Sri A Vara Prasada Rao

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri A. Vara Prasada Rao, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act-Cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 12th day of June,2019.

P.O.C.S.O. SESSIONS CASE NO. 30/2018

Name of the Complainant : State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer,VizianagaramSubDivision, Vizianagaram.

Name of the accused : Lenka Papinaidu, S/o Ramunaidu, age 20 years, Kapu caste, N/o. Seethampeta Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Date of offence: Prior to 13.08.2017

Place of offence: SC Women’s Hostel, Near Gumchi Road, Vizianagaram.

Date of complaint: 13.08.2017

Date of apprehension: 20.08.2017

Whether the accused is in Jail : On Bail. or Bail

Date of commencement of trial : 23.05.2019

Date of closure of trial: 03.06.2019

Date of Sentence or Judgment: 12.06.2019

EXPLNATION FOR DELAY: This case is filed before this court under POCSO Act. In this case on 03-07-2018 charges under sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (ii)(v) of SCs, STs (POA) Act were framed against accused. In this case, Pws 1 to 18 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 23 were marked. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., on 03.06.2019. After concluding arguments, Judgment was pronounced on 12-06-2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

2

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present:- Sri A. Vara Prasada Rao, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act-Cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 12th day of June, 2019.

P.O.C.S.O. SESSIONS CASE No.30/2018

Name of the Complainant : State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram Sub Division, Vizianagaram.

Name of the accused : Lenka Papinaidu, S/o Ramunaidu, age 20 years, Kapu caste, N/o. Seethampeta Village, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District.

Charges : Under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act, 2012 and 3(ii)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act.

Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Not guilty.

Sentence or order In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the charges under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Section 5 read with 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offenders Act, 2012 and 3(ii)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act He is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is ordered to execute self bond for Rs.25,000/- and ordered to appear

before any appellate Court, as and when he

receives any notices or summons from any court under the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.,

Office is directed to register STC against PW1 for speaking falsehood before this Court and to issue show-cause notice to her 3 as to why she shall not be punished under Section 344(1) Cr.P.C., for giving false evidence before this Court by 19.06.2019. Prosecution conducted by : Additional Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram. Defence conducted by : Sri A.V.Anjani Kumar

J U D G M E N T

1.Criminal law set into motion upon registration of statement Y.P.J.

(victim girl) recorded by Inspector of Police, II Town Police Station,

Vizianagaram at 0.30 hours on the intervening night of 12/13.08,2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 313 IPC and Sections 3(II)(V) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 in Crime No.238/2017.

2.The brief facts of the case are :

One Y.P.J. studied 1st to 4th standard in Government Primary

School and V to VII in Z.P.High School in Pogiri Village and 8th to 10th standard in G.Sigadam Village in A.P.Model School. She also studied her Intermediate

Bi.P.C. Group in M.R.College, Vizianagaram. During that period, she stayed in

SC Society Government Hostel i.e., during 2016-17. She was born on 17.06.2000 and she belongs to S.C., mala caste. She fell in love with accused while she was studying 8th standard. That during her study of 10th standard, accused stated to her that he would marry her and on 20.12.2016 during Christmas holidays, the accused took her to fields in the outskirts in their village and by making her to believe his false promise and that since they were going to be married, there would not be any wrong even if they participate in sexual intercourse and then they participated in sexual intercourse and also at 5.00 p.m., they again participated in sexual intercourse two or three times. In February, the accused gave her touch screen mobile for taking farewell photos with mobile number 7013877362 and from then onwards they talked through that phone and her mobile phone 4 which is ordinary phone was taken by the accused. During farewell function she took photographs and saved them in the memory card and by keeping memory card, she gave back touch screen mobile to the accused and she took return of her ordinary mobile. That victim girl examinations were completed by 14th March and after she reached her house, within one week accused made phone call to her to talk with her with urgently and she went and they had sexual intercourse. Similarly they participated in sexual intercourse in same place and after summer vacation on 3rd July upon opening of college, she returned to Vizianagaram. While she was in hostel, her periods had stopped from the day they participated in sex and in the meanwhile accused went to Hyderabad. On 4.8.2017, she went to her village and informed accused that her periods had stopped and she became pregnant and demanded him to marry her. Then accused demanded her that initially, she should get her pregnancy aborted and thereafter only they would celebrate their marriage. The accused gave some tablets to her and asked her not to reveal it to any one and after holidays on 9.8.2017, she returned to hostel in Vizianagaram and took one tablet each on 9th, 10th, and 11th during night. On 12.8.2017, due to ill-health, she remained in hostel.

During afternoon, she felt discomfort and she could understand that due to tablets given by the accused for abortion, something was going to happen to her. She slept in the room and at around 3.30 p.m. she experienced pain in her stomach so also on her back and she went to toilet and in the toilet from her stomach one baby fell and it was not crying and it was a still born child.

By then in the hostel or in the bathroom none were present and out of fear she had thrown away the dead baby over hostel compound wall. At about 7.30 p.m., Vijaya Nirmala, her hostel warden questioned her and she narrated the incident to her. That she was admitted in Gosha Hospital with the help of police and was given medical treatment.

5

3.The charge sheet was taken on file for offences Under Sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under

Section 3 (ii)(v) of SCs, STs (POA) Act against the accused and it was registered as POCSO S.C.No.30/2018.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under

Section 3 (ii)(v) of SCs, STs (POA) Act were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18 and exhibited Exts.P1 to

P23. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up evidence of LWs.3, 11, 15 to 18, 20, 22 to 24, 26, 28,29, 32 and 33 viz., Yagati Surya Rao, Yagati

Ramakrishna, Boodi Chandrunaidu, Warden of SC Boys Hostel-II,

Vizianagaram, Polumuru Sasibhushanarao, Assistant Social Welfare Officer,

Vizianagaram, Veluri Suryabhagavanulu, working as VRO, Vizianagaram

Municipality Bit No.1, Boodi Chandrunaidu, Warden of SC Boys Hostel-II,

Vizianagaram, Yeddu Ramu, VRO, V.T.Agraharam, Vizianagaram,

D.Samarpanarao, PC 1648, Vizianagaram II Town PS, Vizianagaram, K.Ravi

Kumar Goud, Assistant Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad, Dr.G.Pandu, Assistant

Director, TSFSL, Hyderabad, Dr.P.Varalakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon, MCH

Ghosha Hospital, Vizianagaram, Dr.Subbarao Chodisetti, Professor HOD of

Urology, Andhra Medical College, Chief Urology, KGH, Visakhapatnam,

Smt.Ch.Adisesamma, Honourable Additional Judicial Magistrate of The First

Class, Special Mobile, Vizianagaram, E.Narasimha Murthy, Inspector of Police,

II Town Police Station, Vizianagaram, A.V.Ramana, Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Vizianagaram Sub Division, Vizianagaram.

6

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explaining incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The case of accused is one of total denial .However, he reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard arguments advanced by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for the accused.

8.Now, the points that arise for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against him, beyond all reasonable?

POINT:

9.During the course of evidence, PW1 though deposed that she knows the accused and that he belongs to Kapu community and he also lives in the same street, she pleaded ignorance of any facts in this case. She even admitted that she had stomach pain but she did not reveal the cause for her stomach ache. She went to the extent of stating that she was not examined by the police, but she admitted that she put her signature in her statement recorded by some one i.e., Ex.P2. At one stage, PW1 has the audacity to deny giving statement before the Judicial Magistrate of The First Class. But she regained her composer and stated that she gave statement before Judge i.e., Judicial Magistrate of The First Class, Special Mobile Court, Vizianagaram and she admitted and exhibited her statement in Ex.P3 recorded under

Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Public Prosecutor, District Court insisted for marking entire statement). She also admitted that she was taken to Hyderabad and her blood samples were collected. That she pleaded ignorance of purpose for collecting her blood samples. During her chief examination she exhibited

Ex.P4 bunch of 3 photographs showing herself and Maize crop. She also exhibited Ex.P5 bunch of 4 photographs showing her dead body of girl child by the side of a room. She also exhibited Ex.P6 CD for Exs.P4 and P5 photos.

