Ms B. Kanaka Lakshmi

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present : Kum. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No. 34 OF 2023

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station.

…... Complainant

And :

A-1. Gokada Ramasuri, S/o late Appanna, Aged 53 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-2. Gokada Nagaraju, S/o Suribabu, Aged 40 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-3. Gokada Sathibabu @ bullodu, S/o Swaminaidu, Aged 46 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-4. Gokada Kotarao, S/o Swaminaidu, aged 33 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-5. Gokada Suribabu @ Sannibabu, S/o late Appanna, aged 50 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-6. Gokada Srinu, S/o late Ramu, aged 44 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

..... Accused

This case is coming on 23-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri W. N. Sharma, learned counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2 2 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

J U D G M E N T ////

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused persons in Cr. No.363 of 2020 for the offences under section 354, 509 and 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 alleging in brief as follows:

The P.W.1 is the resident of Venkataramanapeta village of S.Kota

Mandal and she is living by doing coolie works and P.W1 having two acres of agricultural land at Kothuru village and she planted paddy and beside of P.W1 land a pond is situated and water came to the land of P.W1 as such the

PW1paddy crop was spoiled. On 07.12.2020 P.W1 and P.W2 opened the pond canal because of this, the water in the fields of A1 to A4 would go way. On 08.12.2020 at about 06.00 hours while P.W1 and P.W2 were at thrashing floor

A1 to A4 came there and abused PW1 in filthy language argued with P.W1 and

A1 to A4 were also try to beat with stick. A5 and A6 dragged P.W1 by caught holding the hair of P.W1. In the mean time P.W2 tried to rescue P.W1 from the hands of accused persons but A5 and A6 beat her husband with hands. Later they held panchayathi at village elders but in vain and on 11.12.2020 the P.W1 went to the police station and gave report.

2.Basing on the report of P.W.1 and P.W.5 registered a case in Cr. No.363 of 2020 under sections 509, 354 and 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C,1860 and During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence and observed the same and examined the witnesses and recorded their section 161 (3) Cr.P.C., statements and served noticed to A-1 to A-6 u/Sec. 41 (a) Cr.P.C., and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-6 for the offence under section 509, 354 and 323 /w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court taken cognizance against the accused No1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860.

3 3 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

4. The case copies was furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

5.On 20-04-2023 accused No1 to 6 were examined under section 251 of

Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 was read over and explained them in Telugu language for which, they denied, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws1 to P.W.5 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.3.

7. Then, accused No1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 of The

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution explained to the accused persons and they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.Ws1 to

P.W.5 are corroborating with each other and there is no material contradiction found in the evidence of prosecution and the prosecution also proved the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to convict the accused persons accordingly. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that the P.W.1 filed false case against the accused persons and there is delay in presenting Ex.P1 before the police and prosecution did not give any proper explanation for such delay and there are contradictions, improvements, omissions, and contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and prayed this court to acquit accused persons.

4 4 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

Accused No1 to 6 for the offences U/sec. 323 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution has to establish that the accused No1 to 6 were beat P.W1 with their hands and caused simple hurt to P.W.1.

11.To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined P.W1 to

P.W.5. P.W.1 who is the victim cum complainant and in her evidence she deposed she is having land to an extent of Ac.2.00cents at Kothuru village and she raised paddy crop in the said land and near her land one pond is exist and from the pond water came to their land as result she asked the accused persons to lay one channel to flow the water but the accused persons refused them. She further deposed that they placed the matter before the village elders and the accused persons stated them to remove water from pound directly and they opened the pond water and the water came from pond and the accused persons came to them and quarrel with her and dragged her and beat her body indiscriminately. She further deposed that accused persons also beat

P.W.2 and P.W.4 and later they went to the elders and placed the matter but no one came forward as such she gave report before the police under Ex.P1.

12. During the cross examination she deposed that she cannot say the exact date when she opened the pond canal and also exact date of incident and she did not handover any documents to the police show that she is having land at Kotturu village and the at the time of alleged incident except her family and accused persons no was present. She further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that she opened the pond canal as such the paddy heaps of other neighboring persons ans also accused persons were spoiled and the accused persons never questioned her stating why she opened the pond canal 5 5 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026 as such their land filled with water and she filed false case against the accused persons. She further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that she never placed the matter before the elders and near villagers and residents filed a representation against her that she opened the pond canal and the water came from the pond and the accused persons never beat her and never dragged.

13.The prosecution has examined P.W.2 who is husband of P.W.1 and in his evidence he deposed that at about 5 years ago on one day A1 caught hold his shirt and dragged her and all the accused persons beat P.W.1 but he did not witnessed whether the accused persons beat P.W.1 with stick. During the cross examination he deposed that he cannot say the date when the alleged incident took place and the pond is belongs to the government and he removed the stone as such the water came from the pond and he further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel due to his acts the entire agriculture fields belongs to the accused persons were spoiled and he is deposing false evidence and the accused persons never beat PW1 and never caught hold his shirt and never dragged him and he is deposing false evidence.

14.The prosecution has examined who is the daughter in law of P.W.1 and in her evidence she deposed that at about six years ago the accused persons beat P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the house and informed about the incident and on the next day they went to the agricultural field for doing work and at that time the accused persons unnecessarily quarreled with them. During the cross examination she deposed that she has not before the police the accused persons also quarreled with her on the next date of incident without any reason and she has not witnessed the alleged incident and she came to know through P.W.1 and P.W.2 and she further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel.

6 6 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

15.The prosecution has examined P.W.4 who is the son of the P.W.1 and in his evidence he deposed that his family having three acres of land at Kotturu village and they raised paddy crop in the said land and near to his land one pond is exist as the pond water came to their land as such they opened the sluice (Madumu) to remove the water from the pond in order to save their land.

