Smt B.Nirmala, ASCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

:: ANANTHAPURAMU

Present :- Smt. B. Nirmala,

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025

ORIGINAL SUIT No.102/2018

Between :

S.Khasim Sab @ Singanamala Khasim Sab S/o late Singanamala Rasool

Sab, aged about 82 years, Sr. Citizen, Business, D.No.12-1-361, Ashok

Nagar, Anantapuramu City and District. (Died) by L.Rs.1 to 6 plaintiffs.

1. Shaik Rasool Bee W/o Late S.Khasim Sab, aged 70 years,

2. Shaik Mabu (Died), S/o Late S.Khasim Sab, aged 55 years,

3. Shaik Parveen, W/o Late Shaik Chand Basha, aged 48 years,

4. Shaik Mumtaz Begum, D/o Late S.Chand Basha, aged 22 years,

5. Shaik Shahanaz Begum, D/o Late S.Chand Basha, aged 21 years,

6. Shaik Rehanaz Begum D/o Late S.Chand Basha, aged 19 years,

All are R/o D.No.12/1/361, Ashok Nagar, Ananthapuramu City & District.

(Plaintiffs No.1 to 6 are added as per the orders in I.A.No. 195/2021 dt.7.1.2022)

7. S.Meharun W/o late Shaik Mabu aged 50 years, Muslim,

8. S.Noor Mohammad S/o late Shaik Mabu aged 23 years,

Plaintiffs No.7 & 8 are residing at D.No 12-1-795, 3rd Cross, Ashok Nagar,

Anantapuramu (Plaintiffs No.7 and 8 are added as per the orders in I.A No.295/2023 dt.22.8.2023). … Plaintiffs

And

2

1.S.Safiya Begum W/o S.Peera, aged 65 years, Plot No.10, Vijayanagara Colony, Bangalore Road, Anantapuramu city and District.

2.S. Shabana Parveen, W/o S.Noor Mohammad, aged 55 years, Muslim, R/o D.No 11/1/401, Aravinda Nagar, Anantapuramu City.

…. Defendants

This suit coming on this day i.e. on 04.04.2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri S.A. Ishaq Basha, Advocate for the

plaintiffs and of Sri S.Md. Hafeezulla, Advocate for the defendant

No.2 and the defendant No.1 is remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separation of plaintiff’s 2/3rd share in the entire plaint schedule properties by way of preliminary decree likewise the 1st defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share and for costs of suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(a) The plaintiff is the son of Late Singanamala Rasool Sab. The defendant No. 1 is the daughter of Late Singanamala Rasool Sab and 2nd defendant is the third party who joined hands along with defendant No.1 and created some nominal documents play fraud against the plaintiff to deprive his legitimate share. Originally the Item No 1 of the plaint schedule property is the property possessed and owned by late Singanamala Rasool

Sab and Item No.2 of the schedule property stands in the name of

Mahaboob Bee who is the wife of Singanamala Basha own brother of plaintiff and the defendant No.1. Singanamala Rasool Sab died in the year 1989, his wife by name Haji Bee died subsequently intestate, the younger 3 brother of plaintiff and 1st defendant, Singanamala Basha and his wife

Mahaboob Bee died one after one issueless, the plaintiff who is the resident of Anantapuramu was sharing his share in the usufruct as the defendant

No.1 has developed negative attitude with an intention to exclude the plaintiff from sharing the properties left behind his parents and late brother and his wife late Mahaboob Bee who died issueless, and defendant No. 1 has been created some nominal documents in favour of third party i.e 2nd defendant without any consideration. The plaintiff continues as sharer and tenants in common in spite of documents created in favour of third parties the plaintiff is entitled for 2/3rd share and whereas defendant No.1 is entitled for 1/3rd share in all the properties left behind their parents and ancestors. The plaintiff feels that it is no longer safe for him to continue in joint possession of the properties with defendant No.1. Hence the suit for partition and separate possession of his 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. Even intervention of the community elders and relatives of the both parties for amicable partition proved futile. The plaintiff also got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 on 5.2.2018 demanding his share of 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. The same is returned unserved and defendant No.2 received the same but given reply notice dated 14.2.2018 with untenable grounds which are not recognized in the provisions of

Mohammad Law. Thus the plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

(b) The plaintiff and 1st defendant are continuing their joint property status with regard to the suit properties. There is no partition either by document or oral by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is obliged to file suit for partition the properties mentioned in the schedule for his 2/3rd share and allot such share to him and for separate possession. The suit is filed for 4 partition of the plaintiff 2/3rd share in total and he sought partition of the suit schedule properties. In meantime, the 1st defendant is not entitled to dispose of the plaint schedule properties (Property to 2nd defendant or anybody by means of will, gift or sale transaction. If disposed, the same is not binding upon the plaintiff to the extent of his share i.e 2/3rd in entire schedule properties.

During the pendency of the suit, sole plaintiff died leaving behind him his wife, son, deceased son's wife and daughters as his legal heirs and legal representatives, their right to sue and to be sued survives, and hence they are added as plaintiffs No.1 to 6 as Legal heirs/representatives of the deceased plaintiff as per law. (Para 7(A) added as per orders in

I.A.No.195/2021 dt. 07.1.2022).

During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd plaintiff died leaving behind him plaintiffs No.7 and 8 as his legal heirs. The 7th plaintiff is wife, 8th plaintiff is son of deceased 2nd plaintiff. The estate of deceased 2nd plaintiff devolved upon the plaintiffs No.7 and 8 as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs

No.7 and 8 are entitled to the share of the 2nd plaintiff. (Para 7(b) added as per orders in I.A.No.295/2023 dt.22.8.2023). Hence the suit.

3.The defendant No.1 is remained exparte as per the order dt.11.4.2018.

The defendant No.2 filed his written statement, denied the plaint contents and submits It is true that the plaintiff is the son of Late

Singanamala Rasool Sab and the first defendant is daughter of Late

Singanamala Rasool Sab. It is not true that the second defendant is the third party who joined hands along first defendant and created some nominal documents to play fraud against the plaintiff to deprive his 5 legitimate share. It is true that the item No.1 of suit schedule properties belongs to Singanamala Rasool Sab. It is true that he died in the year 1989 intestate leaving behind him Shaik Kasim Sab @ Singanamala Khasim

Sab, Late Singanamala Basha and first defendant. It is not true that

Singanamala Basha died issueless and intestate. It is true that during the life time of Late Singanamala Rasool acquired the item No.1 of plaint schedule properties. It is submitted that the said Late Singanamala Rasool gifted the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties to his son Singanamala

Basha on 20-01-1977 under a registered gift deed bearing Doc.

No.237/1977 and from then the said Singanamala Basha is in possession and enjoyment of the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties. On 05-09- 2005 the Singanamala Basha gifted the Item No.1 of plaint schedule properties to the second defendant through a registered gift deed bearing

No.11881/2005 dated 05-09-2005 and from then the second defendant is in continuous possession and uninterrupted enjoyment of the same. It is not true that the late Singanamala Basha also acquired the properties in the name of his wife Late S.Mahaboob Bee. The Late S.Mahaboob Bee acquired Item No.2 of plaint schedule properties herself who is the mother of second defendant. The said Mahaboob Bee has purchased the Item

No.2 of plaint schedule properties from G.Sudarshan Reddy, G.Raghava

Reddy and M.Ravikumar Reddy for a valid and proper consideration of

Rs.50,000/- under a registered sale deed bearing Doc.No. 17020/2006 dt.30-11-2006. It is not true that first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said property jointly. The said Mahaboob Bee died leaving behind her the second defendant and husband Singanamala Basha. After death of the Mahboob Bee the second defendant and Singanamala Basha entered into a partition deed on 01-12-2014 under a registered partition 6 deed No.11321/2014. The partition deed purports that the Item No.2 of the plaint schedule properties is allotted to the share of second defendant and from the second defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the item No.2 of plaint schedule properties. The except in para No.4 that the plaintiff who is resident of Anantapur was sharing his share in the usufruct at the defendant-1 has developed negative attitude with an intention to exclude the plaintiff sharing the properties left behind his parents and late brother and his wife Late Mahaboob Bee who died issueless and first defendant has been created some nominal documents in favour of third party i.e., second defendant without any consideration are totally denied. The excerpt in para-5 that the plaintiff continues as sharer and tenant in common inspite of documents created in favour of third parties the plaintiff is entitled for 2/3rd share and where as first defendant entitled 1/3rd share in all the properties left behind their parents and ancestors is denied as blatant lie.

There are no joint family properties for partition, hence the suit is not maintainable. It is true that the plaintiff issued a legal notice with sham and deceptive allegations which are totally phony and not genuine. There is no partition either by document or oral by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff is obliged to file the suit for partition of the properties mentioned in the schedule for his 2/3rd share and allot such share to him and for separate possession. As the plaint schedule properties are belongs to 2nd defendant, the question of share to her does not arise. The plaintiff does not have any sort of right or share in the plaint schedule properties and the properties are belongs to second defendant and she has open, peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, actual, physical possession and enjoyment and absolute rights over it and she confers all the rights including alienate the same. The plaintiff has no case on merits and alleged grounds are not only false but 7 invented for the purpose of this case. There is no cause of action for suit arose and alleged cause of action that when the Singanamala Rasool Sab and his wife died intestate and when Late Singanamal Basha and his wife late Mahaboob Bee died leaving behind the plaintiff and the 1st defendant leaving plaint schedule properties are denied and it is not correct that when the defendants created nominal deeds in their favour with an intention to exclude the share of the plaintiff in the plaint schedule properties. Therefore requested to dismiss the above suit with costs.

