Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma

CC.No.5/2025 1 Dt.22-04-2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 5 of 2025 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1 Date of Offence: 25-11-2024 2 Date of Report: 25-11-2024 3 Date of arrest of Accused: 25-11-2024 (Issued 35(3) BNSS notice) 4 Date of release of Accused: ------------- 5 Date of commencement of trial : 09-04-2025 6 Date of close of trial: 15-04-2025 7 Date of Judgment: 22-04-2025 8 Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ardhaveedu Police Station.

9 Accused: Yeruva Subba Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy, aged about 50 years, Kakarla Village,

Ardhaveedu Mandal.

10. Offence : U/sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 481 of BNSS.

The case property in C.P.R.No.309/2024 (M.O.1 i.e., Sample bottle), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

CC.No.5/2025 2 Dt.22-04-2025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 07-01-2025 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused.

After appearance of the accused on 14-02-2025, copies of all the documents were furnished to him u/Sec. 230 of BNSS. And on the same day the accused was examined u/Sec. 262 of BNSS. On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 were examined, got marked Exs.P1 to P6 beside

M.O.1 marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 16-04-2025 accused was examined u/Sec. 351 of BNSS, he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported ‘no defence evidence’. Hence, defence side evidence is closed and on the same day heard arguments. On 22-04-2025 Judgment Pronounced.

Hence the delay.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.5/2025 3 Dt.22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

GIDDALUR

Present: Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma,

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur,

Tuesday, this the Twenty Second (22nd) day of April, 2025.

Calendar Case 5 of 2025 Between: The State, Represented through Sub-Inspector of

Police, Ardhaveedu Police Station.

.....Complainant

And

Yeruva Subba Reddy, S/o. Pulla Reddy, aged about 50 years, Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu Mandal.

….. Accused

This case has came before me on 16-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

Sk.Fazil, advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, for the accused and the matter having been 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, Ardhaveedu Police Station laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 103 of 2024 for the offence punishable under section 34(a)(i) of A.P.Excise Act.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 25-11-2024 at 10.00 hours, while LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of

Police, along with his staff and mediators conducting raids and reached at

Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal, where they noticed the accused along with black bag, on seeing them he tried to skulk away, apprehended

CC.No.5/2025 4 Dt.22-04-2025

and detained him and on interrogation accused revealed his name and identity particulars and confessed about the possession of liquor bottles, then LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, thoroughly verified the bag and found Amber House Superior Whisky 180ml – 14 bottles, total of 2.52 liters and worth of Rs. 2,142/-, in the possession of the accused, which were purchased from various government shops and selling the same for higher rates, without valid license. Then LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, drawn sample from one liquor bottle for Chemical Analysis and arrested the accused under cover of mediatornama. Basing on the mediatornama,

LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No. 103 of 2024 for the offence punishable under section 34 (a) of A.P.Excise Act.

During the course of investigation, LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and tried to secure witnesses, but in vain and issued 35(3) BNSS notice to the accused. Later

LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, sent the sample bottle for chemical analysis. After receiving the chemical analysis report opining that the sample is Indian Liquor. After completion of investigation,

LW7/B.Sudarshan, SI of Police, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3. The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec. 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec. 230 BNSS were furnished to him.

CC.No.5/2025 5 Dt.22-04-2025

5. Accused was examined U/sec.262 BNSS Charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused, its contents were explained to him in Telugu language for which he denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and M.O.1 are marked. The evidence of LWs 2 to 4 and 6 (i.e., LW2 S.Janardhan Rao, Police Constable, LW3/M.Venkateswara

Reddy, Police Constable, LW4/Manda Pasagi, LW6/K.Chenna Reddy,

Chemical Examiner) closed by the court.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, accused was examined u/sec. 351 BNSS and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?”

POINT:-

10. PW1/B.Venkata Ramana, VRA, deposed that, at about 10 months back on one day at the request of police he put his signature on some written paper at police station. Ex.P1 is his signature. He was not present by the time of arrest and seizure and turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

CC.No.5/2025 6 Dt.22-04-2025

11. PW2/S.S.Prasad, Police Constable, deposed that, at about 4 months back on one day at about morning time he accompanied along with SI

LW7 Sudharshan and other staff proceeded to Kakarla village of

Ardhaveedu mandal in the house of accused, they noticed one bag, on seeing them the accused tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him on interrogation he revealed his identity particulars, and also confessed about the offence. On verification of the said bag found 14 liquor bottles, SI lifted one bottle for sample, affixed slips, sealed and labelled, arrested the accused, seized entire property under cover of mediatornama Ex.P2.

12. PW3/B.Sudarshan Yadav, SI of Police, deposed that, on 25-11- 2024 at about morning time, he along with his staff, mediators, proceeded to outskirts of Kakarla village, Ardhaveedu mandal, where they noticed the accused possessed with one bag, on seeing them he tried to skulk away, apprehended and detained him. On interrogation he revealed his identity particulars and also confessed about the offence. He found 14 liquor bottles in the bag, he lifted one bottle for sample, affixed slips, sealed and labelled, arrested the accused and seized entire property under the cover of mediatornama Ex.P2.

They returned to the police station along with the accused, on the basis of Ex.P1 he registered a case in Cr.No.103/2024 u/s.34 (a) (1) of

A.P.Excise Act, Ex.P3 is FIR. He examined PW2, LW2-Janardhan Rao, PC,

LW3-Venkateswara Reddy, PC, examined and recorded their statements.

CC.No.5/2025 7 Dt.22-04-2025

Again he visited the scene of offence, observed it, prepared rough sketch

Ex.P4. He sent sample bottle with letter of advice to FSL. Ex.P5 is letter of advice. He issued 35(3) of B.N.S.S. notice to the accused. After receipt of

FSL report Ex.P6 and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused. MO1 is sample bottle.

13. The learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the acts of accused are clearly established with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Ex.P1 to

Ex.P6, beside M.O.1 is sample bottle. Therefore, the accused is liable for conviction.

14. The learned defense counsel argued that the accused is innocent and never committed the alleged offence. He further argued that independent witness who was examined before this court did not elicit the case facts i.e., company name of the liquor bottles, quantity of liquor etc., and he was not secured from the place of arrest and he turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution and the evidence of police people is not believable and the accused is entitled for acquittal under benefit of doubt.