He further deposed that all the accused persons came to them and questioned why they opened the sluice and beat P.W.1 to P.W.3 with sticks as result he fell down on the ground and he along with his parents went to the police station and gave report. During the cross examination he further denied the suggestion of the accused persons that on the date of alleged incident he was present at Visakhapatanam and he never witnessed any incident and P.W.1 called him and he went to the place of scene of offence and the accused persons never beat P.W.1 and never dragged P.W.1 and he is deposing false evidence.

16.The prosecution has examined P.W.5 who is the investigation officer and in his evidence he deposed that on 11.12.2020 at about 03:00 pm the

P.W.1 came to the police station and presented Ex.P1 basing on that he registered the case and issued Ex.P2 and he also visited the place of scene of offence and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and he prepared the rough sketch and served section 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination he deposed that the alleged incident took place at thrashing floor of P.W.1 situated at outskirts of kotturu village and he has not examined any neighboring owners of the place of scene of offence and P.W4 was not present at the place of scene of offence and

P.W.4 stated before him that he was present at Vishakhapatnam and he came to know about the incident through P.W1. He further deposed that as the report the alleged incident took place on 08.12.2020 and P.W.1 gave report on 11.12.2020 and there is delay in presenting the report and Ex.P2 did not 7 7 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026 disclose the reason for the delay. He further deposed that he has not examine the village elders to know whether P.W.1 placed the matter before the elders or not and he has not examined the revenue official to know the said pond belongs to the government or not and he further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that the accused persons never beat P.W.1 and P.W.2 and never committed any offence.

17.As seen from the above evidence, admittedly P.W.1 to P.W.4 are belongs to same family and P.W.5 did not examine any independent witnesses and also neighboring owners at the place of scene of offence except P.W.1 to

P.W.4. On perusal of the Ex.P1 the alleged incident took place on 08.12.2020 and P.W1 gave report on 11.12.2020 and Ex.P2 did not disclose the reason for delay in presenting of report. Though, on perusal of the Ex.P1 it disclose the

P.W.1 placed the matter before the elders as such there is a delay but the

P.W.1 did not state the names of elders in whose presence the P.W.1 placed the matter and P.W.5 also did not examine any elders to show that the P.W.1 placed the matter before the elders.

18.Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh vs State Of

Delhi, AIR 2007 SC 3234 in para 8 pleased to hold that “ In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complaint and to make embellishment or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled and untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case”.

8 8 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

19.In the present case on hand there are three days of delay in presenting the report by the P.W.1 and prosecution failed to give any plausible explanation for the delay in Ex.P1 and also failed place any evidence before this court to show that P.W.1 went to the elder and placed the matter as such the delay is occurred and P.W.5 also failed to examine the elders of the village.

As seen from the above settled principal of law non-explanation for delay in presenting the Ex.P1 by the P.W.1 before the police is fatal to the prosecution case.

20.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 she deposed that the accused persons also beat her and also her husband and son but on perusal of the

Ex.P1 it did not disclose that the accused persons also beat P.W.4. The P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not depose that the accused persons also beat P.W.4. On perusal of the testimony of P.W3 she deposed that she did not witness the alleged incident and she came to know that the accused persons beat PW1 and P.W.2 but on perusal of the testimony of P.W.4, he deposed that the accused persons beat him and also P.W.1 to P.W.3. Further, P.W.5 who is the investigation officer and in his evidence he deposed that the P.W.4 was not present at the place of scene of offence and he was present at Vizag and as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 they deposed different version with regard to the presence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 at the time of alleged incident and their evidence contradicting with each other with regard to the above said facts.

21.Though, on perusal of the Ex.P1 it disclose that the accused persons abused in P.W1 in filthy language but P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not depose that the accused persons also abused P.W.1 in filthy language. Further, the Ex.P1 also did not disclose the verbatim of abusive language.

9 9 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

22.Though, P.W.1 to P.W.4 deposed that the accused persons beat P.W1 and P.W2 but except the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 there is no corroborative evidence placed by the prosecution. Moreover, P.W.1 to P.W.4 are belongs to same family and there are contradiction, omissions and improvements found in their evidence with regard to manner of the incident and relying upon the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.4 without corroborative evidence is not safe.

Further, P.W.5 also failed to examine any residents or inhabitants at the place of scene of offence though the place of scene of offence situated at busy locality area.

23. It is also a settled proposition of law that prosecution has to travel the entire distance to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, has to be extended to accused persons. In view above said discussion, this court feels that the evidence of

P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not inspire confidence with regard to alleged incident and there is no corroboration evidence placed by the prosecution that the accused persons beat with their hands as such the P.W.1 sustained any pain or injury and there is a three days of delay in presenting Ex.P1 before the police by

P.W1 and there is no plausible explanation given by the prosecution for the said delay and the prosecution also not examine any elders and residents at the place of scene of offence. Hence, this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No1 to 6 beyond the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code,1860 and accordingly the point is answered.

24. In the result, the Accused No1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.,The accused No1 to 6 are required to execute personal bond, 10 1 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026 which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated

U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property was produced and marked in this case, there shall be no order with regard to the property.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Aadapa Sannamma - NIL - P.W.2 : Aadapa Pentayya P.W.3 : Aadapa Sathyavathi P.W.4 : Aadapa Venkataramana P.W.5 : K. Neelakantham, SI of Police, S.Kota PS.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 given to police. - Nil - Ex.P.2: Original FIR in Cr.No.363/2020 of S.Kota PS., Ex.P.3: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil -

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

11 1 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Offence: 08-12-2020 Date of report or complaint: 11-12-2020 Date of Apprehension of Accused: 20-12-2020 (A-1 to A-3) Date of release on bail, if any: 20-12-2020 (A-1 to A-3) (Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Notice) Date of Commencement of Trial: 09-05-2025 Date of close of Trial: 23-03-2026 Date of Sentence or other order : 30-03-2026 Explanation for delay and remarks : - No delay - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.34/2023 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

Complainant :- State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station in Crime No.363/2020 u/Sec. 509, 354, 323 r/w 34 of IPC.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==== Name of the accused, Father’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Res & Mandal

A-1. Gokada Ramasuri, S/o late Appanna, Aged 53 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-2. Gokada Nagaraju, S/o Suribabu, Aged 40 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-3. Gokada Sathibabu @ bullodu, S/o Swaminaidu, Aged 46 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-4. Gokada Kotarao, S/o Swaminaidu, aged 33 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-5. Gokada Suribabu @ Sannibabu, S/o late Appanna, aged 50 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal.