7

She also deposed that dead baby was lying near their hostile during the year in which she was admitted in hospital. It was prior to her admission in hospital. Her hostel mates alleged that it was her baby. Once again PW1 stated that she was not examined by any one. But she again regained her composer and stated that some one came and recorded something. She admitted that more than Rs.1,00,000/- was credited into her savings bank account of State Bank of India. PW1 was cross-examined by incharge Public

Prosecutor and she denied what all was suggested to her. During cross- examination by defence counsel, she admitted that accused is her husband and she was carrying 5th month pregnancy. She pleaded that she is not aware of contents in Exs.P2 and P3. She further deposed that dead baby found in Ex.P5 is not her baby. She explained that she became confused and stated that dead baby was her baby. She also deposed that herself and her husband i.e., accused have been living happily.

10.PW2 father of PW1 contended that he is not aware of the facts in this case and some one took his daughter to hospital due to ill health.

11.PW3 did not support the case of the prosecution.

12.PW4 deposed that Lw.7-A.S.Raja is known to him. He does not

Know accused. A hostel is present by the side of his house. He found one dead baby lying by the side of hostel while he was going to attend his work in the house of Narasinga Rao, at about 4.00 p.m., about one and half years back. Ex.P.5 photograph shows dead child. He informed the same to L.W.7-

A.S.Raja. Subsequently he went to attend his work. Police did not examine him.

13.PW5 deposed that previously he worked as Warden, SW Girls

Hostel No.II, Vizianagaram. Her duty times in the hostel were from 6.00 a.m., to 9.00 a.m., and from 12.00 noon to 2.00 p.m., and evening from 5.00 8 p.m., to 9.00 p.m. Pw.1, Lw.8-Lalitha, L.W.9-Dhanalaxmi were students, who stayed in their hostel. He does not know parents of Pw.1. 138 girl students of Intermediate, Degree, P.G., and Engineering, stayed in their hostel during that period. On 12.8.2017, she applied for leave and she went to her house on personal work. At 5.00 p.m., he received phone call. He immediately rushed to their hostel. She found one dead baby lying on other side of hostel compound wall. In the assembly he questioned all the students. Pws 7 and 8 stated to her that Pw.1 did not attend college on the ground that she was weak. She questioned Pw.1 and she stated to her that she had thrown away the baby over the compound wall. Herself and S.I. of police took Pw.1 to Gosha Hospital. Pw.1 was given blood due to bleeding.

14.According to PW6, PW4 informed him that still born child was present by the side of hostel compound wall and it was a dead baby.

15.According to PW7, she, PW1 and L.W.9-Dhanalaxmi used to stay in SC Hostel, Vizianagaram. But she pleaded ignorance of facts in this case.

16.PWs.8 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution.

17.According to PW10, incident took place in hostel at Vizianagaram and PW1 delivered daughter in the hostel.

18.PW11 pleaded ignorance of facts in this case.

19.According to PW12, in the presence of LWs.15 and 16 Boddi

Chandrunaidu and Polumuru Sasibhushanarao and himself, inquest was conducted over dead baby of a still born child and which was drafted by

LW15 Chandrunaidu. He also exhibited Ex.P17 scene of offence observation report and Ex.P5 photos were taken at the scene of offence.

9

20.According to PW13, in his presence, accused was interrogated by

Deputy Superintendent of Police and accused confessed the offence and he exhibited relevant portion of arrest of accused in their presence. That he and

LW20 Yeddu Ramu signed in it.

21.PW14 the then Head Master, A.P. Model School, G.Sigadam deposed that Ex.P.1 was issued by him to P.w.1. Pw.1 joined in their school in 8th standard and she was relieved in their school during 2015-2016. She was born on 17.6.2000. Students join in 8th standard with Transfer Certificate of 7th standard. They admit students in 8th standard based on Transfer

Certificate and based on particulars of 7th standard. They enter all particulars in admission register for 8th standard. He issued Ex.P.1 based on admission register for 8th standard.

22.PW15 deposed that he has been working as Professor,

Department of Pathology, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam; on 24.8.2017 he received specimen from C.A.S., District Hospital, Vizianagaram, through constable, of P.w.1. After thorough examination, he issued opinion that section studied show decidual tissue, congested blood vessels, area of haemorrahages and fibrinoid necrosis. Ex.P.19 is report with his opinion.

23.PW16 deposed that he has been working as Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Government District Hospital, Vizianagaram. On 14.8.2017, at 12.30 p.m., he received requisition to conduct P.M. examination over dead foetus of P.w.1, 8 months intra uterine age. he commenced P.M. examination at 12.35 p.m. he found following during P.M. findings:

1. No rigor mortis. 2. Black hair present on head and eye brows. 3. Weight 1.4 kilograms. 4. Length of aborted female baby is 41 centimetres. 5. Crown rump length 27 centimetres. 6. Length of foot (right and left) – 6 10 centimetres. 7. Gall bladder of liver is full with bile. 8. Meconium present in and throughout large intestine. 9. Eyelids present, no membrance on pupils.

10. Caecum is present in right iliac fossa of abdomen. 11. Cut pieces of lungs sunk in water, not floating. 12. Nails present. 13. Skin is not wrinkled.

14. Nails of fingers grown beyond and above tips of fingers. 15. Skin is not wrinkled. 16. Pieces of placenta brought is 2500 grams. 17. Age of aborted foetus end of eighth month. 18. Foetus is dead born at the time of abortion.

He issued certificate accordingly. Ex.P.20 is the certificate.

24.PW17 deposed that he has been working as Professor, KGH,

Visakhapatnam, for the last 10 years. On 29.8.2017 he examined accused for potency test. Accused is potent. Ex.P.21 is the potency certificate issued by him.

25.PW18 deposed that previously he worked as Tahsildar,

G.Sigadam Mandal. He received requisition from Sub Divisional Police

Officer, Vizianagaram and he issued Ex.P.22-caste certificate of Pw.1 showing that she belongs to S.C. Mala. He also received requisition from Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Vizianagaram and he issued Ex.P.23-caste certificate of accused showing that he belongs to Turpu Kapu B. C - D.

26.A thorough reading of entire evidence deposed by PWs.1 to 18 shows that not even a single person did depose anything against accused person touching any one of the charges under Sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (ii)(v) of

SCs, STs (POA) Act framed against him. Hence, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home guilt of accused for any one of charges under Sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (ii)(v) of SCs, STs (POA) Act.

11

27.PW1 as discussed above in her chief-examination identified

Exs.P4 to P6 photos and CD and deposed that the still born child seen in

Ex.P5 is her baby. Even her hostel-mates commented against her that said dead baby belongs to her. She also admitted that she was sick on that day and was admitted in private hospital and was given medical treatment in

Ghosha Hospital, Vizianagaram, which is meant for treatment women. If

PW1 did not give birth to a still born child, there was no necessity for her to become sick. On the very same day still born child appeared by the side of room along compound wall of their hostel. All these facts and circumstances go to show that in chief-examination, PW1 admitted that she is mother of said still born child. But she denied her version during cross-examination by defence counsel. It is also brought on record that accused married her. But the fact remains that PW1 though deposed before this Court that the dead body was her baby. But, during cross-examination by defence counsel, she changed her version totally and she did not claim dead baby as her baby.

