandal, Prakasam District.. . . Defendant.

This is a suit filed U/sec. 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,29,005/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Five only) based on the promissory note dated 02-10-2016, and to award interest and costs.

Plaint presented on 26-09-2019

CAUSE OF ACTION : for the suit arose on 02-10-2016 when the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family expenses and executed the promissory note at Narasaraopet and subsequently the defendant paid part payments of Rs.4,500/- on 10-01-2017, Rs.4,500/- on 6-2-2017, Rs.4,000/- on 25-04- 2017, Rs.4,500/- on 8-5-2017 and Rs.4,500/- on 9-6-17 through his banker to the account of the plaintiff, State Bank of India, Narasaraopet and the defendant issued a cheque and was bounced due to insufficient funds and the plaintiff filed a complaint under Sec.138 of NI Act before the I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Narasaraopet and the execution of promissory note took place at Narasaraopet and the plaintiff is resident of Narasaraopet which is within the Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

PARTICULARS OF VALUATION:-

Principle amount Rs.3,00,000-00

Interest at 18% p.a from on 02-10-2016 to 25-09-2019Rs.1,60,950-00 ------------------ Rs.4,60,950-00

On 10-01-2017 Rs.4,500-00

Interest @ 18% p.a from 10-01-17 to 25-09-19Rs.2,193-00

On 06-02-2017 Rs.4,500-00

Interest @ 18% p.a from 06-02-17 to 25-09-19Rs.2,134-00

On 25-04-2017 Rs.4,000-00

Interest @ 18% p.a from 25-04-17 to 25-09-19Rs.1,562-00

On 08-05-2017 Rs.4,500-00

Interest @ 18% p.a from 08-05-19 to 25-09-19Rs.1,928-00

On 09-06-2017 Rs.4,500-00

Interest @ 18% p.a from 09-06-17 to 25-09-19Rs.2,128-00 --------------- Rs. 31,945

Rs.31,945-00 ------------------- Rs.4,29,005-00 –-----------------

Value of Jurisdiction is Rs.4,29,005/-

On which a court fee of Rs.6,726/- is paid under Section 20 of A.P.C.F., and

S.V. Act.

This suit came before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of

Sri Ch.Ch. Lakshmana Rao, Learned counsel for plaintiff, and none on behalf of defendant, as the defendant set exparte, and upon hearing the arguments of Learned counsel for plaintiff, and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court doth order and decree as follows:-

i) That the defendant do pay to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,29,005/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand and Five only), along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of suit till the date of decree, and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization on Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only).

ii) That the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.14,183/- towards costs of the suit and defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil/-

Given under my hand and seal of the court, this the 4th day of March, 2020.

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, F.A.C: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

TABLE OF COSTS

For Description For Plaintiff For Defendant Vakalat 2-00 Plaint fee6,726-00 Process 40-00(CM & FC not filed) Pleader fee 7,285-00 Writing Charges 30-00 Typing Charges 100-00 Total14,183-00

II A J C J.,

FAC. P.J.C.J.,

NARASARAOPET.