A-6. Gokada Srinu, S/o late Ramu, aged 44 years, Kothuru Village, S.Kota Mandal. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==== 12 1 C.C.No. 34/2023 Dated 30.03.2026

Offence : Sec. 323 IPC : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Sec. 34 IPC : Acts done by several person in furtherance of their common intention.

Finding : Not guilty.

Sentence : In the result, the Accused No1 to 6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 323 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C.,The accused No1 to 6 are required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property was produced and marked in this case, there shall be no order with regard to the property.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

CC 355/20171 Dated : 08.11.2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT SALUR.

Date of Offence:: 01.08.2017 Date of report or complaint: 01.08.2017 Date of Apprehension of Accused: Sec. 41 A (1) Cr.P.C notice Date of release on bail, if any: -- Date of Commencement of Trial: 21.12.2021 Date of close of Trial: 10.10.2024 Date of Sentence or other order : 08.11.2024 Explanation for delay and remarks : No delay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 355 / 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Salur.

Complainant :- State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pachipenta Police Station in Crime No.96 /2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Name of accused, Father’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Res & Mandal

Prafula Harijan, S/o Arjun Harijan, 25 years, C/SC- Dombo, Pradhaniguda, Anantha

Panchayathi, Jaypore, Koraput District, driver of Lorry bearing No. AP31TU 0889.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence : Sec. 304-A IPC : Causing Death by Negligence.

Finding :The accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 304-A of IPC

Sentence : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal code 1860 and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Theaccused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6)

CC 355/20172 Dated: 08.11.2024

months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Sd/- Kum B.Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram. FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

CC 355/20173 Dated: 08.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: SALUR.

PRESENT: Kum. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 08th day of November, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No. 355 OF 2017

Between:

State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pachipenta Police station. …Complainant.

And:

Prafula Harijan, S/o Arjun Harijan, 25 years, C/SC- Dombo, Pradhaniguda, Anantha Panchayathi, Jaypore, Koraput District, driver of Lorry bearing No. AP31TU 0889.…Accused.

This case is coming on 07.11.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri M.V.Chandra Sekhar, Learned Defence counsel for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pachipenta Police Station filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr.No. 96/2017 for the offence U/sec. 304-A of I.P.C,1860 alleging in brief as follows:

On 31.07.2017 the deceased by name Miltan Dongri along with accused coming from Nalco factory at Dhamanjodi to Visakhapatnam by carrying aluminum packets in the lorry bearing No. AP 31 TU 0889 and the accused is the driver of the lorry and deceased is the cleaner of the lorry and when they reached near to 480 mile stone, Durga Gudi, P.Konavalasa Check post of Pachipenta Mandal and by that time the accused drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and lost the

CC 355/20174 Dated: 08.11.2024

control over the lorry and dashed the hill which is beside on the ghat road, on the same time L.W8.Jiyan Sameer Nanda Bathra at about 01.00 hours found that the accused stopped the lorry beside the road and observed that in the said lorry cabin deceased was implicated in the cabin and reclined to hill and died. Later L.W.8 informed the same to P.W1 and at about morning hours on 01.08.2017 P.W1 came to the spot along with relatives and found that the deceased sustained severe injuries and died and P.W1 gave report before the police.

2.Basing on the report of P.W1, P.W10 registered the case in crime number 96/2017 under section 304-A of I.P.C,1860 and issued the FIR. During the investigation he visited the place of scene of offence and drafted the scene observation report in the presence of P.W4 and P.W5 and drafted the rough sketch of the scene and held over the inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and examined witnesses and recorded their section 161

Cr.P.C statement in this case. The P.W8 Dr.B.Appala naidu who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued PM report. P.W9.P.V.Gangadhar who inspected the crime vehicle and issued report, opining that the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and P.W10 served section 41(A) Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of I.P.C 1860.

3. This court took cognizance of case against the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code,1860.

4. After appearance of accused case copies of documents was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

5.On 16.12.2020 accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C., in

Telugu language, by explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them, for the offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of Indian Penal Code in Telugu, for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

CC 355/20175 Dated: 08.11.2024

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P10. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other witness.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, on 07.11.2024 accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by examining the incriminating portion of prosecution evidence in question form, in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard on both sides.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/sec.304-A of Indian Penal Code 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients:-- That the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle I.e lorry bearing

No. AP 31 TU 0889 and the accused drove the crime vehicle in a rash or negligent manner with high speed dashed the hill as result the deceased by name Miltan

Dongri who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle sustained severe injuries and died.

11. To prove the prosecution case the prosecution has examined P.W1 to P.W.10

P.W1 who is the Complainant and elder brother of the deceased deposed that while he was present at his house the owner of the lorry informed him about the accident and on that he went to the place of scene of offence. He further deposed that the police shifted the dead body of the deceased to CHC, Salur and he gave report and the deceased worked as cleaner to the crime vehicle and got marked Ex.P1.

12.The Prosecution has examined P.W2 who is the resident of Karrivalasa village and he turned hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose any incriminating material against the accused and in his evidence he deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of the case. The learned APP declared the witness as an hostile and cross examined P.W2 but nothing was elicited except marking of section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2.

CC 355/20176 Dated: 08.11.2024

13.The prosecution has examined P.W3 who acted as mediator to inquest report and in his evidence he deposed that he was present at the time of inquest over dead body of the deceased and he know the content of Ex.P3. During the cross examination he deposed that he do not know Telugu language and he cannot read and write Telugu and the inquest report drafted in Telugu.