Hence, it can be safely concluded that PW1 had spoken falsehood before this

Court and she shall be dealt with under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. Office is directed to register STC against PW1 for speaking falsehood before this Court and to issue show-cause notice to her as to why she shall not be punished under Section 195 read with 344 Cr.P.C., for giving false evidence before this

Court. This point is answered accordingly.

28. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the charges under

Sections 376, 313 IPC and under Section 5 read with 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and under Section 3 (ii)(v) of SCs, STs (POA) Act and he is accordingly acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked non valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.

12

The accused is ordered to execute self bond for Rs.25,000/- and ordered to appear before any appellate Court, as and when he receives any notices or summons from any court under the provision of Section 437-A of

Cr.P.C. Office is directed to register STC against PW1 for speaking falsehood

before this Court and to issue show-cause notice to her as to why she shall

not be punished under Section 344 (1) Cr.P.C., for giving false evidence

before this Court, by 19.06.2019.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12 th day of June,2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: NIL

P.W.1: Yagati P.J.

P.W.2: Yagati Ramulu

P.W.3: Balaga Malleswari

P.W.4: Karri Chinnammalu

P.W.5: Konki Vijaya Nirmala

P.W.6: Abdul Saleem Raja

P.W.7: Yagati Lalitha

P.W.8: Kolli Dhanalaxmi

P.W.9: Yagati Tulasamma

P.W.10: Illapu Ramulu

P.W.11: Manam Kannayya

P.W.12: Veluri Suryabhagavanulu

P.W.13: Sigadam Ramunaidu

P.W.14: M.Eswara Rao, Head Master, A.P.Model High School, G.Saigadam.

13

P.W.15: Dr.Bosumitha Das, Professor & Head of the Department, Pathology, Andhra Medical College, Visakhapatnam.

P.W.16: Dr.V.Satyanarayana, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government District Hospital, Vizianagaram.

P.W.17: Dr.K.A.V.Subramanyam, Professor and HOD of Endocrinology, Andhra Medical College, KGH, Visakhapatnam.

P.W.18: T.Narasaiah, Tahsildar, G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakukulam District.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P.1 : Study certificate of PW1.

Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW1.

Ex.P.3 : 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P.4 : Bunch of three photographs.

Ex.P.5 : Bunch of four photographs.

Ex.P.6 : CD for Exs.P4 and P5 photos.

Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1.

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4.

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW7.

Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW8.

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW9.

Ex.P14: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW10.

Ex.P15: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW11.

Ex.P16: Inquest report.

Ex.P17: Scene of offence observation report.

Ex.P18: Signature of LW20 (Yeddu Ramu).

Ex.P19: Opinion of PW15.

Ex.P20: Post Mortem Certificate.

Ex.P21: Potency certificate.

14

Ex.P22: Caste certificate of PW1.

Ex.P23: Caste certificate of accused.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

15

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGRAM.

Present: Sri A.Varaprasada Rao, I Additional District Judge Vizianagaram.

Thursday, this the 6th day of June, 2019

APPEAL SUIT NO.48/2017

Between:

Sunkari Pentam Naidu …Appellant/Plaintiff

And:

1. Tholapu Jagannadham

2. Tholapu Thoudu …Respondents/Defendants (On appeal against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in O.S.No.361/2011, dated 28.06.2017).

Between:

Sunkari Pentam Naidu …Plaintiff

And:

1. Tholapu Jagannadham

2. Tholapu Thoudu ..Defendants

This appeal is coming on 03-05.2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Ravi, Advocate for Appellant/plaintiff and Sri G.Tirupathi Rao, Advocate for respondents/defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.This appeal is preferred against impugned Decree and Judgment dated 28.06.2017 in O.S.No.361/2011 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram by un-successful plaintiff therein. The appellant herein is plaintiff and respondents

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 2 herein are defendants in OS No.361/2011. The parties as arrayed in O.S.361/2011 will be referred similarly in this appeal also for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

2.OS 361/2005 was filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,22,693/- being advance sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- paid by plaintiff to defendants under agreement of sale dated 04.09.2008 between Tholapu Appalanaidu and 1st defendant.

3.The brief facts in the plaint are as follows:

1st defendant along with his brother Tholapu Appalanaidu proposed to sell plaint schedule property i.e., Ac.6.12 cents, cashew nut tope at Rs.2,000/- per cent of land and they paid advance sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. Tholapu Appalanaidu and defendants agreed to register plaint schedule property within 3 months after surveying land. But, Tholapu Appalanaidu died without marriage. There was verbal demands to defendants and exchange of notices. After receipt of legal notices, the plaintiff verified and found that the plaint schedule property is banzar land and it cannot be transferred. Hence this suit for recovery of advance sale consideration with interest.

4.Defendants filed written statement denying material averments of the plaint and further contended as follows :

It was the plaintiff who was postponing execution of sale deed. The defendants borrowed amounts from Samantula Satyam of Logisa and it remained unpaid. That said Samantula Satyam has been cut and carrying away cashew and mango usufruct worth Rs.40,000/- every year from the year 2008 and they lost interest and became indebted to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendants made counter

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 3 claim for Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 24% from the date of counter claim till realization. That in revenue records classification of land was mentioned as banzar wrongly. The defendants filed writ petition before Honourable High Court of A.P., and the plaintiff knows is fully aware of it and the plaintiff also knows that the plaint schedule property has been in possession and enjoyment of defendants for more than 40 years.

5.The trial court was pleased to settle following issues:

1. Whether the sale agreement dated 04.09.2008 is true, valid and binding on the defendants ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

6.After defendants made their counter claim and after filing written statement by the plaintiff, the then Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, by his order

dated 17.07.2015, while invoking the provisions under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC, ordered

deletion of the issues framed on 21.06.2012 and framed the following issues afresh on 17.07.2015.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for recovering earnest amount with interest as sought in the plaint ?

2. Whether the defendants are entitled to decree of damages as sought in their counter claim ?

3. Whether the counter claim is time barred one ? and

4. To what relief ?

7.After examination of PWs.1 and 2, on 16.02.2017, again the then Senior

Civil Judge, Vizianagaram recasted the above framed issues, by substituting with the

following issues :

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 4

1. Whether the plaintiff committed default in performing his part of contract covered by agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008 ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is liable to forego the earnest amount covered by agreement of sale ?

3. Whether the defendants are entitled to decree of damages as sought in their counter claim ?

4. Whether the counter claim is time barred one ? and

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint ?

6. To what relief ?

8.During the course of trial before Trial Court, on behalf of plaintiff, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked.

9. Heard arguments of both sides counsel.

10.The points that arise for determination are:

1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.2,22,693/- with interest ?

2. Whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract ?

3. To what relief ?

POINTS 1 AND 2:

11.Sunkari Pentamnaidu got examined as PW1 and he narrated entire plaint verbatim in his chief-examination affidavit. PW1 exhibited Exs.A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008. Ex.A2 is office copy of lawyer’s notice dated 18.12.2010 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Ex.A3 is reply notice given by the defendants dated 27.12.2010. Ex.A4 is office copy of 2nd lawyer’s notice dated 21.01.2010 issued by the plaintiff to the defendants. Exs.A5 and A6 are postal

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 5 acknowledgments. Ex.A7 is copy of rectification notice dated 12.04.2011 given by the plaintiff to the defendants and Ex.A8 is postal acknowledgment received from the defendants.

12.During cross-examination PW1 admitted hat he has gone through photo copies of pattadar pass books and title deeds of the defendants and then he entered into Ex.A1 agreement. That Village Karanam of Raindram Village settled transaction covered under Ex.A1. PW1 further deposed that on enquiry with Sub Registrar,

Gajapathinagaram, he came to know that properties covered by Ex.A1 are poramboke.