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1)Whether the plaintiff schedule properties are liable to partition?

(2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties?

(3)To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are got marked on behalf of plaintiff. The plaintiff also examined PW.2 and PW.3. Ex.A1 is Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendants dated 05.02.2018, Ex.A2 is

Served postal acknowledgment card to 2nd defendant dated 06.02.2018.

Ex.A3 is Reply notice issued by 2nd defendant dated 14.02.2018, EX.A4 is

Unserved postal cover to 1st defendant dated 08:02:2018, Ex.A5 is

Encumbrance Certificate of schedule property taken from Mee-seva dated 22-12-2017, Ex.A6 is Manual Encumbrance Certificate of schedule property 8 from 1956-82 dated 30-12-2017 and Ex.A7 is Copy of Registered sale deed for item No.2 dated 30-11-2006.

Chief affidavit of DW.1 filed, but the 2nd defendant failed to appear

before the court and he did not come forward for cross examination by the

counsel for the plaintiff, inspite of sufficient time given to the 2nd defendant.

Hence the defendant side evidence is closed.

6.While marking the documents on behalf of plaintiff, Ex.P7 certified copy of sale deed dt.30.11.2006 for item No.2 was marked by mistake and oversight instead of marking the document of valuation certificates (2 in number). Hence the plaintiff filed a petition under Section 151 CPC to delete the Ex.P7 certified copy of registered sale deed dt.30.11.2006 to rectify the said mistake and mark the valuation certificates (2 in number) as

Ex.P7 and the same is allowed as per the I.A.No.104/2025 dt.03.04.2025.

Hence hereafter Ex.P7 is treated as valuation certificates (2 in number).

7.Heard both sides.

Issue No.1 and 2:

1.Whether the plaintiff schedule properties are liable for partition?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 2/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties?

8.Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is the son and 1st defendant is daughter, another son and Singanamala Basha are the children of Singanamala Rasool Sab died in the year 1989 and his wife died subsequently intestate. The younger brother Singanamala Basha and his 9 wife Mahaboob Bee died one after another and they are issueless. The plaint schedule property consists of two items. Item No.1 of plaint schedule property owned by Singanamala Rasool Sab and item No.2 of plaint schedule property stands in the name of Mahaboob Bee W/o Singanamala

Basha. The plaintiff having share in the plaint schedule property in the property left by his parents and late brother and his wife who died issueless.

The plaintiff continued as sharer and tenant in common in the plaint schedule property and therefore he is entitled 2/3rd share and 1st defendant is entitled 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

9.It is the contention of the defendant No.2 that item No.1 of plaint schedule property belongs to Rasool Sab and he died in the year 1989 and it is the property acquired by Rasool Sab. Rasool Sab gifted item NO.1 of property to Singanamala Basha on 20.01.1977 under registered gift deed bearing Doc.No.237/1977 and Singanamala Basha is in possession of item

NO.1 of plaint schedule property and on 05.09.2005 Singanamala Basha gifted item No.1 of plaint schedule property to the 2nd defendant by way of registered gift deed No.11881/2005 dated 05.09.2005 and since then 2nd defendant is in continuous uninterrupted enjoyment of item No.1 of plaint schedule property. Mahaboob Bee acquired item No.2 of plaint schedule property who is the mother of 2nd defendant and she purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed on 30.11.2006 and she died leaving behind 2nd defendant and her husband Singanamala basha. After the death of Mahaboob Bee, the 2nd defendant and Singanamala Basha entered into registered partition dt.01.12.2014 and item No.2of plaint schedule property allotted to 2nd defendant/Parveen and she is in possession and enjoyment of item No2 of plaint schedule property. So 10

Mahaboob Bee died issueless and 1st defendant created nominal documents in favour of third party i.e. 2nd defendant without consideration is totally false. Hence requested to dismiss the suit.

10.To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. Plaintiff produced Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 documents. Ex.A1 is Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendants dated 05.02.2018, Ex.A2 is Served postal acknowledgment card to 2nd defendant dated 06.02.2018. Ex.A3 is Reply notice issued by 2nd defendant dated 14.02.2018, EX.A4 is Unserved postal cover to 1st defendant dated 08.02.2018, Ex.A5 is Encumbrance Certificate of schedule property taken from Mee-seva dated 22-12-2017, Ex.A6 is Manual

Encumbrance Certificate of schedule property from 1956-82 dated 30-12- 2017 and Ex.A7 is Copy of Registered sale deed for item No.2 dated 30-11- 2006.

PW.1 was cross examined by learned counsel for the defendants. In the cross examination of PW.1 he deposed that the suit schedule property consists of two items. PW.1 denied the suggestion put to him that on 20.01.1977 his father gifted schedule property to Singanamala Basha by way of registered gift deed and in turn Singanamala Basha gifted item NO.1 to the 2nd defendant on 09.05.2005. PW.1 further deposed that wife of his younger brother is no more and his brother purchased the property in the name of his wife. PW.1 denied the partition of property in between

Singanamala Basha and D2.

11

11.PW.2 is the son of 1st plaintiff and his evidence is corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. PW.2 denied the suggestion put to him that his father has got no right or interest in the suit schedule property.

12.PW.3 is another son of the 1st plaintiff corroborated his evidence with the evidence of PW.1. In the cross examination he denied the suggestion put to him that item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property are not stands in the name of Rasool Sab and Mahaboob Bee, they sold away the said item long back.

13.The defendants did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. Hence after giving sufficient time the evidence of defendant No.2 was closed.

14.It is the case of the plaintiff that Rasool Sab got three children i.e.

plaintiff, 1st defendant and Singabnamala basha. Item No.1 of plaint schedule property belongs to Rasool Sab and item NO.2 of plaint schedule property belongs to Mahaboob Bee wife of Singanamala basha. As per the case of the plaintiff Mahaboob Bee and Singanamala Basha died issueless.

Therefore item No.1 of plaint schedule property which was purchased by his father Rasool Sab and item No.2 of plaint schedule property which was purchased by Mahaboob Bee wife of Singanamala Basha was devolved to the plaintiff and 1st defendant as they both died issueless. Therefore the plaintiff being son entitled 2/3rd share and the 1st defendant being daughter is entitled 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule property.

15.Under Muslim law, the right to inherit property arises after the death of the ancestor. In other words, children born into a Muslim family do not automatically gain inheritance rights at birth. Inheritance rights are 12 contingent on surviving the ancestor. Each and every property that remains within the ownership of an individual can be inherited by his successors.

Whenever a Muslim dies, all his property whether acquired by him during his lifetime or inherited from his ancestors can be inherited by his legal heirs.

Categories of Heirs under Muslim Law: In Muslim law, there are two main categories of heirs they are Sharers and Residuaries. Sharers, the ones who are entitled to certain share in the deceased’s property. Husband,

Son, Daughter of Son, Father, Mother, Full Sister, uterine sister are sharers. Residuaries, the ones who would take up the share in the property that is left over after the sharers have taken their part. Wife, Daughter,

Paternal Grand father, Grand mothers on the male line, Consanguine

Sister, Uterine brother etc., are Residuaries.

Distribution of Shares in Property under Islamic Law in India:

Daughter's Share:

Sole Daughter: A sole daughter inherits half (1/2) of the estate.

Multiple Daughters: If there are two or more daughters, they collectively inherit two-thirds (2/3) of the estate.

With Sons: If there are sons, the sons receive double the share of the daughters. Daughters still inherit directly, but in proportion to the son's share (i.e., sons get twice the share of each daughter).

Son's Share: Sons receive double the share of daughters.

Example: If the estate is divided into parts, each son gets 2 parts while each daughter gets 1 part.

13

Generally, the heirs of a predeceased son or daughter (e.g., grandchildren) do not inherit directly under traditional Islamic law, but in some cases, they may inherit through a system of representation or a will (wasiyyah).

Hence, it is the contention of the plaintiff that plaintiff and defendant

No.1 will get shares in the property of their father. But, in this case, the defendants were failed to adduce evidence on their behalf and the evidence and the case of the plaintiffs is unchallenged and unrebutted and the defendants did not choose to prosecute their case and hence, the evidence of PW1 is intact and unchallenged and the plaintiffs clearly proved their case.

16.The learned counsel for the defendant No.2 did not turn up for filing of affidavits of examination-in-chief on defendant side. The defendant No.2 contended that Rasool Sab gifted the property to Singanamala basha and

Singanamala Basha gifted the property to 2nd defendant. No document was filed by the defendant to show that 2nd defendant is the daughter of

Singanamala basha and Mahaboob Bee. The defendant No.2 though contended that she is the absolute owner of the item No.1 and 2 of plaint schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed, but the same are not filed in this case in support of her contention. The defendants did not enter into witness box to shift the onus on him and due to non entering into witness box by the defendant, the plaintiff has lost his right to cross- examine the witnesses and as such an adverse inference is drawn against the defendant and that the defence taken by the defendant is not a believable one and as such the defendant has failed to support his defence.