14.The prosecution has examined P.W4 and P.W5 who acted as mediator to scene observation report and P.W4 deposed that in the year 2017 at about 10.30 to 11.00 am the police inspected the scene of offence in his presence and removed the dead body of the deceased from cabin and under Ex.P4. During the cross examination he deposed that he unable to say the crime vehicle number and he has not received any notice from the police to act as mediator in this case. P.W5 deposed that on 01.09.2017 at about 08.00 clock in the early hours the police observed the place of scene of offence and during the cross examination he deposed that he is unable to say the crime vehicle number.

15.The prosecution has examined P.W6 and P.W7 who came to know about the incident and they turned hostile to the prosecution case and in their evidence they deposed that they do not know anything about facts of the case and the police never examined them. The learned APP declare the witnesses as an hostile and cross examined the witness but nothing was elicited except marking of section 161

Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P5 and P6.

16.The prosecution has examined P.W8 who is the doctor and in his evidence he deposed that he conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P7.

17.The prosecution has examined P.W9 who is the motor vehicle inspector and in his evidence he deposed that he inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P8 and in his opinion the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects.

During the cross examination he deposed that he has not conducted the road test to crime vehicle.

CC 355/20177 Dated: 08.11.2024

18.The prosecution has examined P.W10 who is the investigation officer in his evidence he deposed that he received report from P.W1 and basing on that case was registered and issued Ex.P9 I.e FIR and visited the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P4. He further deposed that he visited the hospital conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased and handover the deceased body for autopsy , later he sent a requisition to motor vehicle inspector and received report and opined that the accident occurred notdue to any mechanical defect and also received the received P.M report and he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and filed charge sheet. During cross examination he denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused is not the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident and he has conducted the table investigation and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle.

19.As seen from above evidence P.W.1, P.W3 to P.W5,P.W8, P.W10 and Ex.P1,

P3 and P.7 it reveals that the deceased by name Miltan Dongri died due to the road traffic incident occurred at P.Konavalasa Check Post near Ghat Road and there is no dispute with regard t0 the death of the deceased and the learned counsel for the accused also did not put any suggestion with regard to the death of the deceased.

Hence, the testimony of P.W.1, P.W3 to P.W5,P.W8, P.W10 and Ex.P1, P3 and P.7 establish that the deceased died due to the road traffic incident.

20. As seen from the record it is allegation of the prosecution that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident and the accused drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner due to that the deceased who is the cleaner of the crime vehicle sustained severe injuries and died on sport. Admittedly, the prosecution did not adduce any documentary evidence before this court to prove that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident.

Admittedly, none of the prosecution witnesses who are examined P.W1 to P.W9 did not depose that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident. Though, the prosecution got marked Ex.P1 and it disclose that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle but admittedly the P.W1 did not witness

CC 355/20178 Dated: 08.11.2024

the alleged accident and also did not see that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident and the testimony of P.W1 did not revel that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident. Hence, the testimony of P.W1 is no way helpful to the prosecution case to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident.

21.Though, the prosecution has examined P.W3 to P.W5 and got marked Ex.P3 and P4 but their testimony is no way helpful to the prosecution case the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident and further P.W4 and P.W5 categorically deposed they are unable to say the crime vehicle number. Hence, their testimony are no way helpful to the prosecution case.

22.Though the prosecution has examined P.W2, P.W6 and P.W7 but they turned hostile to the prosecution case and they did not depose any incriminating material against the accused, hence their testimony is no way helpful to the prosecution case.

23. Though, P.W10 who is investigation officer supported the case of the prosecution and got marked Ex.P9 and 10 but he did not witness the alleged incident and rash or negligent driving of the accused on the date of incident and there is no documentary evidence on record to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident and basing on the testimony of P.W10 this court cannot come to conclusion that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle on the date of incident and he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed hill. Admittedly, except P.W1 to P.W10 the prosecution did not examine any other persons to establish that the accused drove the crime vehicle on the date of incident and there is no cogent and corroborative evidence found in the evidence of prosecution to connect the accused to the crime vehicle and the testimony of

P.W1 to P.W9 did not revel that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle.

Though, the prosecution prove the death of deceased due to the road traffic accident bu the prosecution failed to establish that the accused is the driver of the crime vehicle and he drove the crime vehicle in rash and negligent manner. Hence,

CC 355/20179 Dated: 08.11.2024

this court feels that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 304-A of Indian

Penal Code 1860 and the accused is entitled for acquittal and accordingly the point is answered.

24.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.304-A of

Indian Penal code 1860 and he is acquitted of the same under section 255(1) of

Cr.P.C. Theaccused is required to execute Personal bond which shall be in force for a period of Six (6) months U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. As no property is produced in this case, hence, there is no order as to the disposal of property.

Typed to my dictation by my Stenographer G-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 08 th day of November, 2024.

Sd/- Kum B.Kanaka Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram. FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: NIL PW1 - Uday Kumar Dongri

PW2 - Padala Srinu

PW3 - Sanjay Kumar Dongri

PW4 - Jami Sudhakarrao

PW5 - K. Ramu

PW6 - Aratto Patro Naik

PW7 - V. Srinivasa Raju

PW8 - Dr. B. Appalanaidu

PW9 - P.V.Gangadhar Rao, MVI.

PW10 -A. Sanyasi Naidu, Sub Inspector.

CC 355/201710 Dated: 08.11.2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:

Ex.P1 - Statement of PW1.

Ex.P2 - Sec.161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3 - Inquest report, dt.01.08.2017.

Ex.P4 - Scene observation report.

Ex.P5 - Sec 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6.

Ex.P6 - Sec 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW7.

Ex.P7 - Postmortem certificate.

Ex.P8 - M V I Report.

Ex.P9 - First Information Report in Crime No. 96/2017.

Ex.P10 - Rough Sketch of place of Scene of Offence

For Defence: Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

N I L

Sd/- Kum B.Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram. FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present : Kum. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

Monday, this the 30th day of March, 2026.

CALENDAR CASE No. 145 OF 2025

Between:

The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station.