15. Perused the record. Out of 07 list of witnesses, the prosecution got examined 03 list of witnesses. PW1 is Mediator, PW2 is Police Constable,

PW3 is Sub-Inspector, Ex.P1 is Signature of PW1 on mediatornama dated 25-11-2024, Ex.P2 is Mediatornama dated 25-11-2024, Ex.P3 is FIR in

Cr.No. 103 of 2024 of Ardhaveedu PS, Ex.P4 is Rough Sketch nil dated,

Ex.P5 is Letter of Advice nil dated, Ex.P6 is FSL report dated 24-12-2024,

CC.No.5/2025 8 Dt.22-04-2025

M.O.1 is sample bottle.

16. As this is the case U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused was selling liquor bottles without any valid license and PW3 seized liquor bottles from the possession of accused under the cover of Mediatornama.

17. As per the version of prosecution, the PW3 seized liquor bottles from the possession of the accused at Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal, on 25.11.2024. He drawn sample from one liquor bottle, affixed slips, sealed and labeled arrested the accused and seized the entire property under the cover of mediatornama, Ex.P.2. On the basis of the same P.W.3 registered a case in Cr.No.103/2024 U/sec.34(a) of A.P.Excise Act. Ex.P.3 is FIR and issued 35(3) of BNSS notice to the accused.

18.Admittedly there are so many persons and vehicles plying nearer to the place of arrest. PW3 categorically admitted the place of arrest is situated at Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal. Admissions need not be proved. Whenever so many persons were available and the place of arrest is situated at Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal, as to why the investigating officer did not secure the independent mediators in and around the place of arrest as the mediator who was examined before this court did not elicit the case facts such as company name of liquor bottles, quantity of liquor seized etc., and he was not secured from the place of arrest and turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

The investigating officer failed to follow the procedure, when the place of

CC.No.5/2025 9 Dt.22-04-2025

arrest is situated at Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal, it is burden and duty to secure the said persons for mediators. But the investigating officer failed to do so.

19. Admittedly, the Sub-Inspector did not issue any summons to the mediators through the Constable, who refused to act as mediators and at least it is the duty of Sub-Inspector to issue the written summons to the mediators who refused to act as mediators and to file the same before the

Hon’ble Court. Admittedly the place of arrest is situated at Kakarla

Village, Ardhaveedu mandal, there is a chance to secure mediators easily, but the police stated nobody came forward to act as mediators and they failed to secure the same in a routine manner.

20. In a case our Hon'ble High Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, Yeduru Sreenivasul Reddy Vs State of A.P 2002(1) ALD(Crl.) 347(A.P) held that when no mediators examined though search was conducted in a busy locality, the search and seizure as well as conviction cannot be sustained.

21.In another case our Hon'ble High Court in Adapa

Ramababu@RamuVs. State of A.P 2014 (1)ALD(Crl)966(A.P) In para NO.13 held that, whatever be the truthfulness or otherwise of the evidence of Police officials, it is not at all safe to convict an individual on the basis of that. It is only in extreme cases where other evidence is not available and the suspicion that surrounds the evidence of a police officials is almost removed, that the court can rest its conclusion on the

CC.No.5/2025 10 Dt.22-04-2025

evidence of the police officials. When the independent witnesses from the place of arrest are not examined by the prosecution, the prosecution theory of seizing the contraband from the custody of the accused has to be looked with suspicion. The non examination of the independent mediators from the place of arrest is fatal to the prosecution case. The seizure proceedings drafted also cannot be considered.

22. In this case, it can be seen from the record that during the raids participated by PW3 and his staff, independent witness has been secured did not elicit the case facts such as company name of liquor bottles, quantity of liquor seized etc., and more over he was not secured from the place of arrest or the efforts made by them to secure the mediators from the place of arrest were not reflected anywhere in the record to believe their version. As per the evidence, the place of arrest and seizure is situated at Kakarla Village, Ardhaveedu mandal and no witnesses were summoned to act as mediators from the place of arrest and seizure and no proof of such act was brought on record. Furthermore, the investigating officer is the person who participated in the raids and who drafted the mediatornama and basing on the mediatornama/Ex.P2 the crime was registered by him only and he investigated the total case, which cannot be justifiable to make the accused liable for the said offence basing on the investigation of the same person who initiated the case.

Further with regard to the seizure of contraband it was not proved by any independent witnesses that it was seized from the accused. The

CC.No.5/2025 11 Dt.22-04-2025

confession before the police i.e., before P.W.3/Sub-Inspector, is not admissible as such the seizure was also not proved in accordance with law. Here, all the witnesses are police officials only who generally have the interest in the prosecution case hence cannot be reliable to fasten the accused to the guilt.

23. From the above discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the accused. As such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

24. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 34(a) of A.P.Excise Act and he is acquitted under section 271(1) of BNSS. The bail bonds of accused and his sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months as per section 481 of BNSS.

The case property in C.P.R.No.309/2024 (M.O.1 i.e., Sample bottle), shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

P.W.1: B.Venkata Ramana, VRA. - None -

P.W.2: S.S.Prasad, Police Constable.

P.W.3: B.Sudarshan Yadav, SI of Police.

CC.No.5/2025 12 Dt.22-04-2025

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on mediatornama dated 25-11-2024. - NIL -

Ex.P2: Mediatornama dated 25-11-2024.

Ex.P3: FIR in Cr.No. 103 of 2024 of Ardhaveedu PS.

Ex.P4: Rough Sketch nil dated.

Ex.P5: Letter of Advice nil dated.

Ex.P6: FSL Report dated 24-12-2024.

Material Objects Marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

1. M.O.1 i.e., sample bottle. – NIL -

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

AJFCM, GDLR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.76/2018 1 Dt.25-04-2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 76 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1 Date of Offence: 10-08-2017 2 Date of Report15-09-2017 3 Date of arrest of A1 and A2 : 13-01-2018(Issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices) 4 Date of release of A1 and A2: ------------- 5 Date of commencement of trial : 04-07-2024 6 Date of close of trial: 20-02-2025 7 Date of Judgment: 25-04-2025 8 Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Komarole Police Station.

9 A1 and A2:

I.Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 48 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 804293382005. (A1) ii.Maramreddy Swarna Latha @ Swarna Latha Devi, W/o. Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 573493856235. (A2)

10. Offence : u/sec.447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. No property is seized and no order is passed with regard to the same.

CC.No.76/2018 2 Dt.25-04-2025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 21-03-2018 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, against A1 and A2. After appearance of A1 and A2 on 07-05-2018, copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. On 22- 09-2023, A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined, got marked Exs P1 to P5. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 11-02-2025 and on 24-02-2025 A1 and A2 were examined u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., On behalf of defence side evidence is closed. On 08-04-2025 heard arguments. On 25-04-2025

Judgment Pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.76/2018 3 Dt.25-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

GIDDALUR

Present: Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Friday, this the Twenty Fifth (25th) day of April, 2025. Calendar Case 76 of 2018

Between:

The State,

Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police,

Komarole Police Station.