17.In view of decision Vidhyadar Vs. Manikrao 1999 (3) ALT 1 (SC), in between and another. Hon’ble Apex Court observed at Para Nos.14 and 15 as follows :

14 “14. It was defendant No.1 who contended that the sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of the plaintiff, was fictitious and the whole transaction was a bogus transaction as only Rs.500/- were paid as a sale consideration to defendant No.2. He further claimed that payment of Rs.4,500/- to defendant No.2 at his home before the registration of the deed was wholly incorrect. This plea was not supported by defendant No.1 as he did not enter into the witness box. He did not state the facts pleaded in the written statement on oath in the trial Court and avoided the witness box so that he may not be cross examined. This by itself, is enough to reject the claim that the transaction of sale between defendant No.2 and the plaintiff was a bogus transaction.

15. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct as he has been held in a series of decisions passed by various High Courts and the Privy Council beginning from the decision in Sardar Gubakhsh Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh and another.....”

In view of the above discussion, the plaintiffs clearly proved their case and hence they are entitled for partition as sought for. Accordingly these issues are answered.

18.Under Mohammedan Law, a gift is to be effected in the manner laid down under the law. If the conditions prescribed by that law are fulfilled, the gift is valid, even though it is not effected by a registered instrument. The 2nd defendant or the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant failed to adduce any evidence to show that item not 1 was gifted to Singanamala Basha and

Singanamala Basha gifted the property to 2nd defendant. Further no evidence was adduced regarding partition of plaint schedule property in between Singanamala Basha and 2nd defendant. Under Muslim Law, no 15 person has a right in the property by birth. It is known that there is no such thing as `joint family' among the Muslims. So long as the father is alive, the children do not possess any right in the property. It is only on the death of the father, the children living at that time would inherit. However, if any son dies earlier to the father, then the son's issues would not succeed to the father of the deceased son. Principle of `representation' is entirely unknown to this Law governing the Muslims. Right of inheritance arises on the death of the person owning the property and the question of devolution of inheritance rests entirely decided at that point of time when the person through whom the heirs claim dies. Thus, the plaintiff being son is entitled to claim a share in the suit properties . Accordingly the issues No.1 and 2 are answered in favour fo the plaintiffs.

19. Issue No.3 : To what relief?

In view of the categorical findings on issues No.1 and 2, the suit is deserves to be decreed preliminarily.

20.In the result, the suit is decreed preliminarily, partitioning the plaint schedule property into three equal shares by allotting 2/3rd share to the plaintiffs together and 1/3rd share to defendant No.1 and separate possession of 2/3th share to plaintiffs together. In view of inter-se relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to cost.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 07th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiffs: Defendants:

PW.1: Shaik Khasim Sab @ Singanamala Khasim - None -

PW.2: S.Mabu

PW.3: S.Chand Basha

Documents Marked by Plaintiffs

Ex.A1: Office copy of legal notice to defendants dt.05.02.2018

Ex.A2: Served postal acknowledgment card to 2nd defendant dt.06.02.2018

Ex.A3: Reply notice issued by the 2nd defendant dt.14.02.2018

Ex.A4: Unserved postal cover to 1st defendant dt.08.02.2018

Ex.A5: Encumbrance certificate of schedule property taken from Mee-Seva dt.22.12.2017

Ex.A6: Manual E.C of schedule property from 1956-82 dt.30.12.2017

Ex.A7: Valuation certificates issued by Joint Sub Registrar, Anantapuramu (2 in number).

Exhibits marked by Defendants - NIL -

Sd/- B.Nirmala

A.C.J (S.D)

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS

JUDGE, ANANTAPURMAU.

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, this the 08th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No.103/2023

(P.R.C.No.18/2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayadurg in Cr.No.30/2020 of Gummagatta P.S.)

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Gummagatta Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:BoyaRamanjineyulu,S/o B.Vannurappa, aged 29 years, Coolie work, K.P.Doddi village, Gummagatta mandal.

3)Offences:Under Sections 328 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sec.8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs. 328 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sec.8(b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 to MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No.30/2020 of Gummagatta Station. Police station.

2

This case has came on this day i.e. on 04-04-2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

prosecution and of Sri C.Ashok Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Gummagatta Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.30/2020 for the offence punishable Under sections 328 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Sec. 8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :

(a) On 03.03.2020 at 8-00 AM, near Maremma temple, outskirts of

Paidoddi village, Gummagatta Mandal and reported in the P.S., on the same day at 10-30 AM, where the accused purchased tobacco products

Vimal Pan masala sachets, V1 tobacco sachets and Karnataka state manufactured haywards cheers whiskey tetra sachets at Kondlapalli village brandy shop and transporting the same on hi motorcycle bearing No.KA-37-

J 4620 TVS XL Blue colour to K.P.Doddi village to dispose the same to the required public for higher rate without permission was arrested and seized 90 ml., Karnataka state manufactured Haywards cheers whiskey tetra sachets and 100-Vimal Pan Masala VSN products sachets, V1 tobacco sachets (105) and motorcycle bearing No.KA-37-J 4620 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama.

(b) On 03.03.2020 at 8-00 AM while LW.7 A.Thippaiah Naik, Sub

Inspector of police was conducting vehicle check up along with his staff at 3

Maremma temple, outskirts of Paidoddi village, he received credible information about transportation of tobacco products and Karnataka state manufactured whiskey sachets to K.P.Doddi village of Gummagatta

Mandal. Immediately LW.7/A.Thippaiah Naik, Sub Inspector of police secured two mediators through P.C.3614 R.Venkata Ramana Naik and after some time one person was coming from Kondlapalli village of

Karnataka State by keeping one white plastic urea bag on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.KA-37-J-4620 and proceeding towards Galagala village. On seeing the police, he tried to skulk away, but he along with his staff chased him and surrounded him and detained him and brought him to above mentioned place. On questioning him in the presence of mediators, he revealed his name as Boya Ramanjineyulu S/o B.Vannurappa and he confessed that as it is become difficult to meet family expenses since two months, he is purchasing Tobacco products like Pan masala, V-1 Tobacco and Karnataka state manufactured whiskey sachets from Kondlapalli village and transporting the same to K.P.Doddi village in his motorcycle without getting any doubt and disposing the same to required public for higher rate and earning his income. As usual today morning he purchased the Vimal

Pan masala, V1 tobacco sachets and Karnataka manufactured whiskey sachets and transporting the same to K.P.doddi village through Galagala village. LW.7 searched the plastic urea bag and found that it contains 100

Vimal Pan Masala VSN products sachets, V1 Tobacco sachets-100 and 105 Karnataka state manufactured 90 ml., tetra sachets. Later he informed the accused that possessing banned products without permission is an offence and arrested the accused and seized the above case property and

TVS XL motorcycle bearing No.KA-37J4620 in the presence of mediators under the cover of mahazarnama.

4

(c) Basing on the mahazarnama, LW.7 A.Thippaiah Naik, Sub

Inspector of police has registered a case in Cr.No.30/2020 under Section 328 of IPC, Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act of Gummagatta P.S., on 08.03.2020 at 10.30 AM and submitted copies of

FIR to all concerned officers. On the same day i.e. on 08.03.2020 he sent the accused for remand along with remand report and produced before the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rayadurg. After completion of

investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. Hence the charge.

3.After filing of Charge Sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Rayadurgam took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Sections 328 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sec.8 (b)

(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act against the accused and numbered as

P.R.C.No.18/2020.

4.As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rayadurgam, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused as required under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C and the same was committed to the court of

Sessions, Ananthapuramu. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

following the proviso, as contemplated under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the Hon'ble Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the

P.R.C.18/2020 as Sessions Case No.103/2023 and made over the same to this Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of the accused before this court, he was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charge for the offence under Section 328 of

IPC and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act and Sec.8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition 5

Act have been framed, read over and explained to him, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.3 besides M.O.1 to M.O.3.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused denied the same and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. However, he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused

for the offence under section 328 of IPC and Sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act and Sec.8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act

beyond all the reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

10.Learned Additional Public prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and that the accused may be convicted.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the offence charged against the accused.

There is no evidence that accused possessing, selling and transporting tobacco products as a food and caused hurt. There is no corroboration to 6 the case of the prosecution and that prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused and hence requested to acquit the accused.

11.In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and MO.1 to MO.3 are marked.

12.PW.1 who is the mediator deposed in his evidence that on 03.03.2020 at about 9-00 AM, near Maremma temple, Paidoddi village, the

Gummagatta police caught hold the accused by name Ramanjineyulu and seized Hayward 90 ml., sachets, Vimal Pan masala – 100, V1 Tobacco sachets – 100 from the accused and drafted confession and arrest mahazarnama in their presence and he signed on mahazarnama dt.03.03.2020 at about 9-00 AM.

PW.1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused, in the cross-examination of PW.1 he deposed that no written summons are served to them by the Sub-Inspector of police, Gummagatta PS and no permission was obtained by the Sub-Inspector of police from Panchayath

Secretary. He further deposed that the police where Maremma temple is situated is a border area to Andhra and Karnataka and there is a check- post at that place and police officials are there from both states. One restaurant is there near check-post and there are four residential houses near the check post. PW.1 admitted that by the time he went there the Sub-

Inspector of Police prepared entire mahazarnama and he signed on it.