…... Complainant

And :

A-1.Sirisetti Srinivasa Dattu, S/o late Pentayya, Aged 46 years, Near Sri Ramakrishna Theater, Gowrinagar, S.Kota Village and Mandal. Ph. 7569671916.

A-2.Mopada Bogayya @ TV-5 Naidu, S/o Kondababu, Aged 41 years, Near Nookalammathalli Temple, S.Kota Village and Mandal. Ph. No.9885955246.

A-3. Muggada Dharmarao, S/o late Veerraju, Aged 43 years, Bhavani Nagar, S.Kota Mandal. Ph. No. 9440636777.

..... Accused

This case is coming on 26-03-2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of Sri B. Tirimurtulu, learned counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T ////

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station filed charge sheet against Accused persons in Cr. No.373 of 2022 for the offences under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code 1860 alleging in brief as follows:

The P.W.1 the Sub-registrar of Sub-register office, S.Kota and on 08.11.2022 P.W.1 went to Vizianagaram Court to give evidence and P.W.2 acted inchrage and on the same day the software of the office did not work 2 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026 properly and same was informed by the P.W.2 to the parties but the accused

No1 who is the document writer came to the office and created nuisance and also abused P.W.1 and P.W.2 in filthy language and P.W.1 came to know about the incident through phone. The accused No1 called to superiors and raised false allegation against the P.W1and also published one article in Andrajyothi news paper against P.W.1, which was encouraged by the A1 with the assistance of reporter Ramana. Later on 14.11.2022 P.W.1 contacted document writer and conducting meeting about discipline and conduct of the register office while in meeting the accused No2 came with A3 took photos without prior permission from P.W.1 and also raised baseless charges against

P.W.1 and A1 to A3 voluntarily obstructs the sub-register legitimate duties.

2.Basing on the report of P.W.1 and P.W.9 registered a case in Cr. No.373 of 2022 under sections 509 and 186 r/w 34 of I.P.C,1860. During the course of investigation and served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against A-1 to A-3 for the offence under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, the charge sheet.

3. This court taken cognizance against the accused No1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code,1860.

4. The case copies was furnished to the accused persons as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.,

5.On 10-12-2025 accused No1 to 3 were examined under section 239 of

Cr.P.C., and charge framed against them for the offences under sections 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860, and read over and explained them in Telugu language for which, they denied, and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case was posted for trial.

3 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws1 to P.W.9 and got marked Exs. P.1 to P.12 and the learned APP given up the evidence of L.W.9.Nurukruthi Veerasankar Prarhap.

7. Then, accused No1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of The

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and incriminating circumstances in the evidence of prosecution explained to the accused person and they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused

No1 to 3 for the offences under section 509 and 186 r/w 34

of Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond all reasonable doubt?

10. In order to prove the prosecution case the prosecution has to establish that the accused No1 to 3 are abused the P.W.1 in filthy language and voluntarily obstructed the duties of P.W1.

11.To prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined P.W1 to

P.W.9. The P.W.1 who is the victim and complainant in her evidence she deposed that she worked as sub registrar at S.Kota and she do not know A1 and A3 and at about three years ago on one day she went Vizianagaram court to give evidence in her official capacity and at that time she received phone call from P.W.2 stating that some persons came to Sub register office and abused her and also made allegations against her before higher authorities.

She further deposed that she went to the police station and gave report but she do not remember entire content of his report and she identified her signature on the report and same was marked Ex.P1. The learned APP declare the witnesses as an hostile and cross examined P.W1, but nothing was elicited except marking of section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.P2.

4 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026

12.The prosecution has examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 who are Senior

Assistant and junior Assistant and who are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and in their evidence they deposed that at about two years ago one one day when they were present inside of the office they heard some shouting except that they not know any thing about the facts of the case. The learned

APP declare the witnesses as an hostile and cross examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 but nothing was elicited except marking of section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex.

P3 and P4.

13.The prosecution has examined P.W.4 to P.W.8 who are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident and in their evidence they deposed that they do not know any thing about the facts of the case and they never witnessed any incident. The learned APP declare the witnesses as an hostile and cross examined P.W.4 to P.W.8 but nothing was elicited except marking of section 161 Cr.P.C statement as Ex. P4 to P9.

14.The prosecution has examined P.W.9 who is the investigation officer and in his evidence he deposed that on 14.11.2022 he received report of P.W.1 and basing on that he registered the case and issued Ex.P11 and later he examined the witnesses and they stated before him as in Ex.P2 to P9 and he prepared rough sketch. He further deposed that he served section 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused persons and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. During the cross examination he denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that the accused persons never committed any offence an he conducted table investigation and filed charge sheet.

15.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are the victim cum complainant and eye witnessed to the alleged incident in this case and they turned hostile to the prosecution case and they did not depose anything against the accused persons and in their evidence P.W.1 categorically deposed that she do not remember the entire content of her report and she do 5 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026 not know who abused her in filthy language and the evidence of P.W.1 did not disclose that the accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and obstructed the duties of P.W.1. Though, the prosecution examined P.W3 to

P.W.8 who are eye witnesses but they also turned hostile to the prosecution case and they did not depose any incriminating material against the accused persons. There is no material found in the evidence of prosecution to prove that the accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language and also obstructed the duties of P.W.1 and there is no cogent and relevant evidence to prove the allegation against the accused No1 to 3. Though, the P.W.9 who is the investigation officer supported the case of the prosecution but he did not witness the alleged incident and material witness are turned hostile to the prosecution case hence the evidence of P.W.9 is no way helpful to the prosecution case. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations and charges against the accused No1 to 3 for the offence under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Hence, the accused No1 to 3 are entitled for acquittal and the point is answered accordingly.