13.Even though no plea was taken by defendants in the written statement, a suggestion was put to PW1 that Ex.A1 covered property was purchased from Maharaja of Vizianagaram 40 years back. But, PW1 admitted that prior to Ex.A1 and till today, the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of Ex.A1 covered property. He denied other suggestions put to him he was responsible for non-compliance of terms and conditions in Ex.A1. During further cross-examination PW1 deposed that the defendants also visited Sub Registrar’s Office for registering the property in the name of plaintiff, but officials therein stated that property cannot be registered. It was suggested to PW1 that even though he had no intention to purchase the plaint schedule property, he entered into agreement with them.

14.PW2 does not know anything about Ex.A1 covered transaction. But he was present when it was scribed at 12.00 Noon in the house of 1st defendant. He could not say whether the plaintiff was ready or not ready willing or not willing to perform his part of contract. He further deposed that he was informed by plaintiff he was

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 6 continuously requested the defendants and that he was willing and ready to perform his part of terms and conditions in agreement in Ex.A1.

15.DW1 i.e., 1st defendant in his chief-examination and also in his evidence affidavit admitted execution of Ex.A1 but contended that he received only Rs.60,000/- out of agreed advance sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/-. DW1 admitted during cross- examination that they executed Ex.A1, having received consideration amount of

Rs.1,40,000/-. This admission cuts the piece of evidence in chief-examination that they received only Rs.60,000/- but not Rs.1,40,000/-. However in written statement, 1st defendant did not take plea that he received only Rs.60,000/- but not Rs.1,40,000/-. In the written statement in the last paragraph, defendants took a plea that plaintiffs approached Court with relief for return of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- paid under agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008 is against principles of law under the contractual obligations that were created under an agreement of sale dated 02.09.2008.

In the next paragraph, the defendants took the plea that in view of pendency of writ

before Honourable High Court of A.P., sooner the impediment in revenue records is

eliminated and corrected. From the material on record, it is apparent that defendants want to take false pleas for the first time in their evidence without taking a specific plea in written statement and it shall not be accepted.

16.In the written statement itself, it is apparent as mentioned above that the defendants know that the plaint schedule property was recorded as banjar in revenue records and hence they filed a writ petition before Honourable High Court. Unless

Honourable High Court gives orders favourable to defendants, classification of plaint

schedule property will remain as Banjar without any saleable interest. As per Ex.A1, the

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 7 registration of the sale deed should be concluded within 3 months. The defendants contention is that they would deliver possession of plaint schedule property to plaintiffs and after receipt of favourable orders from Honourable High Court of A.P., they would execute registered sale deed in favour of plaintiffs. The contention of defendants that they would get favourable orders cannot be taken as a ground that the defendants have got salable interest in it. Even other-wise, the defendants did not file even a scrap of paper to show that they have been in long possession of plaint schedule property.

17.Even though during cross-examination of PW1, it was suggested that defendants showed photo copies of pattadar pass book and title deed but they were not exhibited before the Court to prove their authenticity and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property for over 40 years, as claimed by them in written statement. DW1 in his cross-examination admitted that he was not issued pattadar pass book and title deed book in respect of plaint schedule property as property was recorded as banjar. This admission falsifies contention of defendants that they have been in possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property for over 40 years lawfully.

18.Writ Petition No.20889/2008 was filed by defendants for declaring him as owner of property covered under Ex.A1. Title to a particular property can be declared by a Civil Court and such relief may not be granted in a writ petition. Proof of title requires voluminous oral evidence couple with documentary evidence. A question of fact cannot be decided in writ proceedings, which is known even to the counsel for defendants. Even other-wise pendency of writ over a period of 11 years without any orders speaks volumes against contention of defendants. If really the writ petition was

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 8 pending, the defendants ought to have filed document showing stage of said writ petition. DW1 denied a suggestion that by suppressing the fact that he has no saleable interest over plaint schedule property covered under Ex.A1 but he entered into agreement for sale with plaintiff and as such he is liable for refund of suit claim to plaintiffs.

19.The evidence of DW2 has nothing to do with present appeal since he was purchaser of mango usufruct.

20.In R.L.Pinto Vs. F.F.Menzes (Karnataka High Court) reported in AIR 2001 0 (Karnataka) 141; 2000 0 Supreme (Karnataka), it was held that under

Section 55(2) of Transfer of Property Act, revocation of contract of sale by vendee on the ground of defective title of vendor, vendee cannot be pressurized to purchase, on ground that he had knowledge about the defective title of vendor.

21.The appellants also relied upon another decision reported in 1976 (2)

An.W.R. 294; AIR 1977 0 SC AP 90 byHonourable Mr.Justice B.P.Jeevan Reddy ( as his Lordship was then). The relevant paragraph is extracted below :

“(12) We adjourned the matter on 13.07.1976 to enable the learned counsel to make further investigation and to cite before us any authority applying the principle of section 55(1)(a) of the T.P. Act in the case of a total absence of title. The matter was again heard on 14th and 15th of July, 1976, but the learned counsel was unable to cite any authority applying the said provision of law in the case of a total absence of title. After

giving earnest consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that the said

clause has no application in a case where the vendor has no title whatsoever

to the property sold. In this case, there were two items of property, purchased under two separate registered sale-deeds. Defendants 1 and 2 were the purchasers under one such sale-deed, and to the extent of 6 Acres only. Regarding the other piece of arc. i.e., Ac.6.97 cents, they had absolutely no title, or even a pretence of tide. Even then, they purported to sell not only the piece of land owned by their but also the other piece of land with which they were totally unconcerned. While it cannot be denied that a purchaser must also exerease reasonable case and make reasonable enquiries before purchasing a property, yet, in a case like the one before us, we cannot deprive the

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 9 plaintiff of the damages by saying that he is guilty of not marking reasonable enquiries. As we have mentioned earlier, it would be a case of clear misrepresentation amounting to fraud on the part of the vendors and we see no equity, nor any other principle in allowing the defendants to get away with their fraud”.

As discussed above, his Lordship was pleased to observe that it was a misrepresentation amount to fraud on the part of the vendors and ….

22.P.L.Raju Vs. Nandan Singh reported in 2005 5 ALD 402; 2005 0

Supreme (AP) 623 was relied upon by Appellant.

In above decision, the Senior Counsel contended that defect of marketable title cannot be ground by the plaintiffs in the suit.

His Lordship was pleased to hold as follows :

”(12) In the light of the aforesaid legal position and also in view of the findings recorded in detail by the trial court on appreciation of the whole material available on record and in the light of the correspondence between the parties and also Condition Nos.1, 6 and 7 read along with Condition No.11 of Ex.A1 and in the light of the fact of pendency of

some litigation and also the other relevant aspects which are clear and

categorical from the correspondence between the parties, Exs.A2 to A9, both

in law and in equity the trial Court arrived at the correct conclusion in

ordering the refund of the amount with 6% interest and thus these findings

recorded by the trial Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever

and accordingly the said findings are hereby confirmed”.

Principle laid above in above decision squarely applies to the appeal on hand.