13.PW.2 investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 03.03.2020 while he was present in the police station at about 8-00 AM he received credible information regarding transportation of illicit whiskey sachets from Kondlapalli village, Karnataka State. Then he secured two mediators and he along with mediators and his staff went to Galagala 7 outskirts, near Meremma temple, there he conducted vehicle checking and found one person proceedings on TVS XL bearing No.KA-37-J-4620 by keeping one plastic bag. On seeing the police, the accused tried to skulk away, then he caught hold the accused with the help of his staff and on enquiry the accused revealed his identity particulars and on verification, he found 105 packets of Hayward 90 ml., Vimal Pan masala – 100, V1

Tobacco sachets – 100. After informing the grounds of arrest, he prepared mahazarnama and arrested the accused and seized the property and also obtained the signatures of mediators, police persons and signature of accused. Basing on the mahazarnama, he registered a case in

Cr.No.30/2020 under Section 328 IPC and Sec.34 (a) of A.P. Excise Act and Section 8 (b) II of A.P. Prohibition Act and issued FIR to all concerned officers. After completion of legal formalities, he sent the accused for judicial remand. On 09.03.2020 he sent the samples for chemical analysis and on 11.03.2020 he received report and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

14.As per Ex.P3 analysis report, police seized Indian made liquor. It is the case of the prosecution that accused was found in possession of liquor and prohibited gutka items. The mediator in whose presence the property was seized and confession statement of the accused was recorded deposed in his evidence that Gummagatta police seized the above MO.1 to

MO.3 property and drafted confession and arrest mahazar in their presence. But in the cross-examination he admitted that by the time he went the place, the S.I of police drafted entire mahazarnama and he signed on it. But in the evidence of PW.2 investigating officer deposed that they found the accused while he was in possession of MO.1 to MO.3. The said aspect the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are not corroborated with each 8 other. Further the place where property was seized is a check post and there are four residential houses and one restaurant, but nobody from that check post was examined at the time of arrest of accused. The only official witness i.e. PW.2 deposed that accused was found in possession of prohibited material.

15. The offence under section 328 IPC charged against the accused.

As per Section 328 IPC reads as under:- "Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and offence.--Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing with intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."

For establish the case within the ambit of the above said provision, it has to show that the accused with an intention to cause hurt have administered or have caused any person to take poison or and batch stupefying drug or intoxicating drug or unwholesome drug or other thing.

16.The contention of the accused is that he never tried to sell MO.2 and

MO.3 products and he never found in possession of MO.1 to MO.3 and this is a false case foisted against him for their statistical purpose. Admittedly no chemical test was conducted after seizing MO.2 and MO.3 from the possession of the accused to show that the articles which was seized is a prohibited product. No chemical analysis test was conducted. Without conducting any sort of examination, the investigating officer found MO.2 9 and MO.3 in the bag which is in the possession of the accused and concluded that the said material is a prohibited tobacco product. Further the investigating officer failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law at the time of seizing MO.2 and MO.3 and no samples were separated and the seized product was not sent for examination. The examination of those prohibited tobacco sachets at present is not possible as those are time barred and it is not possible to obtain any opinion from sachets like MO.2 and MO.3. Without conducting any manner of examination, the

Investigating officer came to a conclusion that the seized product is a banned tobacco product. So the evidence of PW.2 is not sufficient to conclude that those sachets contain prohibited tobacco product. No identification slips are affixed on the MO.2 and MO.3. Further PW.2 investigating officer did not depose about the affixing of identification slips and obtaining of signature of accused on the material objects. On perusal of

MO.2 and MO.3 there are no identification slips contains the signature of accused and police officers are present on MO.2 and MO.3.

Mere transportation/ possession/sale of tobacco products does not mean that they were intended to be administered to any person or persons with an intention to cause hurt.

17.Further an offence under section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and

Section 8(b) (ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act charged against the accused. There must be clear cut evidence that accused transports and possess or sells intoxicant.

Except the evidence of PW.2 there is no evidence on record that accused found in possession and transporting intoxicant. The evidence of mediator is quite contra to the case of the prosecution. None of the 10 neighbour or nearby persons are examined by the prosecution. Further, the learned counsel for the accused argued that police seized entire 150 sachets from the custody of accused and all are produced along with this case. Therefore the samples sent for obtaining Ex.P3 chemical analysis report are not way conceived with the property alleged to have been from the custody of the accused. In the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 they both deposed that police seized 105 packets of 90 ml., Haywards. Even as per the list of the property sent to the court is the Haywards cheer whiskey 90 ml., tetra sachets – 105. Even in Ex.P3 report 90 ml., was sent for examination and after conducting examination unexpanded portion of sample returned in bottle. When the entire property was produced before the court there is no evidence on record where and how the seized sample of 90 ml., Hayward whiskey was lifted not explained by the prosecution. So the prosecution failed to explain the ambiguity regarding seizing of sample of MO.1. hence the police failed to follow the procedure prescribed by law while lifting sample from MO.1. In order to rely upon the evidence of PW.2, the evidence of PW.2 must be corroborated with the evidence of mediator or any other independent witnesses. Mere production of liquor is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce the material witnesses, when it fails to do so, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. It is not just and proper to come to conclusion about the guilt of accused basing on the evidence placed by the prosecution.

18.Except PW.2/police official no other witnesses are examined in this case. The confession before the police need not be taken into consideration. Further the property from where the accused purchased was not examined by the investigating officer. Though mediators were present 11 at the time of arrest and seizure mahazarnama but he did not support the case of prosecution and he clearly deposed in his cross-examination that by the time he reached the police, the S.I of police prepared entire mahazarnama and he signed on it. Prosecution failed to establish Ex.P1 confession and arrest mahazar. Basing on the sole evidence of police officials it cannot be concluded that accused was found in possession of prohibited tobacco products and transporting and possess or sells intoxicant. Hence prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act, 1968 and Sec.8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 to MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: N.Manthesh -None-

PW.2: A.Thippaiah Naik 12

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Confession – Cum - Arrest mahazarnama dated 03.03.2020.

Ex.P.2: F.I.R in Cr.No.30/2020 of Gummagatta PS.

Ex.P.3: Chemical analysis report.

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-NIL-

M.Os. Marked:

MO.1: Hayward Cheer Whiskey – 90 ml., (105 Sachets).

MO.2: Vimal Pan masala sachets -100 packets.

MO.3: V1 tobacco sachets – 100 packets.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

A.A.S.J.

13

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.103 of 2023

1.Name of the complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector and Crime No. of Police, Gummagatta Police Station.

2.Name of the accused:Boya Ramanjineyulu, S/o B.Vannurappa, aged 29 years, Coolie work, K.P.Doddi village, Gummagatta mandal.

3.Offence:Under Section 328 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act, 1968 and Sec.8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act

4.Plea of accused:Found not guilty

5.Date of offence:03-03-2020

6.Date of complaint:03-03-2020

7.Date of committal:20-12-2021

8.Date of appearance of21-03-2025 accused before this court

9.Date of commencement of:27-03-2025 trial 10Date of close of trial:04-04-2025

11.Date of sentence of order:08-04-2025

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 21.11.2020 this case was taken on file and numbered as

P.R.C.18/2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Rayadurgam and posted to 19.01.2021 for appearance, on appearance of accused copies of documents furnished and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Anantapuramu on 20.12.2021.

14

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 18.04.2023 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions

Judge, Anantapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of

accused, after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 27.03.2025 trial was commenced and closed on 04.04.2025 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 08.04.2025.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable U/Secs.328 of Indian Penal Code and Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act, 1968 and Sec.8 (b)(ii) of A.P. Prohibition Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 to MO.3 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to the SHO., Gummagatta P.S.

1 :: IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Smt.B.Nirmala Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Monday, this the 07th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No.207 of 2022

(P.R.C.No.6/2020 on the file of Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act-Cum-III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu in Cr.No.243/2019 of Ananthapuramu IV town P.S.)

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu-IV town Police Station.

2)Description of the Accused:Kummasati Ramu Ramachandra, aged 35 yrs S/o late Ramachandra, D.No.1- 624, ASR Nagar, A. Narayanapuramu Panchayat, Ananthapuramu Town

3)Offences:Under Section 307 of I.P.C and Sec. 25(1B) (b) of Arms Act.

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C and Sec.25 (1-B)

(b) of Arms Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7)Crime number and Police :Crime No.243/2019 of Ananthapuramu Station. -IV town Police station.

2

This sessions case coming on this day i.e on 04.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri E.Venkataramudu, Advocate for the accused, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, Ananthapuramu IV town Police Station filed charge sheet in Cr.No.243/2019 against the Accused, for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and Sec. 25(1B) (b) of Arms Act alleging as follows:

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :

(a) LW.1 Kanta Krishnamurthy is a resident of D.No.1-639, A.S.R.

Nagar, A. Narayanapuramu Panchayathi, Ananthapuramu. LW.2

B.Kullayiswamy is LW.1's brother-in-law and he runs a Bakery at A.S.R.

Nagar. On 06.10.2019 at about 09.00 p.m. after completing his work at

Bakery, LW.2 started to go to Indira Nagar on his bike. When LW.2

B.Kullayiswamy was on the way, he had lost his balance while crossing the speed breaker and slightly hit the accused who was going on foot. Then, the accused immediately stopped LW.2's bike and picked up a quarrel with him. Using the filthy language, the accused threatened LW.2

B.Kullayiswamy with dire consequences that he would kill him. LW.2 was scared and instead of going home, he came to LW.1's house and told the matter to them. Meanwhile, when LW.1 Kanta Krishnamurthy and LW.2

B.Kullayiswamy were talking in front of LW.4's house, the accused came there with a hunting sickle. Using the abusive language and shouting, the accused tried to hack LW.2 B.Kullayiswamy to death with a hunting sickle.

3

Meanwhile, when LW.1 Kanta Krishnamurthy and LW.3 G.Nagabhushanam intervened and restrained the accused, LW.1 was struck with a sickle and caused bleeding injury on his wrist. When the accused again tried to hack

LW.2 B.Kullayiswamy, LW.3 G.Nagabhushanam restrained him and he also suffered a bleeding injury on his palm. Meanwhile, LW.4 K.Nagarjuna, LW.5

K.Lokesh, LW.6 K.Leelavathi, LW.7 Syed Nazeer Ahammad passers-by came there and rescued them. Then, the accused left the scene threatening

LW.2 B.Kullayiswamy by saying that he had escaped that day and he would kill him someday. If LW.1 Kanta Krishnamurthy and LW.3

G.Nagabhushanam had not intervened and restrained the accused, he might have hacked LW.2 B.Kullayiswamy to death. LW.1's relatives took

LW.1 Kanta Krishnamurthy and LW.3 to G.G.H., Ananthapuramu and admitted.

(b) On 07.10.2019 at 01.00 AM basing on the complaint of LW-1

Kanta Krishnamurthy, LW.11 K.Venkataramana, Sub Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.243/2019 U/s 307 IPC of Ananthapuramu IV

Town PS and investigated Into. During the course of investigation, LW.11 examined LW.1 K.Krishnamurthy, LW.2 B.Kullyiswamy, LW.3

G.Nagabhushanam, LW.4 K.Nagarjuna, LW.5 Kanta Lokesh, LW.6 Kanta

Leelavathi, LW.7 Syed Nazeer Ahammad and recorded their detailed statements under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C and further visited the scene of offence and prepared it's rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 08.10.2019 at 3.30 PM LW.11 K.Venkataramana, Sub Inspector of Police apprehended the accused in front of accused house at A.S.R. Nagar, A.

Narayanapuramu Panchayat, Ananthapuramu Town in the presence of

LW.8 K.Narayana Swamy, LW.9 C.Subbarayudu. On Interrogation the accused confessed about the commission of offence in this case. On that 4 after informing accusation and grounds for their arrest, LW.11

K.Venkataramana, Sub Inspector of police arrested the accused at 4.30

PM and seized one hunting sickle which was used by the accused at the time of commission of offence under cover of mahazar in the presence of

LW.8 K.Narayana Swamy, LW.9 C.Subbarayudu. Later LW.11 sent the accused to judicial custody. On the confession of the accused LW.11 added Section of Law 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. LW.10 Dr.M.Sunitha, Civil

Assistant Surgeon treated the injured LW.1 K.Krishnamurthy and LW.3

G.Nagabhushanam and issued wound certificates opining that injuries are sustained by LW.1 and LW.3 are simple in nature. The Principal Secretary to Government from Home (Arms) Department, Govt of Andhra Pradesh issued orders that extending ban of carrying of certain sharp edged weapons in the District vide G.O. RT No:39 Dt 24.01.2018 to prosecute the accused. A Copy of G.O is herewith enclosed for kind perusal. Thus the accused has committed an offence and liable to be punishable U/Sec.307

IPC and Sec 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act. Hence the charge.

3.After filing of Charge Sheet, the Learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act,

Ananthapuramu took cognizance of the case for the offence punishable under Section 307 of Indian penal Code and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms

Act against the accused and numbered as P.R.C.No.06/2020 and the same was committed to the court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu. The Hon’ble

Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu, numbered it as S.C.No.207/2022 and

made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of Accused before this court, he was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., charge for the offence U/Sec.307 of Indian 5 penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act have been framed, read over and explained to him, for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13 and MO.1. The learned A.P. P. given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. However on behalf of the accused none were examined and no documents got marked.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and he denied the same and stated that he was falsely implicated in this case. However, he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for accused.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act beyond all the reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

9.Learned Additional Public prosecutor has contended that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused through the 6 evidence ofPW.1 to PW.5 and that the accused may be convicted.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the offence charged against the accused.

There is no evidence that accused attacked PW.1 with hunting sickle and caused bleeding injuries on his wrist and on his palm. There is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution and that prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused and hence requested to acquit the accused.

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

P.W.5 witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and MO.1 are marked.

11.PW1 is defacto complainant -Cum – injured person in this case and he deposed his evidence that on 06.10.2019 at 9 .00 PM while himself and

LW.2 Kullayiswamy were going to their respective houses in a bike, they fell down from the bike and sustained injuries. When his relatives took them to the Government hospital, Ananthapuramu, where some of his relatives put his signature on a white paper and police did not examine him.

12.PW2 who is the eye witness to the incident deposed in his evidence that on 06.10.2019 at 9 .00 PM while himself and PW.1 were going to their respective houses in a bike, they fell down from the bike and sustained injuries. When his relatives took them to the Government hospital,

Ananthapuramu and police did not examine him.

13.PW.3 who is the injured person and PW.4 who is eye witness to the incident deposed in their evidence that they do not know anything about this case and police did not examine them.

7

PW.1 to PW.4 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

14.P.W.5 who is the Sub Inspector of police deposed in his evidence that on 06.10.2019 at about 11.30 PM, on receiving of medical admit intimation from G.G.H., Anantapuramu he proceeded to GGH, Ananthapuramu, there he secured presence of PW1, recorded his statement. Basing on the complaint of PW1, he registered a case in Cr.No.243/2019 U/Sec. 307 IPC of Ananthapuramu IV Town PS. Then he visited the scene of offence which is the house of accused, there he observed presence of PW1 to PW.4,

LW5/Lokesh, LW6/Leelavathi, LW7/Nazeer Ahammed, he recorded their statements and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 8.10.2019 on information, he secured presence of LW.8/Narayanswamy, LW.9/Chakali

Subbarayudu and arrested the accused at the house of accused, and he confessed the commission of offence and brought one sickle (MO.1) from his house and produced before them. Then he arrested the accused and seized one sickle in the presence of mediators and drafted confession arrest and seizure mahazarnama and also obtained signature of mediators and accused. Then he filed alteration memo by adding section of 25-B (1b) of Arms Act. After completion of all formalities, he sent the accused to the court for judicial custody and after obtaining wound certificates of PW1,

P.W.3 from LW10/Dr.Suneetha, CAS, GGH, Anantapuramu and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

15.Now it has to be seen, whether accused with an intention to kill

PW.3 tried to hack PW.3 with a sickle. As per the case of the prosecution, while PW.2was proceeding on the way to Indira Nagar on his motorcycle, 8 he lost his balance while crossing speed breaker and hit the accused who was going on foot. Then the accused picked up quarrel with PW.1 and threatened him with dire consequences that he would kill him. When PW.1 and PW.2 were talking infront of the house of PW.4, the accused came there with hunting sickle and tried to hack PW.3, then Pw.1 and PW.3 intervened and restrained the accused, in the meantime PW.1 and PW.3 sustained bleeding injuries as the sickle was touched them. Since the witnesses have given totally go bye to the entire case of prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared them as hostile and even after obtaining permission and even in the cross examination by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor by way of putting question in the cross

examination, he failed to elicit anything against the accused except marking

Section 161 Cr.P.C statements. Hence the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor treated them as hostile and their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.5. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he deposed that he stated before the police as in Section 161 Cr.P.C statement, but now he is deposing false in view of settlement in between them out of court.

16.The offences under Section 307 of IPC and Section 25 (1-B) (b) of

Arms Act were charged against the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that while PW.2 was proceeding on the way to Indira Nagar on his motorcycle, he lost his balance while crossing speed breaker and hit the accused who was going on foot. Then the accused picked up quarrel with

PW.2 and threatened him with dire consequences that he would kill him.

Later when PW.1 and PW.2 were talking infront of the house of PW.4, the accused came there with hunting sickle and tried to hack PW.2, then Pw.1 9 and PW.3 intervened and restrained the accused, at that time PW.1 and

PW.3 sustained bleeding injuries as the sickle was touched to them. On perusal of Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 wound certificates PW.1 and PW.2 sustained simple injuries.

With Ex.P.12 and Ex.P13 wound certificates, the prosecution established that PW.1 and PW.3 sustained simple injuries. But all the evidence available on record i.e. PW.1 and PW.3 who are the injured persons and PW.2 and PW.4 who are the eye witnesses to the incident, material witnesses gave a different version stating that PW.1 and PW.3 sustained injuries by falling down from the motorbike, which is contrary to the case of prosecution. In the absence of reliable evidence to corroborate the evidence of investigating officer, basing on the sole evidence of investigating officer alone is not sufficient to establish the offence charged against the accused. Absolutely there is no witness available on record against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of IPC and Sec.25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act. So, basing on the material placed by the prosecution, it is difficult to connect the accused with this case and nothing was elicited from the evidence of prosecution witnesses to show that accused committed the offence. In the said circumstances, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of

PW.5 investigating officer is examined on behalf of prosecution and his evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilty of accused for the charges against the accused. Learned counsel for accused argued that as per the evidence of PW.1, some of his relatives put his signature on a white paper.

The independent witnesses did not support the version of prosecution with 10 regard to the attack of accused to PW.1 and PW.3 which causes simple injuries with an intention to kill PW.2.

18.The investigating officer/PW.5 deposed in his evidence that there is grievous injury to PW.1. Prosecution filed M.O1 material object, but there is no evidence on record to show that the accused used material object at the time of commission of offence. There is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution and therefore in view of glaring inconsistency, the evidence of

PW.1 to PW.5 can be discarded. Therefore, there is no evidence on record to show that accused tried to kill PW.2 with sickle with an intention to kill him.