…….... Complainant

And

1.Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, S/o. Venkata Reddy, aged about 48 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 804293382005. (A1)

2.Maramreddy Swarna Latha @ Swarna Latha Devi, W/o. Maramreddy Mahanandi Reddy, aged about 39 years, Yarrapalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Adhar No. 573493856235. (A2) ...…..... A1 and A2

This case has came before me on 08-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

P.Raja Sekhara Reddy, advocate for A1 and A2 and the matter having been 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, Komarole Police Station laid charge sheet against the A1 and A2 in Crime No. 69 of 2017 for the offence punishable under sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

CC.No.76/2018 4 Dt.25-04-2025

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 10-08-2017 at about 9 AM the A1 was entered in the land of

LW1 Venkata Ramanamma in survey. no. 1399/7 and tried to buried the well with proclainer and damaged their property. In meanwhile LW1

Venkata Ramanamma admonished the A1, then the both accused bet LW1

Venkata Ramanamma and kicked her with their hands and legs by abusing her in filthy language. LW2 Maramreddy Venkata Subba

Reddy/her husband went there, the accused threatened him that they will kill him. On 15-09-2017 at about 7 PM the LW1 Venkata Ramanamma gave report to the police, on the basis of the same the LW6 G.Prabhakar

Reddy, SI registered a case in Cr.No. 69/2017 U/sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. The investigating officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. The SI visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, then he issued 41 A Cr.P.C notice to A1 and A2. Then LW7

SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.

447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2.

4. On appearance of A1 and A2, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec. 207, Cr.P.C were furnished to them.

5.A1 and A2 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of I.P.C against the A1 and A2, its contents were explained to them in telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

CC.No.76/2018 5 Dt.25-04-2025

tried.

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

Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked. The evidence of LWs 4, 5 and 7 (i.e., LW4

Muthyala Chinna Venkata Reddy, LW5 R.Sathyanarayana, Head Constable,

LW7 Sk.Abdul Rahaman, SI of Police) closed by the court.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the

guilt against A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under

Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC ?”

POINT:

10. PW1 M.Venkata Ramanamma, deposed that, at about 7 years back on one day at about 10 a.m. while she was cutting grass in their field. By that A1 and A2 came and closing the Well situated in their land with the help of proclainer. She obstructed them, A1 beat her with his hands and legs by saying that NEEKU EMI SAMBAMDHAM VUNDI and abused her in filthy language. In the meanwhile her husband who was present at some distance from her land, both accused also abused her husband by saying that they will kill him, and also beat her husband with their hands and

CC.No.76/2018 6 Dt.25-04-2025

legs. Due to fear himself and her husband came to their house. On the same day they went and gave the report to the police, Ex.P1. Her husband acquired the disputed land in the family partition. Police examined her.

11. PW2 M.Venkata Subba Reddy, deposed that, at about 7 years back on one day in between 9-10 a.m. this offence took place in their land.

One Well and Bore were installed in their land. The Bore-well fell to his share and he paid Rs.30,000/- for the Bore-well. The accused asked him to give the said Bore-Well to him, but he did not accept the same. A1 and

A2 came and closing the Well with the help of Proclainer, by that time his wife went and obstructed the same. He also went there and obstructed them not to close the Well. They both threatened them by saying that they will kill them and they closed the Well and they also removed the

Current Poll and installed the same in his land. Due to fear himself and his wife went to their house. Then they went to the police station, his wife gave report to the police. He was examined by the police. The disputed land fell to his share, to that effect he filed original unregistered partition list deed Ex.P2.

12. PW3 K.Malleswaraiah, deposed that, he does not know anything about the case facts. He was not examined by the police and turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

13. PW4 G.Prabhakar Reddy, SI of Police, deposed that, on 15-09- 2017 at about 8 PM while he was present at police station, PW1 came and

CC.No.76/2018 7 Dt.25-04-2025

presented a report, which he registered a case in Cr.No. 69/2017, U/sec 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex.P4 FIR. He took up investigation in this case. He visited the scene of offence situated in the fields of survey no. 1399/7 of Yarrabalem village. He observed the scene, prepared rough sketch Ex.P5. He examined PWs 1 to 3, LW4 M.Chinna

Venkata Reddy and recorded their statements. The Head Constable

Satyanarayana LW5 issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to both accused. After completion of investigation LW7 SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

14. As per the version of prosecution, that at about 7 years back on one day at 10 AM while the PW1 was cutting grass in her field A1 and A2 came and closing the well situated in the land of PW1 with the help of proclainer. By that time PW1 obstructed them, in meanwhile A1 bet with his hands and legs and abused her in filthy language. In meanwhile PW2 came there and accused also abused her husband by saying that they will kill him and also bet her husband with their hands and legs, then they gave report Ex.P1 to the police.

15. On the other hand, there is no dispute regarding relationship in between both parties i.e., A1 is the younger brother of PW2. The well is situated towards eastern side of the land of PW2 i.e., in the land of A1.

Admittedly, the civil suit is also pending before PJCJ court, Markapur regarding land situated towards western side of the land of PWs 1 and 2.

Admittedly, during life time of father of A1 and PW2 the disputed well was

CC.No.76/2018 8 Dt.25-04-2025

established. The bore well also installed in their land jointly. Thereafter, the PW1 and PW2 paid Rs. 30,000/- to A1 for purchase of their share regarding bore well.

16. Admittedly, the land in which the well was installed fell to the share of

A1. The PW2 and A1 installed the bore well in Survey.No. 1399/8 fell to the share of PW2, then the PW2 paid Rs. 30,000/- to the A1 for the purchase of installed bore well for his share situated in Survey.No.

1399/8. Admittedly, there is no service number for his borewell. The PW1 and PW2 utilized the current without permission admitted by PW2. The A1 filed civil suit in OS. 326/2014 on the file of Hon’ble SCJ court, Markapur for specific performance and the same was disposed off with a direction to return the advance amount together with interest by PW2 (Defendent).