23.In Paragraph 11 at page 7 of Judgment, the learned Senior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram was pleased observe as follows :

“The plaintiff also failed to get such condition incorporated in the agreement thinking about the future, when there is a breach of contract. In the absence of such condition, the plaintiff has no right to claim any refund of amount. The Court has to enforce any enforceable document only basing on the terms and conditions arrived at by both the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff shall not go beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement and he cannot seek for refund of amount with interest which cannot be granted considering the equities of both partiers”.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 10

24. The basic principle of law is that he who seeks equities shall show equities. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram has failed to observe that defendants offered ‘Banjar land’ in which they have no saleable interest for sale to plaintiffs. This is fundamental breach of terms and conditions in Ex.A1. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for refund of advance sale consideration. Defendants 1 and 2 apparently, fraudulently offered banjar land to plaintiffs for sale. Such act itself attracts criminal prosecution, but in the hands of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the plaintiffs became scapegoat. There is no necessity of any condition stipulated in the agreement for sale since the property itself cannot be sold. In above set of circumstances, the defendants cannot seek for equities and they are liable for prosecution. It is for the plaintiffs to examine the facts and circumstances and terms and conditions in Ex.A1 to initiate criminal prosecution against the defendants for offering plaint schedule property, a banjar land for sale. A copy of the judgment was also be forwarded to District

Collector, Vizianagaram to examine if criminal prosecution can be launched against defendants subject to result in writ petition No.20889/2008 on the file of Honourable

High Court of A.P. (After bifurcation of Honourable High Court of A.P, the Writ Petition number might have been changed). In above set of circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled for refund of advance sale consideration as prayed. These points are answered in favour of appellants and against respondents.

.POINT NO.3

25. To what relief : In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the decree and judgment dated 28.06.2017 in O.S.No.361/2011 on the file of

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017 11

Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram and consequently OS No.361/2011 is decreed

for Rs.2,22,693/- with subsequent interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit till the date of decree on the principal amount of Rs.1,40,000/- and thereafter at 6% p.a., till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 6th day of June, 2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I Additional District Judge Vizianagaram

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Appellant: For Respondents:

(No evidence either oral or documentary adduced on either side)

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I Additional District Judge Vizianagaram

Copy to the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

Copy to the District Collector, Vizianagaram to examine if criminal prosecution can be launched against defendants subject to result in Writ Petition No.20889/2008 on the file of Honourable High Court of A.P. (After bifurcation of Honourable High Court of A.P., the writ petition number might have been changed).

APPEAL SUIT NO. 48/2017

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGRAM.

Present: Sri A.Varaprasada Rao, I Additional District Judge Vizianagaram.

Wednesday, this the 1st day of May, 2019.

APPEAL SUIT NO.73/2016

Between :

Jetti Suribabu …Appellant And:

Aki Venkatesh …Respondent (On appeal against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Senior Junior

Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in OS No.376/2012, dated 29.09.2016).

Between :

Jatti Suribabu ..Plaintif

And :

Aki Venkatesh ..Defendant

This suit is coming on 10-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Ravi Shankar, Advocate for appellant and of Sri S.N.M.Raju,

Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is preferred against impugned Decree and

Judgment dated 29-09-2016 in O.S.No.376/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellant herein is plaintif and the respondent

herein is defendant in OS 376/2012. The parties shall be referred similarly as arrayed in OS No.376/2012 in present appeal also for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 2

2.The plaintif filed OS 376/2012 for recovery of money based on promissory note with costs.

3.The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram was pleased to dismiss the suit after final hearing. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, present appeal was preferred by un-successful plaintif.

4.Brief facts in the plaint are as follows :

Plaintif filed OS 376/2012 for recovery of Rs.8,16,000/- based on promissory note dated 06.03.2011 (Ex.A1) for Rs.6,00,000/- on the ground that the defendant borrowed said amount and executed Ex.A1 agreeing to repay amount with interest at 24% p.a., to the plaintif or his order on demand. Since defendant failed to repay principle amount or interest in spite of repeated demands by the plaintif, he was constrained to file suit.

5.The defendant filed written statement denying borrowal of

Rs.6,00,000/- under Ex.A1. The plaintif used to run private chit business in and around Perapuram Village. The defendant joined in one chit worth

Rs.1,00,000/- with 25 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. The defendant became successful chit bidder after payment of instalments for 10 months. At the time of paying prize money, the plaintif obtained promissory note for Rs.60,000/- from defendant towards future instalments. The plaintif also obtained defendant signatures on some blank and printed papers as security. Suit promissory note was fabricated by the plaintif with defendant’s signatures in blank printed promissory note. Hence the suit is liable for dismissal.

6.Based on above pleadings, the following issues were settled.

1. Whether the plaintif is entitled to recover the suit amount or not ?

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 3

2. Whether the suit promissory note dated 05.03.2011 is true, valid and supported by consideration and binding on the defendant or not ?

3. To what relief ?

The issues were recasted as follows :

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered ?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint ? and

4. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, plaintif got himself was examined as

PW1 and also examined scribe as PW.2 and marked Ex.A1. On behalf of defendant, he himself got examined as DW.1 and also examined DW2, but no documents were marked.

8.Heard arguments advanced by both sides counsel. Appellants’ counsel filed written arguments also.

9.The points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the Court can recast issues without giving opportunity to both parties to the suit ?

2. Whether suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration ?

3. To what relief ?

10.POINT NO.1 : Whether the Court can recast issues without giving opportunity to both parties to the suit ?

The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram without giving an opportunity to both sides counsel, he recasted issues as follows:

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and binding on the defendant ?

2. Whether the suit promissory note is materially altered ?

3. Whether the plaintif is entitled to decree as sought in the plaint ? and

4. To what relief ?

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 4

It is surprising to note as to how and when the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Vizianagaram came to know that the plea of material alteration.

A perusal of written statement in paragraph No.5, it was stated that suit promissory note was materially altered. There is no specific plea as to how suit promissory note was materially altered. The defendant may admit execution of promissory note and that in it’s original condition it was in a specific form and subsequently it was materially altered, then only the plea of material alteration may be taken by such party. But for the sake of fancy, if a party says merely that suit promissory note was materially altered, it cannot be taken as a specific plea. In the written statement at the end several defences will be mentioned; the suit is barred by limitation, there is no cause of action, court fee paid is not correct, this Court has no territorial and/or pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit etc. But it is for the defendant to specific plead and state as to how there is no cause of action for the suit.

The defendant should also state relevant provision under which a particular amount of court fee should have been paid by the plaintif, but he paid less court fee.

11.If the Court has no territorial jurisdiction, it is for the defendant to state the place at which as per pleadings by the plaintif, suit subject matter transaction took place and where the suit was filed and how the Court was devoid of territorial jurisdiction. Regarding limitation, the defendant has to explain the starting point of limitation, ending point of limitation and the date on which the claim of plaintifs was barred by limitation. The defendant need not narrate extensively, but he should briefly state the salient features under which he takes a specific plea; otherwise, it should be only a routine plea without substantiating it’s relevancy, importance and consequences.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 5

12.The learned counsel for appellant relied upon a decision reported in Mungara Rjya Lakshmi (died) and another Vs.Dr.Palla Bhaskar and others in 2016 (6) ALT 504 Honourable Mr.Justice S.Ravi Kumar was pleased to refer to :

“1. Apollo Health and Lifestyle Limited and another vs.Anupam Saraogi: 2015 (2) ALT 550 (DB) Para (9).

2. Yerragogu Mruthyunjaya Rao Vs.Mami Kumara Veeraswamy and others: 2012 (6) ALT 353.Para (9).

3. Tadishetty Padma Rao and another V.Tadishetty Jaihind and others: 2012(4) ALT 6. Para (9).

4. Kotha Sailaja Vs. Thandu Yadagiri and others: 2012 (4) ALT 278.(Para 10).

10. Advocate for revision petitioners also relied on decision of this Court in Kotha Sailaja v. Thandu Yadagiri and others , wherein this Court has consid- ered about the power of Court for framing issues or additional issues. It is not in dispute that the Court has power to alter the issues at any time before pronouncement of judgment. But, when a party seeks for amendment of is- sues or recasting of issues, it is incumbent on the party to show as to how the Court has not properly dealt the facts affirmed by one party and denied by another party while framing issues. If the Court, on consideration of evi- dence with reference of submissions of both parties, comes to the conclusion that a particular issue is required to answer such submissions, the Court can always alter the issues and then decide the same after giving opportunity to both parties. Therefore, all these decisions are no way helpful to the re- vision petitioners when no objection is raised in the written statement with regard to prayer under para 12(a) of the plaint. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application and I do not find any illegality in the order nor ju- risdictional error to be interfered by this Court while exercising the revisional power”.