16. In the result, the Accused No1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.,The accused No1 to 3 are required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated

U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders is passed with regard to disposal of case property.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 30th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

6 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 : Peddapudi Symala - NIL - P.W.2 : Boni Hima Bindhu P.W.3 : Shaik Thajudden Babu P.W.4 : Vijinigiri Mahesh P.W.5 : Shaik Gopi P.W.6 : Mulagapaka Santhosh Kumar P.W.7 : Vanduru Santhosh Kumar P.W.8 : Patrana Esararao @ Kiran P.W.9 : J. Tarakeswararao, SI of Police, S.Kota PS.,

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report dated 14-11-2022. - Nil - Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.3:Statement of P.W.2 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.3 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.5: Statement of P.W.4 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.6:Statement of P.W.5 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.7: Statement of P.W.6 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.8: Statement of P.W.7 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.9:Statement of P.W.8 u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., Ex.P.10: Report of P.W.1. Ex.P.11:Original FIR in Cr.No.373/2022 of S.Kota PS., Ex.P.12: Rough sketch.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil -

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

7 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Offence: 14-11-2022 Date of report or complaint: 14-11-2022 Date of Apprehension of Accused: 25-11-2022 (A-1 to A-3) Date of release on bail, if any: 25-11-2022 (A-1 to A-3) (Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Notice) Date of Commencement of Trial: 23-12-2025 Date of close of Trial: 26-03-2026 Date of Sentence or other order : 30-03-2026 Explanation for delay and remarks : - No delay - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No.145/2025 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Srungavarapukota.

Complainant :- State Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, S.Kota Police Station in Crime No.373/2022 u/Sec. 509, 186 r/w 34 of IPC.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==== Name of the accused, Father’s Name, Age, Calling, Religion, Res & Mandal

A-1.Sirisetti Srinivasa Dattu, S/o late Pentayya, Aged 46 years, Near Sri Ramakrishna Theater, Gowrinagar, S.Kota Village and Mandal. Ph. 7569671916. A-2.Mopada Bogayya @ TV-5 Naidu, S/o Kondababu, Aged 41 years, Near Nookalammathalli Temple, S.Kota Village and Mandal. Ph. No.9885955246. A-3. Muggada Dharmarao, S/o late Veerraju, Aged 43 years, Bhavani Nagar, S.Kota Mandal. Ph. No. 9440636777. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==== Offence : Sec. 509 IPC : Word gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Sec. 186 IPC : Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions Sec. 34 IPC : Acts done by several person in furtherance of their common intention.

Finding : Not guilty.

8 C.C.No. 145/2025 Dated 30.03.2026

Sentence : In the result, the Accused No1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 509 and 186 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,1860 and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C.,The accused No1 to 3 are required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated U/sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. No property was produced in this case. Hence, no orders is passed with regard to disposal of case property.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Srungavarapukota.

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present: Ms. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Srungavarapukota.

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.3 OF 2025

Between

Vadangi Madhusudhanarao, S/o late Bulli Venkanna, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Resident of Dharmavaram Village, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

….. Plaintiff

A n d:

Sanivada Naidu Babu, S/o late Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Resident of Main Road, Seethampeta Village, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

….. Defendant

The Suit is coming on 23-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Trimurtulu,Advocate for Plaintiffand of Sri V. Eswara Rao, Advocate for defendant treated as nil, and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of

Rs.3,24,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) being the

principal amount and interest due on the promissory note dated 10.05.2022

executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two

Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with an interest at rate of 24% per annum and for costs.

2.The averments of plaint in brief are as follows:-

On 10.05.2022 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff for the purpose of his family necessities and agreed to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. After receipt of amount from the plaintiff in the presence of witnesses, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to clear off the promissory note debt several times and also issued legal notice but the defendant failed to discharge the debt due under the suit promissory note, though repeated demands made by the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit for recovery of the debt due under the suit promissory note with interest and costs.

3.The defendant filed written statement by denying the allegations in the plaint and contended as follows: -

The defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed any promissory note an amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff, attestor, scribe are the plaintiff friends and they fabricated the suit promissory note. The defendant has no acquaintance with the plaintiff and he has no necessity to borrow any amount from anybody and the defendant never signed the alleged promissory note and prayed this court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4.Basing upon the pleadings the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the suit promissory note dated 10.05.2022

for Rs.2,00,000/- is executed by the defendant is true,

valid and supported by the consideration and binding

on the defendant ?

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

3. To what relief?

5.To prove his claim, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got exhibited original suit promissory note dated 10.05.2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- as

Ex.A.1, office copy of legal notice as Ex.A.2 and relevant postal acknowledgment as Ex.A3 and also examined scribe of Ex.A.1 as P.W.2. On the other hand the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are marked on behalf of the defendant.

6.The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as well as the contents of Ex. A.1 promissory note establishes that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and executed the suit promissory note and failed to repay the debt under Ex.A.1. Hence, the suit may be decreed.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and never executed Ex.A.1 and the signature on Ex.A.1 is not belongs to the defendant and plaintiff filed false case against the defendant by creating the promissory note and prayed this court to dismiss the suit.

8.Perused the entire record.

9.ISSUES No.1 and 2: -

It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on dated 10.05.2022 and on the same day the defendant executed the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1) in his favour, duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

Whereas, it is the contention of the defendant that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and the plaintiff created the suit promissory note.

10.To prove his contention, the plaintiff himself got examined as P.W.1, and his evidence goes to show that on 10.05.2022 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-for the purpose his family necessities and executed the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1) in favour of the P.W.1 duly agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum either to P.W.1 or to his order on demand in the presence of attestor, scribe, and in spite of his repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants did not repay the said debt. In support of his case the plaintiff got examined P.W.2 who is the scribe of Ex.A.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 and P.W.2 supported the version of P.W.1 in all material aspects.

11.Even though, the learned counsel for the defendant cross examined the

P.W.1 and P.W.2 at length but nothing was elicited to shake the credence of the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 except putting suggestions that the defendant never executed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.1 is created one with the help of attestor and the defendant borrowed the amount from the son in law of P.W.1 and at that time the P.W.1 son in law obtained the promissory note and by using the said promissory note plaintiff filed this suit. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are consistent regarding execution of Ex.A.1 and no material inconsistencies were elicited to shake the credence of the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Thus, this Court finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W2. Therefore, this court holds that the plaintiff, with his evidence supported by P.W.2 and Ex.A.1 has discharged his burden and established that the defendant executed Ex.A.1/Promissory note in his favour.

12.Whenever the execution of a negotiable instrument is admitted or proved, Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act comes into play, which enables the court to presume that such negotiable instrument was supported with consideration. However, such presumption is a rebuttable one. The defendants can rebut such presumption either by adducing evidence or by eliciting untruthfulness in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff by way of cross examining the witnesses of plaintiff.

13. Though, the defendant was examined as D.W.1 and contended that he never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff and no consideration passed under Ex.A.1 and the plaintiff by using promissory note given to the son in law of P.W.1 filed this suit but in order to prove the same neither the defendant did notadduce any documentary evidence nor examined any witnesses. Though, the defendant during the evidence contended that Ex.A.1 is created one and signature on Ex.A.1 is not belongs to the defendant but in order to prove the same the defendant failed to take any steps to prove that the signature on

Ex.A.1 is not belongs to him and there is no consideration passed under

Ex.A.1. Further, the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 proves that the defendant borrowed the amount from the plaintiff in the presence of attestor. The defendant failed to adduce any cogent and relevant evidence to prove his contention and failed to rebut the evidence of plaintiff.Hence, the court holds that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.1 proves that, the defendant borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1 and executed the suit promissory note (Ex.A.1 ) and failed discharge the debt and this court holds that Ex.A.1 /suit promissory note dated 10.05.2022 is true, valid and supported by consideration. In view of the above discussions, this court holds that, the plaintiff is able to establish that the defendant is liable to discharge the debt covered under Ex.A.1 /Promissory note.Hence, this court holds that, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant.

Accordingly, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against to the defendant.

16.ISSUE NO.3: - In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff against the defendant for Rs.3,24,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty

Four Thousand Only) with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., on principal amounts of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III of this Court, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 26 th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Srungavarapukota

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: Vedangi Madhusudhana Rao D.W.1: Sanivada Naidu Babu P.W.2: Kinthada Sanyasi Rao

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1: Original promissory note dated 10-05-2022 for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff. Ex.A.2: Office copy of legal notice dated 08-11-2024. Ex.A.3: Relevant postal receipt dated 08-11-2024.

For Defendant:

- Nil -

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Srungavarapukota

Date of presentation: 20-12-2024 Date of filing: 03-01-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE(JUNIOR DIVISION) AT

SRUNGAVARAPUKOTA.

Present: Ms. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Civil Judge(Junior Division),

Srungavarapukota.

Thursday, this the 26th day of March, 2026

O.S.No.3 OF 2025

Between

Vadangi Madhusudhanarao, S/o late Bulli Venkanna, Hindu, Aged 52 years, Resident of Dharmavaram Village, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

….. Plaintiff

A n d:

Sanivada Naidu Babu, S/o late Sanyasi Rao, Hindu, Aged 32 years, Resident of Main Road, Seethampeta Village, Srungavarapukota Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

….. Defendant

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,24,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand Only) being the

principal amount and interest due on the promissory note dated 10.05.2022

executed by the defendants in favour of plaintiff for Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) agreeing to repay the same with an interest at rate of 24% per annum and for costs.

Value of the suit for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction is Rs.3,24,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.5,726/- is paid u/sec.20 of Schedule -1 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act by way of bank challan dated 20-12-2024 of State Bank of India, Srungavarapukota.

The Suit is coming on 23-03-2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B. Trimurtulu,Advocate for Plaintiffand of Sri V. Eswara Rao, Advocate for defendant and after hearing arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order; and

D E C R E E

i) that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of

Rs.3,24,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Four

Thousand Only) with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a., on principal amounts of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)till the date of realization; and ii) that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.17,399/- towards costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court, this the 26th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Srungavarapukota

Memorandum of costs

For plaintiff: For Defendant:

Stamp on vakalat : Rs. 3-00 Stamp on plaint : Rs. 5,726-00 Stamp on process : Rs. 150-00 No costs memo is filed Advocate fee : Rs.11,420-00 Typing charges : Rs. 100-00 -------------------- Cost allowed : Rs.17,399-00 --------------------

Sd/- B. Kanaka Lakshmi

Civil Judge(Junior Division)

Srungavarapukota

Note: “Parties should apply as soon as possible for return of all Exhibits which they wish to preserve as the record will be liable to be destroyed after 3 years from the date of decree.

CC.558/20221 Dt. 15.11.2024

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS :: SALUR.

PRESENT: Kum. B. Kanaka Lakshmi,

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram

FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

Friday, this the 15th day of November, 2024.

CALENDAR CASE No. 558 OF 2022

Between:

State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,Pachipenta Police Station, Pachipenta.… Complainant.

And:

Panchali Chittayya, S/o Jogayya, aged about 36 years, Chandivalasa Village, Pachipenta Mandal.

… Accused.

This case is coming on 14.11.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor, for the Complainant and of

Sri V.H.K.Sarma, Defence counsel for Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub Inspector of Police,Pachipenta Police station, filed charge sheet against the Accused in Cr. No.130/2021 for the offence U/Sec. 7 (A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 alleging in brief as follows:

CC.558/20222 Dt. 15.11.2024

On 01.10.2021 at about 06.20 hours, P.W1 received credible information on that P.W1 along with L.W.1.A.Sivakumar and

L.W.2.D.Narasingh Rao went to the place of scene of offence situated at outskirts of Yaredlavalasa village of Pachipenta Mandal and the accused came to the place of scene of offence on motor cycle bearing No. AP 32 CE 6878 with two gunny bag and on seeing the police the accused try to escape from that place, on that P.W1 caught hold the accused with the assistance of his staff and the accused disclosed his identity particular and confessed that he is in possession of Natusar/I.D liquor and verified bag and found 500 I.D

Arrack sachets / natusara and each sachet containing 100 ml and P.W1 questioned the accused and the accused confessed that he purchased natusara/Hooch from unknown persons at Odissa State and bringing to the same to his village for selling the same for higher rates. Then P.W1 took sample to send the same to chemical examiner under cover of occurrence report and brought the accused to the police station.

Basing on the report P.W1 registered the case in Cr. No 130 of 2021

U/Sec. 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995 and he prepared the remand report and produced the accused before the court for judicial remand and received the analysis report stating that the sample is positive. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against accused.

CC.558/20223 Dt. 15.11.2024

2.This court took cognizance against the accused for offence punishable

Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995.

3.After appearance of the accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

4.On 22.06.2023 accused was examined under Section 239 Criminal

Procedure Code, for which he denied the same. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the entire record, a charge Under Section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P

Prohibition Act were framed against the accused. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus the case was posted for trial.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PW.1 and

Exs.P1 to P3 and M.O.1 got marked. The learned APP given up the evidence of other witnesses.

6. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, on 14.11.2024, the accused was examined Under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code by explaining the incriminating evidence of prosecution in Telugu, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel on behalf of the accused. During the course of argument the learned APP submitted that P.W1 supported the prosecution case and the

CC.558/20224 Dt. 15.11.2024

prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, on the other hand the learned counsel for the accused submitted that the police falsely filed case against the accused and there is no independent witness to prove that the accused is in possession of the arrack. He further submitted that the the P.W1 did not follow the search procedure mentioned under section 100(4) of Cr.pc and the prosecution failed to proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Accused for the

offence punishable under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act

1995 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995 and the prosecution has to establish that the accused is in possession of 500 sachets of Natusara/ I.D Liquor which is in contravention of Andhra Pradesh Prohibition Act, 1995.

10.In order to prove the same the prosecution has examined the P.W.1.

P.W.1 who is the Sub-Inspector of Police and in his evidence he deposed that on 01.10.2021 at about 06.20 am he received credible information on that he along with L.W1 and L.W2 went to the place of scene of offence situated at outskirts of Yeradlavalasa village of Pachipenta Mandal and at that time accused came to the place of scene of offence by carrying one plastic bag and

CC.558/20225 Dt. 15.11.2024

on seeing them the accused tried to escape from that place, on that they caught hold the person and the accused disclosed his identity particulars as an accused and confessed that he purchased natusara/l.D liquor from unknown person at Odissa State and selling the same to his village for selling the same for higher rates and he verified bag and found 500 packets of I.D

Liquor and each packet containing 100ml of I.D liquor/natusara. He further deposed that he seized arrack under cover of occurrence report which was marked as Ex.P1 and registered the case and took the sample and send the same chemical examiner and he received analysis report and MO.1.

11.During cross examination he deposed that he did not secured any independent witnesses or inhabitant at the place of scene of offence and from the place of scene of offence the vehicles are used to pass but it is not a busy locality area and Ex.P1 did not disclose the details of the person who refused to act as mediator and he is the complainant and investigation officer and there is 10 days of delay in sending the samples to chemical examiner. He further denied the suggestion of the accused counsel that the accused is no way relevant to the present case and he has not followed the search procedure and he is deposing false.

12.As seen from the above evidence admittedly P.W1 did not secure any independent witnesses in this case even though he went to the place of scene of offence on credible information. On perusal of the evidence of P.W1 the

CC.558/20226 Dt. 15.11.2024

alleged incident occurred at day time and the from alleged place of scene of offence the vehicles are used to pass and near to the village but P.W1 did not made any efforts to secure the presence of mediators or inhabitants for the proceedings of Ex.P1 and also did not give any explanation. It is a settled

principal that whenever the officer conducted the search they shall follow the

procedure mentioned in the section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., where in the present case the on hand the P.W.1 conducted the search but as seen from the evidence, the P.W.1 did not follow the procedure mentioned under section 100 of Cr.P.C., As per section 100 (4) Cr.P.C., “the person making search shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attended and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do”. In the present case on hand, P.W.1 failed to follow the procedure contemplated under section 100(4) of Cr.P.C.

Further, P.W1 also did not examine any villagers in the village to show whether the accused is selling any country made liquor/Hooch in the village or not. Hence, the evidence of P.W1 did not inspire much confidence of the court to accept the version of prosecution that the accused is in possession of alleged I.D liquor/ Natusara.

CC.558/20227 Dt. 15.11.2024

13. Though, on perusal of the evidence of P.W1 and Ex.P1 it disclose that the accused was confessed that he was in possession of I.D liquor or

Natusara but as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act “no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence.

Hence, the confession made to police officer is not relevant. In the present case, except the evidence P.W1 who is the police officials no independent witnesses were present at the time of preparing of Ex.P1, and P.W1 is the complainant and investigation officer in this case hence, it is not safe to rely upon the testimony of P.W1.

14. It is a settled proposition of law that prosecution has to travel the entire distance to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt, if any, has to be extended to accused. In view above said discussion, this court holds that the evidence of P.W.1 is not sufficient to prove that the accused is in possession of the Natusara/I.D liquor and MO.1 is seized from the possession of the accused. Moreover, the P.W1 not followed the search procedure mentioned under section 100(4) Cr.P.C. Thus, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act, 1995 beyond all reasonable doubt and thus the accused is entitled for an acquittal.

CC.558/20228 Dt. 15.11.2024

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.

7(A) r/w 8(e) of A.P Prohibition Act 1995 and he is acquitted of the same

U/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C., The accused is required to execute personal bond, which shall be in force for a period of six (6) months as contemplated

U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C., The MO.1 is the sample bottle of I.D Liquor shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by my Typist , corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 15 th day of November, 2024.

Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gajapathinagaram. FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution:For Defence: NIL

PW.1 – M.Venkata Ramana

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For prosecution:For Defence: Nil

Ex.P1 – Occurrence Report.

Ex.P2 – First Information Report in Crime No. 130/2021.

Ex.P3 – Analysis Report

CC.558/20229 Dt. 15.11.2024

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

For prosecution:For Defence: Nil

M.O.1 – Sample Bottle of ID liquor

Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Gajapathinagaram. FAC/ Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Salur.