The A1 also filed appeal on the file of Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge,

Court, Ongole and the same was also disposed of with a direction to PW2 to register the disputed land in favour of A1. Further admitted that, PW2 also filed 2nd appeal before Hon’ble High Court and the same was disposed off with a direction to PW2 not to alienate the said land. Further PW2 admitted that, he executed a gift deed in respect of self-same land in favour of his son. Further admitted that, the A1 and PW2 compromised in the above said matter and the PW2 executed a gift deed in favour of his son regarding disputed land. Further admitted that, the PW2 filed a requisition before Hon’ble High Court, by mentioning that, PW2 and A1 compromised the matter regarding disputed land. Which clearly

CC.No.76/2018 9 Dt.25-04-2025

established that, there are some civil disputes and civil suits were pending in between both parties.

17. PW3 who is independent eyewitness completely turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution. PW4 Investigating officer, after registering this case under Ex.P4 FIR he visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, prepared rough sketch Ex.P5 and he examined witnesses and recorded their statements, the investigating officer issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to both accused. Then LW7 SI Abdul Rahaman, filed charge sheet against the both accused.

18. Admittedly, the incident was occurred on 10-08-2017 and the PW1 gave Ex.P1 report to the police on 15-09-2017 nearly after lapse of one month the PW1 gave report to the police. There is no explanation offered from the prosecution regarding delay of giving Ex.P1 report to the police.

Admittedly, the disputed land belongs to A1. When the investigating officer asked to produce proof of disputed land the PW1 and PW2 failed to produce the same to show that the same belongs to them. The PW1 and

PW2 did not explain about the delay of giving Ex.P1 i.e., after lapse of one month. PW1 and PW2 admitted that civil suits were pending in between both parties which clearly established that the matter relating to Civil in

Nature.

19. As usually, there may be a chance to be present the other coolies in and around the scene of offence. But the investigating officer failed to examine. The names of witnesses which were mentioned in memo of

CC.No.76/2018 10 Dt.25-04-2025

evidence as eyewitnesses not supported with the version of prosecution.

20. As there may be a chance to witness the incident since it was situated in the fields of both parties, and so many coolies were present and witnessed the same but no witness is stated regarding incident and the

PW3 who is the independent eyewitness to the incident completely turned hostile not supported the version of prosecution. So, except the evidence of PW1, PW2 who are wife and husband, no other independent evidence is available on record.

21. The entire evidence depending upon circumstantial evidence, no material is merged by the prosecution. The chain of circumstances not proved by the prosecution that A1 and A2 are the authors of the commission of offence.

22. In view of the above said discussion benefit of doubt goes to A1 and

A2.

23. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 447, 427, 323, 506, 509 r/w 34 of IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. No property is seized and no order is passed with regard to the same.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

CC.No.76/2018 11 Dt.25-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: M.Venkata Ramanamma. - NIL -

PW2: M.Venkata Subba Reddy.

PW3: K.Malleswaraiah.

PW4: G.Prabhakar Reddy, SI of Police.

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Report of PW1 dated 15-09-2017. - NIL -

Ex.P2: Original unregistered partition list deed dated 16-03-2016.

Ex.P3: Contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P4: FIR in Cr.No. 69/2017 of Komarole PS.

Ex.P5: Rough Sketch dated 16-09-2017.

Material Objects Marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- NIL - - NIL -

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

AJFCM, GDLR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.263/2019 1 Dt.22-04-2025

Calendar and Judgment in C.C.No. 263 of 2019 on the file of the Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

1 Date of Offence: 13-04-2019 2 Date of Report: 13-04-2019 3 Date of arrest of A1 to A4: 19-04-2019 (Issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices) 4 Date of release of A1 to A4: ------------- 5 Date of commencement of trial : 11-11-2024 6 Date of close of trial: 05-12-2024 7 Date of Judgment: 22-04-2025 8 Complainant: State: The Sub-Inspector of Police,

Giddalur Police Station.

9 A1 to A4:

I.Kathi Suresh @ Suresh Babu, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 29 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A1) ii.Kathi Balajoji, W/o. Ramaiah, aged about 65 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A2)

Iii. Kathi Ananda Rao, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 39 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A3) iv.Kathi Mohan Babu, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 30 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A4)

Case against A2 was abated

10. Offence : u/sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC.

11. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.

12. Finding of Court : Found not guilty.

13. Sentence or Order :

In the result, A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 324 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled.

No property is seized and no order passed.

CC.No.263/2019 2 Dt.22-04-2025

Explanation for delay: - This case was taken on file on 14-06-2019 for the offence punishable u/Sec. 324 r/w 34 of IPC, against A1 to A4.

After appearance of A1 to A4 on 19-12-2019, copies of all the documents were furnished to them u/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C. Case against A2 is abated.

On 06-05-2024, A1, A3 and A4 were examined u/Sec. 239 of Cr.P.C. On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined, got marked Exs P1 to

P7. On closure of prosecution evidence, on 12-02-2025 A1, A3 and A4 were examined u/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., On behalf of defence side evidence is closed. On 08-04-2025 heard arguments. On 22-04-2025 Judgment

Pronounced. Hence the delay.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

CC.No.263/2019 3 Dt.22-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS :

GIDDALUR

Present: Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, Tuesday, this the Twenty Second (22nd) day of April, 2025. Calendar Case 263 of 2019

Between:

The State,

Represented through Sub-Inspector of Police,

Giddalur Police Station.

………. Complainant

And

1.Kathi Suresh @ Suresh Babu, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 29 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A1)

2.Kathi Balajoji, W/o. Ramaiah, aged about 65 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A2)

3.Kathi Ananda Rao, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 39 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A3)

4.Kathi Mohan Babu, S/o. Balajoji, aged about 30 years, Satyavolu Village, Racherla Mandal. (A4)

Case against A2 was abated

……...…..... A1 to A4

This case has came before me on 08-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and Sri

K.Ravi Prakash Babu, advocate for A1, A3 and A4 and the matter having been 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, Giddalur Police Station laid charge sheet against A1 to A4 in Crime No. 118 of 2019 for the offence punishable under section 324 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

CC.No.263/2019 4 Dt.22-04-2025

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

On 10-04-2019 LW1 Kathi Naveen, came to Sathyavolu village from

Hyderabad for casting his vote in view of Assembly Elections. On 13-04- 2019 when he was returning to Hyderabad, he came to his sister’s house

Kalavathi, Giddalur, at about 11 AM he received phone call from A1 and asked him to attend panchayath to be carried out at Government School in the presence of elders regarding site dispute. Then LW1 Kathi Naveen went to Sathyavolu village at about 2 PM, where A1 to A4 present and took place galata with LW1 Kathi Naveen and bet him, he received bleeding injury on his head and also other injuries on his body. Then he went and gave report to the police. On the basis of the same LW8

Sudhakar, Head Constable, registered a case in Cr.No. 118/2019 U/sec.