The principle laid down in the above decision squarely applies to facts of suit on hand. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram ought not have altered issues without giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evi- dence on altered issues. This point is answered accordingly.

13.POINT NO.2:2. Whether suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by consideration ?

During course of evidence, the plaintif deposed to execution of Ex.A1 promissory note by the defendant having borrowed Rs.6,00,000/-. During

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 6 cross-examination, the plaintif (PW1) categorically deposed that he works as a private painter. But, he does not possess any immovable property and he stays in a rented house. He got acquaintance with defendants six months after he shifting to Peripuram Village. (About 10 years prior to his evidence).

14.According to plaintif, the defendant is financially sound, who runs ancestral oil and rice mill. But the plaintif claimed that he pooled up amount out of sale proceeds of land sold by him. He sold it to one Jetti

Jagadeesh.

15.PW2 is scribe of Ex.A1 promissory note. During cross- examination, PW2 deposed that Ex.A1 transaction took place in the house of plaintif. He admitted that there is gap between surname and name of executants at specific column in Ex.A1. He contended that revenue stamps were affixed on Ex.A1 subsequently. He denied a suggestion in executants column of Ex.A1, the word ‘Aki’ was inserted in front of executant’s signature. He denied a suggestion that he and PW1 concocted Ex.A1.

16.Even though in the written statement defendant took the plea that his signatures were obtained on some printed blank promissory notes in connection with chit fund business, but during cross-examination, he denied his signature in Ex.A1. DW1 in his cross-examination at one stage pleaded loss of memory, whether earlier any money suits were filed against him. But during subsequent cross-examination, he admitted that he entered into compromise with Botsa Satyanarayana in a money suit on the file of Principal

Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. It clearly shows that even though defendant took a plea in his written statement, but he deviated from it. The defendant is not in the habit of giving true and correct answer to the questions put to him and gives evasive replies. But, when he is specifically

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 7 confronted with suit proceedings, he would admit it. One may forget some proceedings out of innumerable number of proceedings. But no person would forget civil proceedings before Courts, since he should run from pillar to post till disposal of the matter; leave alone appeal proceedings.

17.Above admission by DW1 shows that he entered into compromise in a money suit and the defendant is in the habit of borrowing amounts and when he fails to repay the amount, suits were filed against him.

18.DW1 introduced DW2 regarding private chit fund business run by plaintif. According to him, at the time of payment of prize money, the plaintif obtained signatures of defendant on some blank printed promissory notes towards security for payment of future instalments. Even though in chief-examination DW2 gave several particulars of alleged chit business run by plaintif, during cross-examination he admitted that the chit funds business of the plaintif has no name. But surprisingly he stated that there are only 12 members in the chit group of plaintif with chit value of

Rs.10,00,000/-. He pleaded ignorance as to specific quantum required to be paid by the chit subscriber per month. If really the defendant joined as member in a private chit with plaintif, they should be some record regarding private chit business run by the plaintif. DW2 did not file even a single scrap of paper to prove that he was member of one of private chits run by plaintif and he had occasion to be present at the time of plaintif signing in

Ex.A1 promissory note or blank promissory notes. DW2 is not an attestor in

Ex.A1. If evidence given by persons like DW2 are encouraged, there will not be any end to unscrupulous litigation. In order to evade payment of

Rs.9,00,000/- or Rs.10,00,000/- to borrowers can procure and secure unscrupulous persons to evade payment of amounts borrowed under promissory notes or other valuable securities.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 8

19.For the first time, the defendant took plea of material alteration of promissory note during his evidence. The defendant is at liberty to take any number of inconsistent pleas, but he cannot for the first time introduce such pleas during evidence as a surprise to the plaintif. It is settled principle of law that any amount of evidence adduced without a pleading is like a building without foundation which would collapse like a pack of cards. Hence introduction of material alteration during evidence by defendant, cannot be taken into consideration.

20.If the defendant was really a member of private chit run by plaintif, he ought to have demanded plaintif to return signed blank cheques to him after payment of all chit instalments. He ought to have issued notice to the plaintif. But, he did not do so. The defendant ought to have at least raised panchayats in the presence of village elders or caste elders or even lodged a report to police. But, he did not do so. Failure of defendant to take any action against the plaintif for keeping alleged blank signed promissory notes and documents speaks volumes against him, that he took plea of chit fund business run by plaintif only as a ruse to avoid payment of amount due to the plaintif under Ex.A1 promissory note.

21. Discussion by learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram for issue

No.2 is uncalled for, pervasive and he ought not have indulged into such discussion without giving opportunity to both parties. Hence the findings arrived by Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram regarding material alteration of

Ex.A1 promissory note is liable to be set aside. This point is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016 9

22.POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside decree and judgment dated 29.09.2016 in OS No.376/2012 on the file of Senior Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram and consequently OS 376/2012 is decreed with costs for Rs.8,16,000/- with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of suit on the principal amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and at 6% p.a., till realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1 st day of May, 2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Appellants: For Respondents:

(No evidence either oral or documentary adduced on either side)

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

Copy to the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 73/2016

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGRAM.

Present: Sri A.Varaprasada Rao, I Additional District Judge Vizianagaram.

Friday, this the 3rd day of May, 2019.

APPEAL SUIT NO.50/2017

Between :

1. Kella Pydithalli

2. Kella Appalaramulu

3. Kella Ugadi (died on 06.06.2012 and his legal heirs are not added in the suit as the suit is filed for mere injunction. The suit is deemed to be abated).

4. Kella Polayya …Appellants

And:

Kella Lakshmu …Respondent (On appeal against the Decree and Judgment passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Vizianagaram in OS No.356/2008, dated 03.08.2017).

Between :

Kella Lakshmu …Plaintif

And:

1. Kella Pydithalli

2. Kella Appalaramulu

3. Kella Ugadi (died on 06.06.2012 and his legal heirs are not added in the suit as the suit is filed for mere injunction. The suit is deemed to be abated).

4. Kella Polayya …Defendants

This Appeal is coming on 10-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Ravi, Advocate for appellants and of Sri K.Srinivasa Rao,

Advocate for respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 2

J U D G M E N T

1.This appeal is preferred against impugned Decree and Judgment

dated 03-08-2017 in O.S.No.356/2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil

Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellants herein are defendants and the

respondent herein is plaintif in OS 356/2008. The parties shall be referred similarly as arrayed in OS No.356/2008 in present appeal also for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion.

2.The plaintif filed OS 356/2008 for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 and their agents from interfering with the plaint schedule property.

3.The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram was pleased to decree the suit after final hearing. Aggrieved by said decree and judgment, present appeal was preferred by un-successful defendants.

4.Brief facts in the plaint are as follows :

One Kella Pydithalli paternal uncle’s son of plaintif executed settlement deed dated 24.11.2005 in favour of plaintif for plaint schedule property. The plaintif from the date of settlement deed has been in possession by paying land revenue and he was also issued pattadar pass book and title deed book. The plaintif did not oblige request made by the defendants to allot a piece of land to them. The defendants bore grudge against plaintif and started interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

5.The defendants filed written statement contending that Kella

Pydithalli S/o Kella Potappayya is insane person and the plaintif taking advantage of his insanity, obtained gift settlement deed dated 24.11.2005.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 3

But the plaintif was never in possession or enjoyment of it. The defendants are also paying land revenue and they have been cultivating it.