19.No mediator was examined in this case. It is well settled principle of law that the sole testimony of investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence charged under Section 307 of IPC and Sec.25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act when the injured witnesses as well as PW.2 and

PW.4, the material witnesses are not supported the version of the prosecution case. Moreover, LW.5 Kanta Lokesh, LW.6 Kanta Leelavathi,

LW.7 Syed Nazeer Ahammad, LW.8 K.Narayanaswamy, LW.9

C.Subbarayudu, LW.10 Dr. M.Sunitha are given up by the Additional Public

Prosecutor and they were not examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, though PW.2 to Pw.4 are examined who are the eye witness, but they did not support the prosecution case. In order to prove the offence charged against accused, the injured has to depose the incriminating evidence to bring home guilt of the accused. In this case, PW.1 and PW.3 who are the injured and material witness PW.2, PW.4 did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand PW.5 investigating officer has no personal 11 knowledge about the genesisof occurrence and also manner of attack by accused with hunting sickle against PW.1. In such circumstances the sole testimony of investigating officer is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the charged under Section 307 of IPC, Sec.25 (1-B) (b) of

Arms Act. By considering the evidence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

20.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C and Sec.25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Directly typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 07th day of April, 2025.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

P.W.1: K.Krishnamurthy -None-

P.W.2: B.Kullayiswamy

P.W.3: G.Nagabushanam

P.W.4: K.Nagarjuna

P.W.5 : K.Venkataramana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ananthapuramu -IV town P.S.

12

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1.

Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.1

Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.2

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.3

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.4

Ex.P6: Complaint

Ex.P7: Medical Intimation

Ex.P8: F.I.R

Ex.P9: Rough sketch

Ex.P10: Confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama

Ex.P11: Alteration memo

Ex.P12: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P13: Wound certificate of PW.3.

Exhibits marked for the defence

- NIL -

Material objects marked

M.O.1: Sickle

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

13

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No.207 of 2022

1.Name of the complainant:State represented by The Sub Inspector of and Crime No.Police, Ananthapuramu-IV Town Police Station.

2.Name of the accused1.Kummasati Ramu Ramachandra, aged 35 yrs S/o late Ramachandra, D.No.1-624, ASR Nagar, A. Narayanapuramu Panchayat, Ananthapuramu Town.

3.Offence:Under Sections 307 of IPC and Sec. 25 (1-B)

(b) of Arms Act

4.Plea of accused:Found not guilty

5.Date of offence:06-10-2019

6.Date of complaint:07-10-2019

7.Date of committal:08-06-2022

8.Date of appearance of29-04-2024 accused before this court

9.Date of commencement:24-01-2025 of trial 10Date of close of trial:03-04-2025 11Date of sentence of order:04-04-2025 .

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 24.03.2020 this case was taken on file and numbered as

P.R.C.06/2020 on the file of Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of cases under A.P. Prohibition and Excise Act, Ananthapuramu and posted 14 to 20.05.2020 for appearance and on appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished and this case was committed to the court of

Sessions Ananthapuramu on 08.06.2022.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 06.08.2022 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions

Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of

accused and after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 24.01.2025 trial was commenced and closed on 03.04.2025 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments, Judgment pronounced on 04.04.2025.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of I.P.C and Sec.25 (1-B) (b) of Arms Act and accordingly the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months. MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to the S.H.O., Ananthapuramu-IV town Police Station.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

ANANTHAPURMAU.

Present: Smt. B. Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Friday, this the 28th day of March, 2025

S.C.No.85/2021

1)Name of the Complainant:State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kambadur Police Station.

2)Description of the :1. Gouni Shankar Gowd, aged 36 years, AccusedS/o G.Mallanna, Driver of Motorbike bearing No.AP-02-C-5050.

2. Gouni Nataraj, aged 32 years, S/o G.Nagabushana, Pillion rider of Motorbike bearing No.AP-02-C-5050.

Both are R/o Thimmapuram village, Kambadur mandal.

3)Offences:Under Section 333 of IPC.

4)Plea of Accused:Not guilty.

5)Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

6)Sentence or Order :In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

7)Crime number and Police:Crime No.71/2024 of Kambadur Police Station. station.

This case has came on this day i.e. on 27-03-2025 for final hearing

before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for

prosecution and of Sri R.Yerriswamy, Advocate for the accused A1 and A2 and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day this Court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kambadur Police Station filed a charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 in Crime No.71/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 188, 337, 338 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The case of prosecution in brief is as follows :

(a) This is a case of Disobedience to an order of lawful promulgated by a public servant and non fatal road accident that occurred on 28.03.2014 at about 7-05 Pm near petrol bunk, Kambadur village and mandal, Kambadur –

Pavagada B.T Road and reported in the P.S., on 28.03.2014 at 8-00 AM, wherein the accused noted above who are the driver of motorcycle and pillion rider of motorcycle its bearing No. AP-02-C-5050 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner. They are processes to Kambadur to Pavagada side disobedience to an order of lawfully promulgated by a public servant and restrained the motorcycle to complaint, which result complainant sustained injuries on left hand arm and left leg and pillion rider sustained injuries on his face and left leg and left shoulder.

(b) Basing on the special report of LW.1 S.Thavare Naik, a case in

Cr.No.71/2014 under Section 188,337 of IPC was registered at Kambadur PS by LW.7 G.Ravikanth, Head Constable and investigated into. During the course of investigation, LW.7 examined LW.1 S.Thavare Naik, LW.2

U.Ramachandra, LW.3 A.Muthyalanna, LW.4 C.Venkatesh and recorded their statements under Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C and examined the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. LW.8 K.Sreedhar, Sub

Inspector of police arrested the accused noted in the charge sheet on 23.04.2014 and sent them to remand after verifying the documents of the vehicle. A requisition letter sent to S.D.P.O., Kalyandurg to accord permission for deletion of Section 188, 337, 338 of IPC and add Section of law 332 IPC.

LW.6 Dr. M.Rajendra Prasad examined LW.1 S.Thavare Naik and Lw.2

U.Ramachandra and issued wound certificates and further he opined that the injuries sustained by LW.1 are simple in nature and further he opined that the injuries sustained by LW.2 are grievous in nature. Thus the accused are liable to be punished under Sections 188, 337, 338 of IPC. Hence the charge.

3

3. The charge sheet was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Kalyandurg as case in PRC No.03/2019 for the offence punishable under section 332 of Indian Penal Code.

4. As per the procedure contemplated under the law, the accused appeared before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kalyandurg copies of the documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu following the proviso, as contemplated under section 209 of Cr.P.C. Then the

Hon'ble Court of Sessions Division, Ananthapuramu numbered the

P.R.C.03/2019 as Sessions Case No.85/2021 and made over the same to this

Court, for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused A1 and A2 before this Court, they were examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under Sections 333 of I.P.C against the accused have been framed and read over the same in Telugu to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused A1 and A2 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and explained the incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the point that arises for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt

of accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under

Section 333 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point:

4

10.The learned Additional Public prosecutor had contended that the prosecution has proved the charge levelled against the accused through the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and that accused may be convicted.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused argued that prosecution failed to prove the motive part of the offence and the injured and eye witness did not depose anything against the accused and there is no corroboration to the case of the prosecution and that prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused and that accused are entitled to acquittal.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 witnesses and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are marked.

11.PW.1 is the defacto complainant – Cum – injured person in this case and he deposed in his evidence that on 27.3.2014 himself, P.W.2, L.W.3/ A.

Muthyalanna, L.W.4/ C. Venkatesh, L.W.5 N. Sankarappa were deputed to work on the road, near power office. At about 7-00 PM while they were conducting vehicle checking in front power office, some unknown persons proceeding on two wheeler bike and proceeded further without stopping their vehicles. On suspicion, he and LW.2 chased them upto 1 Km on a bike and

L.W.2 was pillion rider. Due to skid up on the road they fell down and sustained injuries. At present he is not able to identify the persons who proceeded on their bike without stopping. Then he went to police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint to Sub Inspector of Police, Kambadur P.S. Police examined him.

12.PW.2 who is the eye witness to the incident deposed that on 27.3.2014 at about 7-00 PM while he was working as check post incharge, P.W.1 was also posted to assist him. At about 7-00 PM while they were conducting vehicle checking in front power office, some unknown persons proceeding on two wheeler bike and proceeded further without stopping their vehicles. On suspicion himself and PW.1 chased them upto 1 Km on a bike. Due to skid up on the road, they fell down and sustained injuries. At present he is not able to identify the persons who proceeded on their bike without stopping. Police examined him.

5

13.PW.3 who is the Investigating officer deposed in his evidence that on 28.3.2014 at 8-00 AM while their H.C. 2208/L.W.7 G.Ravi Kanth was present in the police station, P.W.1 came to Police station and submitted a written complaint. Basing on the same, LW.7 G.Ravikanth, H.C., registered a case in

Cr.No.71/2014, under Section 188, 337 of IPC of Kambaduru P.S and issued

FIR to all the concerned officers. On the same day LW.7 examined P.W.1,

PW.2 and L.W.3 Muthyalanna and L.W.4 C. Venkatesh and recorded their statements and went to the scene of offence, secured the presence of L.W.5

N. Sakaraplpa and recorded his detailed statement and prepared rough sketch of scene of offence. On 23.4.2014 at about 10-00 A.M while he was present in the police station, accused A1 and A2 came to police station and surrender

before him along with bike bearing No.AP.02 AF 9406. He verified vehicle

record and then accepted the surrender and arrested A1 and A2 and after completion of formalities sent A1 and A2 to judicial remand. On 30.6.2014 he received wound certificates of P.W.1 and PW.2 from L.W.6 Dr. M. Rajendra

Prasad. As per Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 wound certificates, P.W.1 sustained simple injuries and P.W.2 sustained grievous injuries. Then he added the section of law Sec.338 of IPC. After completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet in this case.

14.Now it has to be seen, whether accused caused grievous hurt to PW.1 and Pw.2 while they were discharging their official duty, with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duty as such public servants. Since the witnesses P.W.1 and PW.2 have given totally go bye to the entire case of prosecution, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor did not elicit any evidence against the accused. In the cross-examination of PW.1, he denied the suggestion put to him that police did not examine him and did not record his statement.

15.For the offence under Section 333 IPC is made out or not upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution, I have perused the Section 333 of the

IPC, which read as under: -

Section 333 IPC. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.

6

Sec.333 IPC: Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

16. It is the case of the prosecution that accused caused grievous hurt to

PW.1 and Pw.2 while they were discharging their official duty, with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duty as such public servants. But all the evidence available on record i.e. PW.1 and PW.2 who are the eye witnesses did not depose anything against the accused that they deposed that they are not able to identify the accused. In the absence of reliable evidence to corroborate the evidence of investigating officer, basing on the sole evidence of investigating officer alone is not sufficient to establish offence charged against the accused. Absolutely there is no witness available on record against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC. So, basing on the material placed by the prosecution, it is difficult to connect the accused with this case and nothing was elicited from the evidence of prosecution witnesses to show that accused committed the offence. The evidence which does not justify the ingredients of section 333 of IPC. In the said circumstances, accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

17.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW.3 investigating officer examined on behalf of prosecution and his evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilty of accused for the offence charged against him. Learned counsel for defence argued that as per the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, while they were conducting vehicle check up near power office, some unknown persons proceeded on two wheeler without stopping their vehicle. On suspicion, PW.1 and PW.2 tried to chase the accused upto 1 Km on their bile, but they fell down and sustained injuries. But they failed to identify the accused to support the case of prosecution. So the complainant did not support the case of prosecutions and no material objects are produced in this case.

7

18.The investigating officer/PW.3 deposed in his evidence that the caused grievous hurt to PW.1 and PW.2 while they were discharging their official duty being public servants. The prosecution did not produced any material objects in this case. There is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution and therefore in view of glaring inconsistency, the evidence of PW.1 can be discarded. But, prosecution failed to prove any criminal force or assault inflicted by these two accused upon police party including . Further, the prosecution did not bring any independent witnesses. the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, consistently and uniformly deposed that on the date of occurrence while they were chasing unknown person they fell down from the bike and sustained injuries. There is no evidence on record to show that accused caused grievous hurt to PW.1 and PW.2 while they were discharging their official duty being public servants. therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused person for the offence punishable under Section 333 of IPC

19. It is well settled principle of law that the sole testimony of investigating officer is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charged offence under section 333 of IPC when the eye witnesses PW.1 as well as PW.2 are not supported the version of the prosecution case. Moreover, LW.3

A.Muthyalanna, LW.4 C.Venkatesh, LW.5 Neeli Shankarappa, LW.6 Dr.

M.Rajendra Prasad, LW.7 G.Ravikanth are given up by the Additional Public

Prosecutor and they were not examined by the prosecution. On the other hand, though PW.1 and PW.2 are examined who are the eye witnesses but they did not support the prosecution case. In order to prove the offence charged against accused, the injured and eye witnesses have to depose the incriminating evidence to bring home guilt of the accused. In this case, PW.1 and PW.2 who are the injured witnesses did not support the case of prosecution. On the other hand PW.3/ investigating officer has no personal knowledge about the genesis of occurrence .In such circumstances the sole testimony of investigating officer is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused for the charged under section 333 of IPC. By considering the evidence, the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is entitled for benefit of doubt.

8

20.In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence:

PW.1: S.Thavare Naik -None-

PW.2: U.Ramachandra

PW.3: K.Sreedhar, the then Sub Inspector of Police,

Kambadur Police Station.

Exhibits marked for the prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Complaint dt.27.03.2014.

Ex.P.2: F.I.R

Ex.P.3: Rough sketch.

Ex.P.4: Wound certificate of PW.1

Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of PW.2

Exhibits marked for the defence:

-NIL-

Material Objects Marked:

- NIL -

Sd/- B.Nirmala

A.A.S.J.

9

Tabular form to be annexed to a Judgment as per rule 67 of Cr.P.C.

SESSION CASE No. 35 of 2021

1.Name of the complainant:State represented by The Inspector of and Crime No. Police, Kambadur Police Station.

2.Name of the accused1. Gouni Shankar Gowd, aged 36 years, S/o G.Mallanna, Driver of Motorbike bearing No.AP-02-C-5050.

2. Gouni Nataraj, aged 32 years, S/o G.Nagabushana, Pillion Driver of Motorbike bearing No.AP-02-C-5050.

Both are R/o Thimmapuram village, Kambadur mandal.

3.Date of Offence:27-03-2014

4.Plea of accusedFound not guilty

5.Date of Offence:27-03-2014

6.Date of complaint:28-03-2014

7.Date of committal:04-04-2019

8.Date of appearance of14-06-2024 accused before this court

9.Date of commencement of:06-03-2025 trial

10.Date of close of trial:27-03-2025

11.Date of sentence of order:28-03-2025

Explanation for the delay in Committal Court:

On 05.05.2015 this case was taken on file and numbered as

P.R.C.03/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Kalyandurg and posted to 22.09.2025 for appearance and on appearance of accused A1 and A2, copies of documents furnished to the accused and this case was committed to the court of Sessions Ananthapuramu on 04.04.2019.

Explanation for the delay in trial court:

On 10.08.2021 this case was made over by the Hon’ble Sessions

Judge, Ananthapuramu for disposal according to law. On appearance of

10 accused A1 and A2, after framing charges this case was posted for trial. On 06.03.2025 trial was commenced and closed on 27.03.2025 and after completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C as there was incriminating material against him. Heard arguments,

Judgment pronounced on 28.03.2025.

In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 333 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after laps of six months.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to the SHO., Kambadur Police Station.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION) ::

ANANTHAPURAMU

Present :- Smt. B. Nirmala,

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Friday, this the 28th day of March, 2025.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 625 /2015

Between :

Lekkala Lakshminarayana, S/o Late Nallappa, aged about 41 years, Farmer and business, Now Residing at D.No. 6/4/248, Maruthi Nagar, Anantapuramu.

… Plaintiff

And.,

G.Kristappa, S/o Chinna Pullanna, aged about 48 years, Business,

D.No.6/3/17-B, Ramnagar, Anantapuramu.

… Defendant.

This suit came on this day i.e. on 24.06.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Sri R. Ramakumar, Sri N. Raghunatha

Reddy,Sri K.V. Ramana Reddy, Sri K. Nagaraju, Advocates,for the plaintiff and of Sri Allu Narayanappa, Advocate for the defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

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

Rs.6,76,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 24 % p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and for costs.

2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:

(a) The defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000-00 on 05-12-2012 for his family necessities and executed 'A' marked demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., on demand in favour of the plaintiff on the same day. He also borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,00,000-00 on 17-01-2013 for his family necessities and executed 'B' marked demand promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a., on demand infavour of plaintiff on the same day. In spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the borrowed amount on the defendant issued a 2 cheque for Rs. 5,00,000-00 bearing No. 265728 dt. 29-06-2015 drawn on

AXIS Bank Ltd., Saptagiri circle, Ananthapuramu. The plaintiff had presented the said cheque before the Vijaya Bank, Ananthapuramu on 01-09.2015 for collection purpose, but the said cheque was dishonored by the Axis Bank Ltd.,

Saptagiri Circle, Ananthapuramu with an endorsement FUNDS

INSUFFICIENT. In that connection the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu, the same was numbered as C.F.No.6098/2015. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit. The

Defendant is not entitled for the benefit of Act IV of 1939 and he is not entitled to the Agricultural debt Relief Act, because of the defendant is doing business.

3.Written statement filed by the defendant, denied the plaint contents and submits that some of the cheques of the defendant were misplaced and the plaintiff is also very close to the defendant and oftenly visited the house of the defendant at Ananthapuram and both the plaintiff and the defendant were doing real estate business at Ananthapuram and got misunderstandings in the said business between them and the empty cheques were taken by the defendant and got forged the signature of this defendant for wrongful gain.

This defendant also submits that he never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. This defendant also submits that the name and the address of the plaintiff was affixed with seal in the suit promissory notes and that clearly and categorically disclosed that it is a created and forged one to harass this defendant and the column of the executant and writings in the body of the suit promissory note clearly shows with different hand writing and the signature of this defendant on the suit promissory note also are not belongs to this defendant. This defendant also submits that the scribe of the suit promissory note kept blank and which clearly shows that it is created one for wrongful gain. This defendant submits that there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action as mentioned in the plaint is not correct and the same is invented for the purpose of filing this unjust suit. The suit promissory notes are forged and fabricated and created for wrongful gain and there are material alterations, corrections and over writings in the suit promissory notes. Hence requested to dismiss the suit.

3

4.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

(1) Whether the suit pronotes are forged and created

documents?

(2) Whether suit pronotes are supported by cash

consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

(4) To what relief?

5.During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 are marked on behalf of plaintiff.

Ex.A.1 is ‘A’ marked promissory note dated 05.12.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/-,

Ex.A.2 is ‘B’ marked promissory note dated 17.01.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

One of the attestor of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by name Kovvuru Rajasekhar Reddy is examined as PW.2.

On behalf of defendant, the defendant himself is examined as DW.1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are marked through PW.1 during the cross examination.

One M.Sreeramulu is examined as DW.2. Ex.B1 is Promissory note dt.06.06.2013 for Rs.1,75,000/-, Ex.B2 is Promissory note dt.06.06.2013 for

Rs.2,00,000/-, Ex.B3 is Promissory note dt.15.06.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/- and

Ex.B4 is Promissory note dt.15.06.2013 for Rs.1,75,000/-.

6.Heard both sides.

Issues No.1 to 3:

(1) Whether the suit pronotes are forged and created

documents?

(2) Whether suit pronotes are supported by cash

consideration?

(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim?

7.Learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.12.2012 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 17.01.2013and executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 suit promissory notes respectively for his family necessities. Subsequently in spite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff to repay the debt due to him, the defendant issued cheque bearing No.265728 4 dt.29.06.2015 for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on AXIS Bank, Saptagiri circle,

Ananthapuramu and when the plaintiff presented the said cheque in the Vijaya

Bank, Ananthapuramu on 01.09.2015 for collection purpose, the said cheque was dishonored by the Axis Bank with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient”.

Hence the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant under Section 138 of N.I Act.

8.The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff is close to the defendant and oftenly he used to visit the house of defendant as they both are doing real estate business. Due to misunderstandings in the said business, the plaintiff taken away the empty cheque and got forged the signature of defendant for wrongful gain. The defendant never executed any promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff. The column of the executant and writings in the body of the promissory notes clearly shows with different handwriting. The plaintiff is in the custody of promissory notes contains the signature of the defendant. The promissory notes are forged, fabricated and created for wrongful gain and there are material alterations, corrections and overwriting in the suit promissory notes and therefore requested to dismiss the suit.

9.The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that suit promissory notes are duly executed by the defendant and plaintiff is entitled to suit amount. To prove the same, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief wherein he reiterated the plaint pleadings and as such examination-in-chief of PW.1 is nothing but the replica of the plaint. The plaintiff also filed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 promissory notes. On perusal of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2, it seems that said promissory notes are said to have executed by defendant/ G.Kristappa in favour of plaintiff which also contains the signatures of the defendant across the revenue stamp and underneath the revenue stamp. A conjoint reading of testimony of PW.1 coupled with Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A.2 it seems the evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the documentary evidence of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2.

PW.1 was cross examined by the defendant. In the cross examination of

PW.1, he clearly deposed that he got acquaintance with the defendant since 10 years and the signatures on Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 are not belongs to him.

5

10.One of the attestor of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 is examined as PW.2 and he corroborated with the evidence of PW.1. In the cross examination of PW.2, he deposed that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are executed at Kamala Nagar at about 11-00

AM and both Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are printed forms. He further deposed that plaintiff affixed seal on both promissory notes at the time of execution and the defendant twice signed on each promissory note, one is across the revenue stamp and another one is beneath the revenue stamp. PW.2 further deposed that there are no financial transaction between plaintiff and defendant prior to execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. PW.2 denied the suggestion put to him that middle person shown to him in the court hall among seven persons is

Kristappa and he never saw the defendant and only purpose of this case he is deposing false and prior to filing of this suit he signed as attestor on Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 and no transaction took place under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

11.The defendant is examined as DW.1 by filing his examination-in-chief in the form of chief-affidavit wherein he reiterated his written statement averments in verbatim. DW.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff. In the cross examination of DW.1 he deposed that he know the plaintiff since 25 years. He has not filed any document to show that regarding taken away the cheques from his office and regarding panchayat conducted in the presence of police as mentioned in his affidavit. DW.1 denied the suggestion put to him that the plaintiff never executed Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 in his favour at police station at the time of conducting panchayath in order to settle the issue. He further deposed that he do not know whether he mentioned regarding execution of promissory notes by the plaintiff in his favour in the written statement filed by him or not.

12.One of the attestor of Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 is examined as DW.2 and he corroborated with the evidence of DW.1. During the cross examination of

DW.2 he deposed that he do not know regarding purchase of properties and business transaction in between the plaintiff and defendant. Panchayath was conducted at Ram Nagar and he was present at the time of panchayath conducted at the police station. On 05.12.2012 and 17.01.2013 he was there at Ram Nagar and both the plaintiff and defendant discussed with each other and they entered into terms and conditions.

6

13.The suit is filed on the basis of the promissory notes. The Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A2 are the printed promissory notes. On perusal of Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2, It perfectly fit to the definition of the promissory notes defined in the Section 4 of

Negotiable Instrument Act. The date, amount and other particulars as to who borrowed the amount have been specifically mentioned in the Ex.A.1 and

Ex.A2 Promissory notes. Two Stamps worth of Rs.1/- each are affixed on the each promissory note. So, the Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 are the promissory notes and all the ingredients that are satisfy to consider it have been incorporated. The promissory notes does not require any attestation or registration under

Transfer of Property Act. The promissory notes are defined under Negotiable

Instrument Act and nowhere it is stated that the promissory notes shall be considered only when attested by the witnesses. However, it is the usual practice that the promissory note is being attested and the persons who wish to prove the promissory note examining the attesting witness. The presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act is in favour of the plaintiff. It says that it shall be presumed that Negotiable Instruments are supported by consideration that they are executed on the date affixed in it that they were transacted in regular, usual course, unless until contra evidence is produced by the opposite party.

14. From all these facts and circumstances, it is clear that PW.1 has lent the amount covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 wherein defendant has borrowed the debt under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and so under Section 118 of Negotiable

Instrument Act, the recitals appeared in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are presumed to be true. It is thus the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden to believe that the defendant executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in favour of the plaintiff.

15. Now the burden shifts on the defendant to prove that Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are not supported by consideration. What all defendant contends is that they never borrowed any amount under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 and no transaction took place under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The defendant further contended that some of the cheques were misplaced in his office and plaintiff taken away the empty cheques and got forged the signatures of defendant for wrongful gain and he never executed any promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. But there is no document filed by him to show that plaintiff taken away the empty cheque from 7 his office and forged the signature of defendant. It is the contention of the defendant that plaintiff and himself have done real estate business for 10 years and he used to approach him frequently and he has taken his empty cheques and forged the signature of the defendant. Further in the cross examination of P.W.2, the learned counsel for the defendant suggested to

P.W.2 that the he can identify the defendant and he is deposing false. In the pleading of the defendant it was mentioned that plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant. Further it was contended by the defendant that plaintiff misused the promissory notes present in his custody obtained from the defendant while doing real estate business. No piece of documentary evidence filed by the defendant to prove the forgery of his signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and empty cheque. The defendant has not taken any steps to send the disputed signatures in Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 with that of his standard signatures to an expert for comparison which makes this Court to disbelieve the defence taken by the defendant. This Court is vested with the power under Section 73 of Indian

Evidence Act to compare the signature. On perusal of the signature on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 with that of the signature of the defendant with vakalat and written statement, it seems that this Court has not found any dissimilarities. There are no valid reasons to trust the theory of defendant. Defendant though denied the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 but he failed to adduce any cogent evidence for rebutting the evidence of PW.1. It is therefore the plaintiff established his case that defendant executed Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and that consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- each under each promissory note was also passed to him from the plaintiff. The defendant failed to adduce cogent and positive evidence to prove contention raised by him.

16.In view of above facts and circumstances, this court has came to conclusion that plaintiff has successfully discharged his burden by examining

PW.1 and PW.2 and by filing Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. The defendant denied the execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and passing of consideration. But he failed to adduce sufficient evidence except denying the case of plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff clearly established his case that promissory notes under Ex.A.1 and Ex.A2 are duly executed by defendant and he is entitled for suit amount as sought for.

17.Issue No.4 :- To what relief ?

8

In view of the finding in the issues No.1 to 3, the suit is liable to be decreed.

18.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendant to pay the suit amount of

Rs.6,76,000/- with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 27.11.2015 till the date of decree and thereafter subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization on total principal sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and

Rs.2,00,000/- under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2.

Typed by the Stenographer to my direct dictation, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court this the 28th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

Plaintiff: Defendant:

PW.1: Likkala Lakshminarayana DW.1: G.Kristappa

PW.2: Kovvuru Rajasekhar Reddy DW.2: M.Sreeramulu

Documents Marked by Plaintiff

Ex.A.1:‘A’ marked suit promissory note dated 05.12.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Ex.A.2:‘B’ marked suit promissory note dated 17.01.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/-.

Exhibits marked by Defendant

Ex.B1: Promissory note dt.06.06.2013 for Rs.1,75,000/- Ex.B2: Promissory note dt.06.06.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/- Ex.B3: Promissory note dt.15.06.2013 for Rs.2,50,000/- Ex.B4: Promissory note dt.15.06.2013 for Rs.1,75,000/-.

Sd/- B.Nirmala

A.C.J (S.D)