324 r/w 34 of IPC. Then the investigating officer examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, then he issued 41 A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After completion of investigation LW9 SI Samadhar Vali, filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.The case has been taken on file for the offence punishable u/Sec.

324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4.

4. On appearance of the all accused, the copies of the documents were required U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to them. Case against A2 was abated.

5.A1, A3 and A4 were examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges were framed for the offence punishable U/sec. 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C against A1,

CC.No.263/2019 5 Dt.22-04-2025

A3 and A4, its contents were explained to them in Telugu language for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 have been examined and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 are marked.

7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, A1, A3 and A4 were examined u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material spelt out by the prosecution witnesses was put to them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8. Heard the arguments on both sides.

9. Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the

guilt against A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under

sections 324 r/w 34 of IPC ?”

POINT:

10. PW1 K.Naveen Kumar, deposed that, on 10-04-2019 he started from Hyderabad and came to his village Satyavolu for casting his vote on 11-04-2019. After completion of casting his vote, on 13-04-2019 he came to Giddaluru at about 11 a.m. in order to go to Hyderabad. In the meanwhile A1 telephoned and informed him that you come to Satyavolu village to talk regarding settlement of properties. Immediately, he returned to Satyavolu village and went to Government School in his village, where A1 to A4, LW3-Kathi Prakasam, LW5-Samuel, LW6-Murali and one Kathi Sambu (not cited) were present there. He noticed that above said all persons talked with each other regarding lands. He sat

CC.No.263/2019 6 Dt.22-04-2025

there at a distance of 50 meters from all accused. All accused came upon him, A1 beat him with stone on his hand and caused bleeding injury. A2 to A4 twisted him indiscriminately, made him on the floor. In the mean while one Kathi Samba, Prakasam, Rajasekhar, Samuel and Murali came and rescued him from the hands of the accused. His mother shifted him to Government Hospital, Giddaluru in an auto, for treatment. Police came and recorded his statement Ex.P1. Police examined him.

11. PW2 K. Rangamma, deposed that, on 13-04-2019 after casting vote by PW1 while he was returning from their village to Hyderabad, this incident was occurred at Government School at about 12 noon, A1 to A4 beat PW1 with stones and PW1 received bleeding injury on his head. By that time she was at her house, after knowing the same, she reached to the spot and noticed that PW1 received bleeding injury on his head, fell down on the ground. Immediately she shifted him to police station in an auto, from there police referred him to Government Hospital, Giddaluru, for treatment. She was examined by the police.

12. PW3 K. Prakasam, PW4 K.Samuel, PW5 K.Murali, deposed that, they do not know anything about the case facts. They were not examined by the police and turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution.

13. PW6 A.Sushma, CSS, deposed that, on 16-04-2019 at about 1 PM she has examined PW1 and found following injuries.

1. A sutured injury measuring 2x0.5 cm present over right parietal region of scalp.

CC.No.263/2019 7 Dt.22-04-2025

2. An abrasion measuring 3x2 cm present over left side of back of chest.

She is of the opinion that the above said injuries are simple in nature might have been caused by sharp object, age of the injures 3 to 5 days prior to her examination, she issued wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P5.

14. PW7 K.Sudhakar, ASI Special branch, deposed that, on 16-04-2019 on the basis of statement of PW1 he registered a case in Cr.No. 118/2019

U/sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, Ex.P6 is FIR. He took up investigation in this case he examined PWs 1 to 5, LW4 Rajasekhar, recorded their statements. She sent PW1 to hospital for treatment. He visited the scene of offence situated nearer to vacant site of PW1, observed the scene, prepared rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P7, he issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to

A1 to A4 on 19-04-2019. After receipt of wound certificate of PW1, after verifying the investigation done by him the LW9 Samandarvali, SI, filed charge sheet against all accused.

15. As per version of prosecution that, on 10-04-2019 PW1 came to

Sathyavolu village from Hyderabad, after casting his vote on 13-04-2019 he came to Giddalur in order to go to Hyderabad. In meanwhile A1 telephoned him to come to Government High School, in Sathyavolu village, immediately he went there, the all accused bet him indiscriminately caused bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of his body. Then he gave report to the police Ex.P1.

16. On the other hand, the total 15 houses were situated nearer to the place of incident. On the same day of incident the PW1 admitted in the hospital. By the time of incident the surrounding owners came to the spot

CC.No.263/2019 8 Dt.22-04-2025

immediately after incident he went to the Government Hospital, Giddalur.

Police came and recorded his statement Ex.P1. Immediately after the incident he lost his consciousness and he regained his consciousness in hospital. Admittedly, the place of incident situated in the residential locality. So, there may be a chance to gather so many persons by the time of incident who are the truthful witnesses regarding incident.

17. PW6 Medical officer, who gave treatment to PW1 stated that, one sutured injury present over right parietal region of scalp, another one is an abrasion present over the left side of back of chest and gave opinion that the above said both injuries are simple in nature. Further admitted that, the injuries on PW1 may be possible to receive if fallen from the height with sufficient force. After registering this case the investigating officer PW7 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and issued 41 A Cr.P.C notices to all accused, after receipt of wound certificate of PW1, after completion of investigation LW9 Samandhar Vali, SI filed charge sheet against the accused.

18. Further the Investigating officer stated that, the incident was occurred on 13-04-2019 and PW1 statement was recorded Ex.P1 on 16-04-2019 after admitting in hospital. So, there was a gap of nearly 4 days for Ex.P1 from the date of incident. There is no explanation regarding giving of delay of Ex.P1 from the prosecution, reasons best known to them.

19. PW2 who is the mother of PW1 admitted that, by the time of incident she was in her house, after knowing the same she went to the spot, she

CC.No.263/2019 9 Dt.22-04-2025

further admitted that they directly went to the police station in an auto.

Then they went to Government Hospital. But they gave report on 16-04- 2019 since the incident was occurred on 13-04-2019. PWs 3 to 5 who are the independent eyewitnesses to the incident, completely turned hostile, not supported with the version of prosecution. The Ex.P2 to P4 are the contents of 161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 3 to 5. Hence their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

20. On the other hand, except the selfserving statements of PWs 1 and 2 who are son and mother, no other independent eyewitnesses evidence is available on record against all accused. At least PW1 could not able to speak about the actual overt acts and also the names of all accused.

21. There is no cogent, consist, and considerable evidence against the all accused. The chain of circumstances not proved by the prosecution that accused are the author of the commission of offence. In view of the above said discussion benefit of doubt goes to the accused.

22. In the result, A1, A3 and A4 are found not guilty for the offence under sections 324 r/w 34 IPC, and they are acquitted for the same U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C, their bail bonds if any shall stands cancelled. No property is seized and no order passed.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22 nd day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR.

CC.No.263/2019 10 Dt.22-04-2025

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: K.Naveen Kumar. - NIL -

PW2: K.Rangamma.

PW3: K.Prakasam.

PW4: K.Samuel.

PW5: K.Murali.

PW6: A.Sushma, CSS.

PW7: K.Sudhakar, ASI Special branch.

Exhibits marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1: Statement of PW1 dated 16-04-2019. - NIL -

Ex.P2: Contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

Ex.P3: Contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

Ex.P4: Contents of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.

Ex.P5: Wound Certificate of PW1 dated 21-05-2019.

Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No. 118/2019 of Giddalur PS.

Ex.P7: Rough Sketch nil dated.

Material Objects Marked for

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

- NIL - - NIL -

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

AJFCM, GDLR.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole.

MC.No. 31/2023 1 Dt.24-04-2025

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: GIDDALUR

Present: Smt. B.Mary Sara Danamma, Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur

Thursday, the Twenty Fourth (24 th ) day of April, 2025

M.C. No. 31 of 2023

Between:

i.Benika Chandrakala, W/o. Pedda Yogaiah, aged about 22 years, Housewife, Hindu, R/o. Viswanadhapuram

Village, Thripuranthakam Mandal, Prakasam District, now residing in her parents house at Prasanthi nagar,

Giddalur village, Giddalur mandal, Prakasam district.

ii. Benika Venkata Saanvika, D/o. Pedda Yogaiah, aged about one year, Minor.

(2nd petitioner is minor, represented by her mother natural guardian Benika Chandrakala i.e., 1st petitioner.

... Petitioners

Vs.

Benika Pedda Yogaiah, S/o. Chinna Pitchaiah, aged about 26 years, Hindu, Business, native of

Pothrajutur, Ardhaveedu mandal, Prakasam district, now residing in Viswanadhapuram village,

Thripuranthakam mandal, Prakasam District.

... Respondent

This petition is coming on 03-04-2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.N.Sesha Sayana Reddy, advocate for the Petitioners and of Sri D.Siddaiah, advocate for the Respondent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

MC.No. 31/2023 2 Dt.24-04-2025

-::O R D E R::-

1. The 1st Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondent on behalf of herself and her daughter 2nd petitioner, praying to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the 1st petitioner and Rs.5,000/- per month to the 2nd petitioner from the date of filing the petition, to direct the respondent to pay maintenance amount to them with costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are:

The 1st petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage was performed on 21-08-2021 in Viswanadhapuram village,

Thripuranthakam mandal according to their rites and customs prevailing in the society. By that time the parents of 1st petitioner presented Rs. 5,00,000/- and 13 thulas of gold to the respondent towards dowry. After marriage the 1st petitioner joined with the respondent/her husband to lead marital life at her in- laws house. They lived happily for some period, thereafter the respondent and his mother and brother started harassment against 1st petitioner by demanding additional dowry amount from her parents, as the respondent is working in Army services. After two months of their marriage the respondent joined in his duties and he made video calls with 1st petitioner in uniform dress with a view to made believing the 1st petitioner that he is in Army on duty.

After 4 months the respondent came to their house and informed her that he came on leave, by that time also the respondent and his mother and brother harassed the 1st petitioner by demanding additional dowry amount. After one

MC.No. 31/2023 3 Dt.24-04-2025

and half month the respondent left their house by saying that, he is going to job. The 1st petitioner conceived pregnancy while she was in the 9th month pregnancy she came to her parents house and gave delivery of 2nd petitioner on 23-05-2022, one day before deliver the respondent came to Giddalur village, immediately after gave birth to 2nd petitioner the respondent went to

Viswanadhapuram village without intimation to 1st petitioner. The respondent and his family members did not attend any functions which were conducted in view of occasion of new born child through 1st petitioner. The respondent insulted the 1st petitioner by saying that, she gave birth to female child. The respondent also stated to the 1st petitioner that after fulfill their demands of

additional dowry amounts then only they will allow the 1st petitioner.

Thereafter, the 1st petitioner and her parents came to know that the respondent is not doing any job and cheated them by saying that, he is an

Army employee. The respondent also having illegal contact with other lady by residing at Guntur, and the family members of respondent supported him.

They held panchayath but in vain. The respondent neglected the 1st and 2nd petitioners to receive them and to maintain them. The respondent is doing sheeps and goats business and getting income Rs. 50,000/- per month and he is owning lands to an extent of Ac. 5 cents in Viswanadhapuram village and getting income Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum and he is also having two houses and sites in Viswanadhapuram village and he is having sufficient income, means and capacity to pay the maintenance to the both petitioners,

MC.No. 31/2023 4 Dt.24-04-2025

hence the petition.

3.On the other hand, the Respondent filed counter by denying some of the petition allegations. Further contention of respondent that, the respondent is doing cultivation and he is getting only Rs. 3,000/- per month and he is having Ac. 5 cents of land in Viswanadhapuram village and he has no means and capacity to pay the maintenance, kindly may be dismiss the petition.

4.In order to prove her case the 1st petitioner examined herself as PW1.

PWs 2 to 4 were also examined on her behalf, Ex.P1 and P2 are marked.

RW1 and RW2 examined on behalf of respondent and no documents were marked.

5.Heard the arguments on both sides.

6.Now the points for determination of this Court are: -

i) Whether the petitioners voluntarily deserted the respondent without sufficient cause?

ii) Whether respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the

petitioners?

Iii) Whether petitioners are entitled for the maintenance from the

respondent as prayed for ? If so to what relief?

7. POINT No.(i): Whether the 1 st petitioner voluntarily deserted the respondent without sufficient cause?

Carefully perused the entire evidence on record. As seen from the evidence the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The dispute is

MC.No. 31/2023 5 Dt.24-04-2025

only with regard to the reason for their desertion. U/sec. 125 Cr.P.C. the destitute wife, children and old aged parents are entitled for maintenance. For the purpose of convenience the substance of Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. which is required for the purpose of this case is briefed as under.

Under Sec.125 (1) Cr.P.C.

This court can order for payment of maintenance,

If the respondent is having sufficient means,

a) Neglects or refuses to maintain his wife and children

b) Who are unable to maintain themselves.

Further In the proviso to Sub Sec. (3) of Sec. 125 Code of Criminal

Procedure it is provided that “ if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such

Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may

make an order under this section not withstanding such offer, if he is

satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.”

Sec. 125 (4) Cr.P.C . provides “No wife shall be entitled to receive

an 'allowance for the maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the

case may be' from her husband under this section if she is living in

adultery or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her

husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.

8.The marriage of the 1st petitioner with the respondent is not in dispute.

It is also not in dispute that a female child was born to them and she is living

MC.No. 31/2023 6 Dt.24-04-2025

along with the 1st petitioner. There is no dispute that 1st petitioner and respondent are living separately. It has to be seen whether the petitioner is having any just ground and whether she is living separately without any sufficient reason as provided under Section 125(3) and 125(4) Cr.P.C., referred above.

9. On careful perusal of the evidence on record, as per the evidence of

PW1, there appears two reasons for their separation. First one is that the respondent is demanding additional dowry from the parents of 1st petitioner, and the Second one is that the respondent along with her parents harassed the 1st petitioner with both mental and physically for huge amounts by neglecting the petitioners and used to beat her indiscriminately on several occasions.

10. The evidence of PW2 who is the father of 1st petitioner, PWs 3 and 4 who are the independent witnesses, supported with the version of PW1. As per version of PWs 1 to 4, they held mediation on several occasions in between both parties, but in vain. For some period the petitioner and respondent resided happily. Whenever the respondent used to harass the 1st petitioner and neglected the 1st and 2nd petitioners to look after their welfare, she informed the same to her parents, they came and requested the respondent not to do like that and to look after her properly. From the above discussion it appears that on several occasions the respondent harassed the

PW1. Thereafter PW1 is living along with her parents.

MC.No. 31/2023 7 Dt.24-04-2025

11.As per version of 1st petitioner that after the performance of their marriage they lived happily for a period of some years. After that the respondent neglected the petitioners to maintain them to lead marital life and also further the respondent and his family members cheated the 1st petitioner by saying that the respondent is working in Army. To substantiate the version of PW1 the evidence of her is to be observed carefully. As per PW1 their marriage was performed on 21-08-2021 and admitted the same fact, there is no disputes regarding the same in between both parties. Thereafter they blessed one daughter i.e, 2nd petitioner. Thereafter the respondent did not receive the 1st and 2nd petitioners since the date of delivery of 1st petitioner by not maintaining them and he did not look after their welfare. Further the respondent and his family members put a condition that if the parents of 1st petitioner failed to comply the demand of additional dowry amount they will not allow the 1st and 2nd petitioners into their house.

12. The respondent mentioned in his counter that the 1st petitioner is not willing to reside along with respondent and she herself went to her parents house along with 2nd petitioner without intimation to the respondent and his parents. So, there is a negligency on the part of the 1st petitioner against respondent.

13. The respondent filed his chief affidavit towards his chief examination as RW1 and RW2 also examined on his behalf by mentioning the similar contents which were mentioned in his counter.

MC.No. 31/2023 8 Dt.24-04-2025

14. POINT No.(ii): Whether respondent is having sufficient means to maintain the petitioners?

15. P.W1. has been contending that the respondent is not providing any thing to her and her daughter. Though, the respondent doing sheep and goats business and getting income Rs. 50,000/- per month and he is owning lands to an extent of Ac. 5 cents in Viswanadhapuram village and getting income Rs. 3,00,000/- per annum and he is also having two houses and sites in Viswanadhapuram village and he is having sufficient income, means and capacity to pay the maintenance to the both petitioners.

In this regard, u/s 125 Cr.P.C. it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife who is not having sufficient means to maintain her. Having able body to work is enough for the respondent to maintain his wife. Hence, this point is answered in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

16. POINT No.(iii): Whether the petitioners are entitled for the maintenance from the respondent as prayed for?

17. P.W.1 has been contending that she is unable to maintain her and her daughter. And therefore an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is required to her and Rs.5,000/- per month is required to the second petitioner i.e. her daughter. On perusal of record it reveals that as discussed earlier in Point

No.1 and 2 that the 1st petitioner is not able to maintain herself and the respondent is having sufficient means to maintain petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are squarely entitled to get maintenance from Respondent.

MC.No. 31/2023 9 Dt.24-04-2025

Accordingly this point is answered.

To What Relief:

18. In the result, this petition is allowed, by granting the monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen Thousands Rupees Only) per month to the 1st petitioner and for Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousands Rupees Only) per month to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of filing of this petition. Total maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousands Rupees only) payable by the respondent. The respondent is directed to pay the total maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- to the 1st and 2nd petitioners on or before 10th day of every month without fail.

Typed to my Dictation by the Personal Assistant corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 24 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

GIDDALUR

Appendix of Evidence

Witnessed examined

For Petitioners : For Respondent :

PW.1: B.Chandrakala. RW.1: B.Pedda Yogaiah.

PW.2: Chinthalapalli Chennaiah. RW.2: B.Chinna Yogaiah.

PW.3: G.Narayana.

PW.4: Y.Chiranjeevi.

MC.No. 31/2023 10 Dt.24-04-2025

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners: For Respondent:

Ex.P1: Wedding card belongs to 1st petitioner and - NIL - the respondent/husband.

Ex.P2: Marriage photo.

Sd/-Smt B.Mary Sara Danamma,

Addl. J.M.F.C. Giddalur

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ::

GIDDALUR

Present: Sri A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Friday, this the Twenty fifth (25th) day of April, 2025

O.S. No. 257 of 2019

Between:-

Yarraboina Ramanaiah @ Ramana, S/o. Venkataiah, Hindu, Cultivation, aged about 40 years, resident of 9th Ward, Rowthupalli Village, Komarole

Mandal, Prakasam District.

.... Plaintiff

AND

Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu, S/o. Prasad Rao, Hindu, Employee, resident of

Gopanipalli Village, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. (Died) His L.Rs.

1. Butti Subhasini, W/o. Late Prasada Rao, Housewife, aged about 65 years,

2. Butti Ranjith Kumar, S/o. Late Prasad Rao, Business, aged about 37 years,

3. Madasu Deepa Rani, D/o. Late Prasada Rao, W/o. Naveen Kumar,

Housewife, aged about 30 years,

Defendants 1 to 3 are Hindus, native of Gopanipalli Village,

Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District. Now residing at near House of

Pulakurthy Venkateswarlu, Komarole Village and Mandal, Prakasam District.

.… Defendants

This suit came before me on 22-04-2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.N. Seshasayana Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and of

Sri D. Siddaiah, Advocate for defendants 1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments of both side counsels; upon perusing the material papers on record and having (Fair) 2 stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a suit filed on behalf of plaintiff against the estate of deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu lying in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 with a prayer to grant a decree for recovery of Rs. 1,21,800/- (Rupees One lakh twenty one thousand eight hundred only) being the principle and interest said to be due basing on a promissory note, dated: 16-03-2018 said to be executed by the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu in favour of plaintiff having borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum.

02.The brief averments of plaint are that on 16-03-2018 the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu who is son of 1st defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3, during his life time borrowed an amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum and he executed a promissory note in favour of plaintiff. Subsequently, the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu died intestate without discharging the suit promissory note debt to the plaintiff by leaving behind him, the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and they succeeded the estate of the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendants 1 to 3 did not choose to repay the suit amount to him. Hence, this suit.

03.The brief averments of the written statement filed by the defendants are that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither true nor just and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts and denied entire allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint except the relationship of them with the deceased

Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu and further submitted that due to the death of (Fair) 3 deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu, the plaintiff filed this false suit by forging and fabricating the promissory note. There is no consideration passed under the suit promissory note. Only due to advantage that the deceased was an unmarried employee, the plaintiff created the forged and fabricated document for wrongful gain with an intention to cause wrongful gain from the defendants 1 to 3.

(i) It is further averred that during the life time of the deceased B. A. Anil Kiran Babu had good relationship with the plaintiff. Both are friends through they are belongs to different community, further the plaintiff is the family friend of the defendants. Hence, taking advantage that as B. A.

Anil Kiran Babu died only in order to knock out the death benefits of the deceased B.A. Anil Kiran Babu by filing this fictitious suit.

(ii) It is further averred that before filing of the suit, the plaintiff shall be issued the leal notice to the Leal Representatives of deceased

B.A. Anil Kiran Babu, but due to hurry and with malafide intention, directly the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendants, because it is condition precedent that when the deceased died the plaintiff shall be issued legal notice for seeking repayment of the alleged debt amount. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

04.Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial:-

1. Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by cash consideration or not?

2. Whether the plaintiff forged the signature of the deceased Butti Anand

Anil Kiran Babu or not?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim against the estate of the deceased as prayed for?

(Fair) 4

4. To what relief?

05.On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as

P.W.1 and got marked Ex. A1 and he further examined the scribe of Ex. A1 promissory note as P.W. 2. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, none is examined and no document is marked.

06.Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

ISSUE Nos. 1 to 3:- (Discussed in Common) “Whether the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by cash consideration or not?

“ Whether the plaintiff forged the signature of the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu or not?”

and

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim against the estate of the deceased as prayed for?”

07.To prove the contention of the plaintiff, the initial burden is on the plaintiff and to discharge the same, the plaintiff got himself examined as

P.W.1. Wherein in his chief examination, he deposed on par with plaint averments stating that during the life time of the son of 1st defendant and brother of defendants 2 and 3 namely Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu who was in need of money borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from him on 16-03-2018 and executed Ex. A1 promissory note agreeing to repay the same with an interest of 18% per annum. Subsequently, the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu died intestate without discharging the suit promissory note debt to the plaintiff by leaving behind him, the defendants 1 to 3 as his legal heirs and they succeeded the estate of the deceased Butti

Anand Anil Kiran Babu. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, (Fair) 5 the defendants 1 to 3 did not choose to repay the suit amount to him.

08.In support of his oral contention, the suit promissory note is marked as Ex. A1. During the course of cross examination nothing contrary is elicited except putting suggestions which are denied. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff examined the scribe of Ex. A1 promissory note as

P.W. 2 and he filed his chief examination affidavit by reiterating the contents of the plaint and he corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 in all aspects.

During the course of cross examination nothing contrary is elicited except putting suggestions which are denied. Further, the plaintiff evidence was closed.

09.The defendants though filed their written statement by alleging that the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu did not borrow any amount and never executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff got created the same by forgery to have an unlawful gain, but no evidence is placed before this court in this regard. Further, the defendants failed to appear before this court to state the contents of written statement on oath and failed to offer themselves for cross examination by the P.W.1.

Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by cash consideration and it is not a forged one.

10.This court hereby relies on the decision reported in 1999 (3)

ALT (1) SC B. Vidhyadhar Vs. Manik Rao and another wherein it is held that

“Presumption under section 114 of Evidence Act has to be drawn against

the party who did not enter into witness box that what he pleas is not

correct”. As per the above decision when a party did not adduce any evidence on his/her behalf in order to substantiate his/her contentions they cannot be considered. In this case also though the defendants filed written statement and made contentions that the deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran (Fair) 6

Babu never borrowed the suit amount on the basis of interest from the plaintiff and plaintiff forged the suit promissory note and filed this suit for wrongful gain but the defendants did not substantiate their contentions by adducing evidence on their behalf. Hence, the above contentions of defendants cannot be considered. On the other hand, the plaintiff by examining himself as P.W. 1 and the scribe of Ex. A1 promissory note as P.W. 2 and by marking the suit promissory note as Ex. A1, he proved that the suit promissory note is true, valid and supported by cash consideration and it is not a forged one, hence the plaintiff proved his case against the defendants and plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim.

11.Since the defendants failed to rebut the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and basing on the findings on issue Nos. 1 to 3, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of presumption available under section 118 of

Negotiable Instrument Act as to the passing of consideration, accordingly it is supported by consideration, hence the same is binding on the defendants 1 to

3. Therefore, I could not find any merits in the defence of defendants. Since the defendants failed to pay the debt due under the suit promissory note, accordingly the issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

ISSUE No. 4 :- “To what relief?”

12.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs against the estate of deceased Butti Anand Anil Kiran Babu which is now in the hands of defendants 1 to 3 for sum of Rs. 1,21,800/- (Rupees One lakh twenty one thousand eight hundred only) with subsequent interest at 12% per annum on

Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the date of presentation of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of (Fair) 7 realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25 th day of April, 2025

Sd/- A. Omkar,

Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Division), Giddalur

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff:- For Defendants:-

P.W. 1 : Yarraboina Ramanaiah @ Ramana - None -

P.W. 2 : Shaik Inthiyaz

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:-

Ex. A1 :Suit promissory note, dated: 16-03-2018 for Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) executed by the deceased Butti Anand

Anil Kiran Babu in favour of plaintiff.

For Defendants:- - NIL - Ild/- xxxx,

P.C.J. (J.D.),

G.D.L.R., (Fair)