6.Based on above pleadings, the following issues were settled.

1. Whether the plaintif is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit ?

2. Whether the plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

3. To what relief ?

7.During the course of trial, plaintif got himself examined as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of defendants, 4th defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and also examined DW2 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8.Heard arguments advanced by both sides counsel.

9.The points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of plaint schedule property by the date of suit ?

2. Whether the trial court rightly granted perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiff or the decree and judgment requires any interference by this Court ?

3. To what relief ?

10.POINT NOs.1 and 2 :

PWs.1 and 2 have deposed that appellants have been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property from the date of execution of Ex.A1. The plaintif also relied upon Exs.A1 to A3, A5 which show that the plaintif is shown as title holder and that he has been paying land revenue. The plaintif also exhibited Ex.A6, 1-B register extract which shows plaintif to be pattdar and enjoyer. Ex.A7 shows Pydithalli to be one among plaintif’s family members.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 4

11.The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A7 show that the plaintif has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property from the date of execution of Ex.A1. The contention of defendants is that Kota Pydithalli was insane and gift settlement deed executed by him is not valid. The defendants’ counsel also submitted that the plaintif was not in physical possession of plaint schedule properties and the defendants have been enjoying them.

12.4th defendant as DW1 deposed to the defences taken in the written statement filed by 1st defendant and DW1 marked Ex.B3 cultivation account and Ex.B4 land revenue receipt. According to DW1, after filing of suit, he contacted attestors in Ex.A1 (Ex.A4) who stated to him that Kota

Pydithalli never executed any document in favour of plaintif in their presence. But during cross-examination, DW1 admitted that suit schedule property is a single item. DW1 is not at all aware of defence taken by him.

DW1 claimed that plaint schedule properties were partitioned 40 or 50 years ago, but surprisingly he is not aware of the extent of land fell towards his share. He claimed that he does not have pattadar pass book and title deed book for A schedule property i.e., Ac.0.90 cents.

13.The appellant relied upon a decision reported in 1998 (2) ALT 623 between Yeluri Vijayabharathi and others Vs.Yeluri Manikyamma and others by Justice B.K.Somasekhara. It was held :

“8. Mr. Haranath, the learned Advocate is not right in contending that the entries in the Record of Rights register should be taken as the basis to fix the title. Although the entries in the Record of Rights register enjoy the presumption in law that the entries are true unless the contrary is proved and may not be discredited, the records of rights are no records of documents of title. Such a question has been clearly dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagarpalika, jind v. Jagat Singh and following Nirman Singh v. Lal Rudra Pratap AIR 1926 P.C. 100, it has been held that such documents are more in the nature of fiscal inquiries instituted in the inter- est of the State for the purpose of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into oc- cupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid. In other

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 5 words, the records of rights are the documents ensuring the person to be made li- able to pay the revenue and for no other purpose. However, it may not be hastened to be added that such entries have got corroborative value regarding the posses- sion of a party in regard to an immovable property.”

14.In K.Siiddiah Niadu Vs. District Collector, Chitoor and oth- ers reported in 1999 (5) ALT 480 Honourable Mr.Justice D.S.R.Varma was pleased to hold:

“In view of the serious dispute with regard to title and possession between the petitioner and the fifth respondent, I am of the considered view that it is not possible nor desirable for the third respondent (MRO) to pass any order other than the one which is impugned in this writ Petition”.

In above decision, there was a serious dispute between parties regard- ing title to property. His Lordship was of the view that unless title to property is decided one way or the other, necessary changes of entries in the revenue record cannot be efected by the revenue officials. It is settled law that in a suit for injunction, title will be incidentally gone into and possession is the prime ingredient.

15.It is settled principle of law that possession follows title, though it more appropriate in case of vacant sites, but it would also lend support to some extent to other immovable properties also.

16.By taking into consideration of entire evidence adduced by both parties, the plaintif is in a better position by exhibiting Exs.A1 to A7 and could show possession over plaint schedule property for a long period of time.

17.As admitted by DW1 even though the defendants are aware of execution of Ex.A4 by Kota Pydithalli, they remained silent all these years for the reasons best known to them. Ex.A4 was executed on 24.11.2005. Plain- tif this suit on 04.08.2008. The defendants have failed to question Ex.A4 within 3 years from the date of it’s execution though they are aware of it.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 6

The defendants did not question Ex.A4 by way of counter claim that, it is in- valid document and that it was obtained from mentally challenged person.

Had they taken such a plea and counter claim, the plaintif could have been forced by them to seek for declaration of title to plaint A schedule property.

Since the defendants also contested this suit basing on their alleged posses- sion of plaint schedule property, there is no necessity to go into determina- tion of title of plaintif over plaint A schedule property.

18.In the above set of circumstances, the principles laid down in above decisions cannot be applied to facts of appeal on hand.

19.The appellants also relied upon a decision in K.Laxmanan

Vs.Thekkayil Padmini and others reported in 2009 1 SCC 354= 2008 0

Supreme (SC) 457. Honourable Mr.Justice Tarun Chatterjee, Honourable

Dr.Justice Mukundakam Sharma were pleased to hold that where execution of gift deed is disputed by the opponent party, the gift deed has to be proved like any other document by producing at least one attestor.

20.However as discussed above in a suit for injunction a roving en- quiry regarding title to plaint schedule property cannot be entertained. In above decision, suit was filed for partition of properties equally among plain- tif and defendants therein; since it was left behind by Chathu and it de- volved upon them. In above decision in the written statement, he stated these items 1 to 3 in the plaint schedule property were assigned in his favour by virtue of Ex.B1 and items 13 and 14 were assigned in his favour by virtue of Ex.B4. It was further case of appellant in the written statement that

Chathu had executed gift deed i.e., Ex.B2 in his favour for items 4 and 5.

They have also taken the plea of will under which chathu bequeathed items 6 to 8 and 10 to 12 in his favour on the dame day. However the present ap-

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017 7 peal on hand is a suit for ‘injunction simplicitor’. Hence the principles laid down in above decision cannot be made applicable to facts of suit on hand.

21.Under all these circumstances, I am considered view that the plaintif could prove his lawful possession and enjoyment over plaint sched- ule property by the date of suit. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Vizianagaram has written a well considered and Decree and Judgment and they do not require any interference by this Court. Points 1 and 2 are an- swered against the appellants and in favour of respondent.

22.POINT NO.3:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the

Decree and Judgment dated 03.08.2017 in OS No.356/2008 on the file of

Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 3 rd day of May, 2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Appellants: For Respondents:

(No evidence either oral or documentary adduced on either side)

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

Copy to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 50/2017

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

VIZIANAGARAM

Present:- Sri A. Vara Prasada Rao, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act-Cum-I Addl. Sessions

Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 01st day of May,2019

P.O.C.S.O SESSIONS CASE NO.37/2017

Name of the Complainant : State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural P.S.

Name of the accused : 1. Murapala Sairam S/o Venkata Ramesh, aged about 21 years, caste by Yadava, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

2. Aattada Suresh S/o late Durgarao, aged about 22 years, caste by SC-mala, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

3. Ballamu Harinadh S/o Shanakarrao, aged about 26 years, caste by Telaga, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

4. Kanithi Dinesh Kumar Dora, S/o Rambabu Dora, aged about 26 years, caste by Telaga, H.No.1-32/126-B,Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

Date of offence: 03.06.2017

Place of offence: Near Anjaneyaswami Temple, B.C. Colony, V.T.Agraharam, Vizianagaram.

Date of complaint: 03.06.2017

Date of apprehension: 03.06.2017

Whether the accused is in Jail : On Bail. or Bail 2

Date of commencement of trial : 25.04.2019

Date of closure of trial: 29.04.2019

Date of Sentence or Judgment: 01.05.2019

EXPLNATION FOR DELAY: This case is filed before this court under POCSO Act. In this case on 05.02.2018 charges were framed against accused. In this case, Pws 1 to 8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to 10 and M.O.1 were marked. As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused Under Sec.313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with. After concluding arguments, Judgment was

pronounced on 01-05-2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

3

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

POCSO ACT-CUM-I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

VIZIANAGARAM.

Present:- Sri A. Vara Prasada Rao, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under POCSO Act-Cum-I Addl. Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram

Wednesday, this the 1st day of May, 2019.

P.O.C.S.O. SESSIONS CASE No.37/2017

Name of the Complainant : State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural P.S.

Name of the accused : 1. Murapala Sairam S/o Venkata Ramesh, aged about 21 years, caste by Yadava, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

2. Aattada Suresh S/o late Durgarao, aged about 22 years, caste by SC-mala, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

3. Ballamu Harinadh S/o Shanakarrao, aged about 26 years, caste by Telaga, LB colony, Opposite Aqua Zim, near Saint Anna’s Girl High School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

4. Kanithi Dinesh Kumar Dora, S/o Rambabu Dora, aged about 26 years, caste by Telaga, H.No.1-32/126-B,Cantonment, Vizianagaram.

Charges : Under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 354(D)(1)(i), 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC; Section 9(g) r/w.10 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 16 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Plea of the accused : Accused 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge : Not guilty.

Sentence or order In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for charges under Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 4 under Section 354(D)(1)(i), 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 9(g) read with 10 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. A4 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 16 of The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012. They are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO1 motor cycle shall be returned to PW8 upon furnishing undertaking affidavit that he would produce it as and when directed without altering physical features of motor cycle and upon furnishing bond for Rs.75,000/- and upon deposit of original RC after expiry of Appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Additional Public Prosecutor, Vizianagaram. Defence conducted by : Sri S.Krishna Murthy, Advocate for A1

Sri K.V.N.Thammanna Setty, Advocate for A2 to A4.

J U D G M E N T

1.Criminal law set into motion upon lodging of report dated 03.06.2017 by P.Kalyani for the offences punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 509, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 9(i) of POCSO Act-2012 in

Crime No.79/2017 of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the are :

On 03.06.2017 while she, along with her daughter P.Kavya, aged 14 years, were returning from house of Cheedisetti Ramanamma (PW1) at 4.45 AM near Anjaneyaswamy Temple from their behind, 3 male persons followed on a motor cycle and it was driven by their side and the person sitting in the middle on motor cycle hit buttock of P.K. (P.W.3) with his left hand. The motor cycle went forward and rider of motor cycle unable to control speed of it, the motor cycle due to skidding all of them slipped from motor cycle and fell on road. In the mean while, auto drivers at auto stand

Muppidi Gupta, Devara Setu, Tailor Narasingarao, (PWs.4 to 6) came to their 5 rescue and helped them to stand and when they questioned their names, rider of motor cycle revealed his name as Attada Suresh (A2) and middle person by name Murapala Sairam (A1) and person sitting on rear side by name Harinadh (A3). In the mean while, 4th accused came there and abused as Lanja Kodukulu, Lanja Kootullu and also threatened that if any one reports the matter to police, they would see end of the victim girl and others present there and that police can do nothing to them. Thereafter PW1 lodged Ex.P1 report in police station and it was registered as a case in Crime No.79/2018 of Vizianagaram Rural Police Station.

3.The charge sheet, was taken on file for offences Under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 509, 506 read with 34 IPC and Sections 9 read with 10 of

POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused and it was registered as POCSO

S.C.No.37/2017.

4.After appearance of accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them and upon hearing both sides, charges under Sections 354(A)(1), 354(D)(1)(i), 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 9(g) read with 10 of Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 to A3 and under Sections 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 16 of The

Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and exhibited Exts.P1 to

P10 and MO1. Additional Public Prosecutor has given up evidence of LWs.9 to 13 Chodisetti Rambabu, Matha Pydiraju, Thumma Marry, Head Mistress,

Saint Anna’s Christian School, Cantonment, Vizianagaram, Smt.Rajya

Lakshmi, Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vizianagaram and

P.Ramakrishna, Sub Inspector of Police, Vizianagaram Rural PS. Since no 6 incriminating material evidence was deposed by PWs.1 to 8, hence examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

6.Heard arguments advanced by learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned defence counsel for the accused.

7.Now, the points that arise for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of accused for the charges leveled against them, beyond all reasonable?

8.POINT:

PW1 deposed that some one in the public scribed a report and she signed in it i.e., Ex.P1 report. She pleaded loss of memory regarding facts stated by her before Judicial Magistrate of The First Class,

Vizianagaram. But she admitted her signature as Ex.P2 in Section 164

Cr.P.C., statement.

9.According to PW2 Esukapalli Venkata Lakshmi, there was a large dispute and she found PWs.4 to 6 auto drivers and they stated to her that persons in drunken condition caused nuisance. She scribed Ex.P1 report.

She is President of Dwakra Group by name Sri Sai Durga Podupu Siri Sangam.

But she pleaded loss of memory regarding contents in Ex.P1 report.

10. According to PW3-Pasupureddi K about 2 years back at 4.30 AM at Anjaneyaswami Temple while she and her mother were coming, a motor cycle hit them. They fell down. Motor cycle also due to skidding fell and

PWs.4 to 7 chastised them. She admitted her signature as Ex.P5 in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

11.According to PW4, he was informed about galata that took place at Anjaneyaswamy Temple. PWs.5 to 7 also deposed similarly. PW8 Shaik

Anwar claimed that he is owner of Hero Glamour MO1 and he went on camp and returned after 10 days. He was informed that his motor cycle was seized. According to him, he did not give motor cycle to Suresh (A2).

7

12.From above evidence, it is apparent that there was some galata, in such galata identity of the persons who caused such galata is not at all proved by the prosecution. Since PWs.1 to 7 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to prove all ingredients to constitute charges under Sections 354(A)(1), under Section 354(D)(1)(i), 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 9(g) read with 10 of Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 to A3 and under

Sections 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 16 of The Protection of

Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A4. This point is answered against the prosecution.

13.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for charges under

Sections 354(A)(1)(i), 354(D)(1)(i), 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Sections 9(g) read with 10 of POCSO Act and A4 is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 509, 506(2) read with 34 IPC and Section 16 of POCSO Act, they are accordingly acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. MO1 motor cycle shall be returned to PW8 upon furnishing undertaking affidavit that he would produce it as and when directed without altering physical features of motor cycle and upon furnishing bond for Rs.75,000/- and upon deposit of original

RC subject to expiry of Appeal time.

The Accused 1 to 4 are directed to execute self bonds for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each in order to appear before the Appellate

Court, as and when they receives any notices or summons from Appellate court under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade I, transcribed by him,

corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 1 st day of May,2019.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: NIL

P.W.1: Pasupureddi Kalyani

P.W.2: Esukapalli Venkata Lakshmi

P.W.3: Pasupureddi Kavya

P.W.4: Muppidi Gupta

P.W.5: Dovari Seshu

P.W.6: Chukkala Narasinga Rao

P.W.7: Sodisetti Ravanamma

P.W.8: Shaik Anwar

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NIL

Ex.P.1 : Report of PW1.

Ex.P.2 : Signature in 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1.

Ex.P.3 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1.

Ex.P.4 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2.

Ex.P.5 : Signature on 164 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

Ex.P.6 : 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3.

Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4.

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5.

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6.

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW8.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

MO1 motor cycle.

Sd/- A.Vara Prasada Rao

I ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIZIANAGARAM