Smt. B.Radha Rani

1

APKU070000812024

In the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Div), Nandyal

Present:- Smt. B.Radha Rani,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal.

Wednesday, the 2nd day of April, 2025

O.S.No.9 of 2024

Between : Pothireddy Srinivasa Reddy.… Plaintiff.

And

Pothireddy Ravi Kumar Reddy. … Defendants

This suit is coming on 1.4.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.R.Krishna Reddy, Sri V.V.Krishna Reddi, Sri S.Srinivasulu andSri T.Md.Ifran Hussain, Advocates for Plaintiff and of Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, Advocate for the defendant, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, perusing the material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount of Rs.32,90,000/- basing on the suit pronote executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff with suit costs.

2. The brief facts of the plaint are as follows:-

(a) It is pleaded by the plaintiff that he and the defendant are related to each other. Having said relationship and intimacy, on 14.10.2022, the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his business necessities and executed the suit pronote in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% p.a either to him or on his order.

(b). Inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff, the defendant failed to discharge the pronote amount. The defendant is not an agriculturist.

Hence, prayed the court to decree the suit.

3. The brief facts of the written statement are as follows:-

The defendant filed written statement admitting the relationship between him and the plaintiff. Further averred that he, younger brother of plaintiff by name Pothireddy Amarnatha Reddy and the plaintiff jointly did agricultural implements business with the name and style of Laxmi Sreenivas Harvesters at

Auto Nagar, Nandyal in the year 2011. The said business continued till 2014. In the said joint business, the plaintiff and his younger brother Pothi Reddy 2

Amarnatha Reddy cheated the defendant. Hence, financial disputes arose among them. Keeping the same in mind, the plaintiff colluded with the attestors and scribe and created the suit pronote. The suit pronote is a forged document.

Except that neither the defendant borrowed the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- on 14.10.2022 nor executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. The main source of income of the defendant is agriculture. Hence, interest claimed by the plaintiff that he is businessman has no consideration. So, the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled for suit claim as he approached the court with unclean hands. Therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4. Basing on the above rivalry claim, this court framed the following issues on 09.07.2024.

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

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

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1.

Atttestor Nos 1 and 2 of pronote are examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3. The scribe of pronote is examined as P.W.4 besides marking Ex.A.1 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1. No documentary evidence is adduced on behalf of the defendant.

a). In the present case, though the hand writing expert examined the disputed pronote as per the orders in I.A.No.421 of 2024 dt.12.12.2024, neither the hand writing is examined on behalf of the defendant nor expert report marked on behalf of the defendant. But, however, it is part and parcel of the record.

6. Heard arguments on both sides.

Admitted facts:-

7. The defendant is the cousin who is son of junior paternal aunt of the plaintiff. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff is native of S.Kottala village of

Panyam mandal. Whereas the defendant is native of Durvesi village. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff and the defendant and younger brother of plaintiff by name Pothireddy Amarnatha Reddy jointly did dealer ship business of agricultural implements in the name and style of Laxmi Srinivasa Harvesters,

Auto Nagar, Nandyal in the year, 2011. It is an admitted fact that P.W.2 and

P.W.3 are related to both parties 3

8. Issue No.1 and No.2:-

Both issues are clubbed together to answer as they are inter-related to each other and for convenience.

a) In all civil suits, the initial burden is always lies on the plaintiff to prove the due execution of the suit pronote. In case, the plaintiff succeeded in establishing the due execution of the pronote, then the presumption under

Section 118 of NI Act can be drawn in his favour to hold that on the date, month, year, time and place, the pronote was executed by the defendant and consideration was passed to the defendant from the plaintiff. Then the burden shifts on the defendant to rebut the presumption. In case, the defendant succeeded in placing rebuttal evidence, then the burden again shifts back to the plaintiff to prove his case.

9. Now it has to see, whether the plaintiff succeeded in establishing his case. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff himself is examined as P.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit which are reiteration of averments of the plaintiff. His chief affidavit averments are nothing but replica of averments of plaint. During cross examination, he deposed that the defendant borrowed Rs.25,00,000/- on 14.10.2022 from him for his family necessities at his house. The defendant received said consideration in the presence of Gangadhar Reddy, Sudhakar

Reddy and Damodar Reddy i.e., P.W.2 to P.W.4. The transactions was took place at 11.00 am. On receiving consideration only the defendant contributed signature in suit pronote-Ex.A.1. Two days prior to the transactions, the defendant requested to provide Rs.25 lakhs to the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff made it ready before 11.00 am on 14.10.2022. Then he passed the consideration to the defendant.

a) P.W.1 deposed that the defendant only brought the first attestor/P.W.2 and P.W.4/scribe along with him to his house to borrow the loan. P.W.1 is not income tax assessee. P.W.1 passed Rs.500/- denomination currency notes to the defendant. The defendant is doing tractor business besides doing agriculture work but no proof of document is filed.

10. P.W.2 and P.W3. are the attestor Nos.1 and 2 of suit pronote. They both have filed their respective chief affidavit corroborating the version of P.W.1 stating that on 14.10.2022, the defendant borrowed Rs.25,00,000/- loan from the plaintiff in their presence. On receiving consideration, the defendant executed the suit pronote in favour of the plaintiff. During the course of cross examination 4 of P.W.2 and P.W.3, they admitted that the plaintiff and the defendants are cousin. They are belong to Durvesi village. P.W.2 is resident of Balapanoor village. Whereas P.W.3 is resident of Moolasagaram village, Nandyal mandal.

The distance between Durvesi and Balapanoor village is about 15 K.Ms. P.W.2 and P.W.3 admitted that the daughter of the plaintiff is given in marriage with

Niranjan Reddy belongs to the village of P.W.2. They specifically stated that in between 11.00 am and 12.00 am on 14.10.2022. The money transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant was took place under the suit pronote-

Ex.A.1 in their presence. They both have stated that every former used to attend agricultural work from 6 months to 9 months and return to break fast and lunch.

But, they both have deposed that there is no specific timing maintained in attending business as well as agriculture work by them. P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that themselves, P.W.1, defendant and P.W.4 were present during execution of the suit pronote-Ex.A.1. Rs.500/- denomination currency notes were passed to the defendant by the plaintiff.

11. The scribe of the pronote is examined as P.W.4. He also filed his chief affidavit by corroborating the version of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3. He also cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendant wherein he also corroborated all the aspects which are stated by P.Ws.1 to P.W.3. Further, he stated that on request of the defendant only, he acted as scribe of the suit pronote-Ex.A.1.

According to his testimony also on 14.10.2022, the defendant borrowed the loan of Rs.25 lakhs from the plaintiff in his presence and in the presence of P.Ws.1 to

P.W.3 at the house of the plaintiff and executed the suit pronote.

12. Apart from the Ocular evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, the plaintiff relied upon the original pronote-Ex.A.1. On perusing Ex.A.1/Suit pronote, it is executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on receiving consideration of

Rs.25 lakhs on 14.10.2022.

13. On examination of ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to P.W.4 coupled with

Ex.A.1, this court holds that no major discrepancy and inconsistencies are elicited from the evidence of P.Ws.1. to P.W.4 to disbelieve their evidence. In fact they stood for cross examination. Their evidence is not shaken. Then, this court holds that their evidence safely relied upon to hold that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs on 14.10.2022 from the plaintiff at his house in the presence of P.W.s 2 to 4 and executed the suit pronote/Ex.A.1. Then, the presumption under Section 118 of Negotiable Instrument Act would goes to 5 rescue of plaintiff to hold that on the date, month, year, place and time, the said transaction took place between the plaintiff and the defendant and consideration is passed. Then the burden shifts on the defendant to rebut the said presumption.

14. To rebut the evidence of plaintiff, the defendant himself is examined as D.W.1. He filed his chief affidavit by reiterating the averments of his written statement. During cross examination, he admitted that P.W.1 is resident of

S.Kottala village of Panyam mandal. D.W.1 is resident of Durvesi village of

Gadivemula mandal. He, P.W.1 and Amanatha Reddy did harvester business in the year, 2011 to 2014 jointly. Then, it was closed in the year, 2014 due to loss.

From the date of closure till date of Ex.A.1, there are no talking terms between him and P.W.1. He admitted that P.W.3 is brother-in-law of P.W.1. He is also relative of him. He knows P.W.2 and P.W.4. He expressed his willing and readiness in forwarding the disputed suit pronote to the hand writing expert.

Accordingly, he filed a petition before this court praying the court to send the disputed pronote to the hand writing expert along with contemporaneous documents.

15. Accordingly, D.W.1 filed a petition vide I.A.No.421 of 2024 under

Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and same is allowed by this court on 12.12.2024 ordering to send disputed pronote/Ex.A.1 for examination and comparison with the admitted and standard signatures of the defendant available (1) original registered sale deed dt.06.03.2024 vide Doc.No.7010/2024., (2)

Court summons., (3) Vakalath of D.W.1., (4) Written statement., (5) Deposition of

D.W.1., (6) Signatures of D.W.1 obtained in open Court. Then, the same were forwarded to the Central Forensic Laboratory, near Hyderabad, Public School,

Ramanthapur Colony Road, Amberpet, Hyderabad. Then, Sri Abhimanyu Kumar,

Assistant Director and Scientist “C” (Document), Central Forensic Science

Laboratory examined the above documents. He marked two signatures of defendant in suit pronote Ex.A.1 as Q1 and Q2. He marked the standard/admitted signatures of D.W.1/defendant obtained in open court as S1 to S8. He also marked the signatures of D.W.1 in registered sale deed, court summons, written statements, deposition of D.W.1 as A1 to A17. Finally, he

opined that the signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and marked

as Q1 and Q1, A1 to A17 and S1 to S8 found written by one and the same

person. Accordingly, he sent FSL report file No.CFSL(H)/28/Doc/07/2025/BH- 6 04/2025, dt.17.2.2025 to this court.

16. After receipt of said report, the defendant filed a petition under Order 26 Rule 1 and Section 151 of C.P.C praying the court to appoint an advocate commissioner for examination of the above hand writing expert. The same is allowed as per the orders in I.A.No.50 of 2025 dt.03.03.2025, Sri

P.Venkateswarlu, Advocate is appointed as Advocate commissioner to examine the hand writing expert. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the defendant filed a memo stating that the defendant is not inclined to examine the hand writing expert. In view of the same, memo is recorded. The evidence of the defendant is closed.

17. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that the evidence of hand writing expert is always third party evidence, it is not substantive piece of evidence. So, sole evidence of hand writing expert alone cannot form sole basis to decree the suit. As such, prayed the court to dismiss the suit by relying on the judgment 1. Manorama Naik Vs State of Odisha reported in LAWS (SC) 2023

(3) 125 in Criminal Appeal Number 423 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CRL)

No.9772 of 2016). (2) Rajesh Bhai Mulaji Bhai Patel and others Vs State of

Gujarat and another., (3) Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy Vs Baddam Prathap

Reddy (Dead) THR LR’s and another reported in 2019 (5) ALT 206 Supreme

Court. And (4) Koya Lalitha Kumari and others Vs Polina Nageswar Rao

(Died) and another reported in 2015 (4) ALD 512. Now doubt as per the above settled legal position and as per law, the evidence of the hand writing expert always has to be treated as third party evidence. His evidence alone is not conclusive proof.

a). So, the expert opinion is not substantive evidence, it may not be solely rely on the expert opinion, the court may seek independent and reliable corroborated to the facts of the given each case.

18. In the present case, it is the duty of the court to compare the signatures of the defendant in the disputed documents and come to its own conclusion. Under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the court can compare the disputed signatures of hand writing expert with that of the admitted signatures to come to its own conclusion. Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act expressly enable the court to compare the disputed with admitted signatures to ascertain whether the signatures are that of the person by whom purported to have been signed.

In the recent judgment of Lalla Surya Narayana Murthy Vs Dogiparthi 7

Venkata Satyanarayana reported in 2024 (4) ALT 698 AP at para No.14, His

Lordship held that “Under Section 73 of Indian Evidence Act, the court can compare the disputed and admitted hand writing expert and signatures to come to its own conclusion for better appreciation”.

a) Now, for convenience, this court is inclined to scan and paste the signatures of the defendant in disputed pronote-Ex.A.1 as well as his admitted signatures available in registered sale deed dt.6.3.2024 for better appreciation.

Signature in Ex.A1 (Q1)Signature in Sale Deed (A2)

b). On comparing the disputed signatures of the defendant with that of the admitted signatures, coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and

Ex.A.1, this court holds that the signatures in suit pronote is belongs to the defendant only and the defendant failed to establish that it is forged document.

On the other hand, the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing due execution of suit prontoe by examining himself as P.W.1 besides examining two attestor and scribe in support of his case. Hence, this court holds that the defendant failed to rebut the evidence of plaintiff. In view of the same, the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim.

Accordingly, this court on issue No.1 is answered holding that the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant. Further issue No.2 answered in favour of the plaintiff holding that he is entitled for suit claim and defendant is liable to pay the suit amount.

Accordingly, issue No.1 and No.2 are answered.

24. Issue No.3:-

In view of the discussion and settled legal position stated supra, this court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim. Accordingly, this issue is answered.

8

Result:-

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing the defendant to pay suit amount of Rs.32,90,000/- to plaintiff with subsequent interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date of the institution to till the date of decree, thereafter at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of decree to till the date of realization basing on the

principal amount of Rs.25,00,000/-.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 2nd day of April, 2025.

B RADHADigitally signed by B RADHA RANI RANIDate: 2025.04.02 15:37:15 +0530

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE(SENIOR DIVISION),

NANDYAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs:- For Defendants:- P.W.1. P.Srinivasa Reddy.D.W.1. P.Ravi Kumar Reddy. P.W.2. Y.Gangadhar Reddy. P.W.3. S.Sudhakar Reddy. P.W.4. K.Damodar Reddy.

Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs :-

Ex.A.1. Original suit promissory note dt.14.10.2022.

B

Digitally signed by B RADHA

For Defendant:RADHA

RANI

Date: 2025.04.02

RANI

Nil 15:37:37 +0530

PCJ(SD),

NDL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present:­ Smt. B. Radha Rani, 

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Nandyal.

FAC Assistant Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 24th day of March, 2023.

Sessions Case No.4 of 2021

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

Versus

Talari Obulesu, S/o Obanna, aged 32 years, SC Colony, Godiganuru Village, Chagalamarri Mandal. … Accused 

This case coming up on 20.03.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, and of

Sri C.Shiva Rami Reddy, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having perused the material on record, 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. Filing of Charge sheet :­

The Sub­Inspector of Police, Chagalamarri P.S. filed charge sheet in

Cr.No.1/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 509 of

Indian Penal Code (in short noted as IPC hereinafter).

2. Scene of offence and jurisdiction of offence:The scene of offence is located at Godiganuru village of Chagalamarri Mandal, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Allagadda.

3. Brief facts of the case :

(i)The defacto complainant Talari Mariyamma/PW1 is native of

S.C. Colony, Godiganuru village, Chagalamarri Mandal and has been living

2

by coolly work. She had blessed with three daughters and one son. There is 5 acres of land situated in Godiganuru village limits stood in the name of her mother­in­law Akkamma. There is one crop canal flowing in the middle of the land, and 10 years ago, basing on the crop canal, her husband Talari

Chinnaiah/PW2 and her brother­in­law Talari Obulesu have divided the land in the presence of village elders and enjoying by cultivating their respective shares. Since 6 months ago, the accused Talari Obulesu held panchayath before the village elders to divide the said land again. But

PWs.1 & 2 didn't accept saying as they developed the land, which they get in division. From then the accused has been quarrelling with PWs.1 & 2 without any reason. 

(ii)On 01.01.2020 at night hours, while PWs.I & 2 were sleeping in house, one Timothi who is elder son of the accused knocked the door by fearing and told that his father is beating him, and he is unwilling go to the home. As it is late night hours, her mother­in­law Akkamma sheltered

Timothi in her house without intimating PW1. At morning hours i.e., on 02.01.2020, her mother­in­law narrated about the incident to PW1 and sent

Timothi to his house. When her son and husband went to coolly work, the accused came to her house, insulted PW1 in vulgar language as she told lie by hiding his son Timothi in her house. At about 07.30 PM, when her son

Talari Rohith Kumar/PW5 returned from coolie work, PW1 narrated about the vulgar words, which the accused used towards her, and then PW5 asked accused about the same. Then the accused picked up quarrel with PW5 saying as “Nuvendira Kodaka Nannu Adigedi, inthalevu Nannu

Aduguthava? Mee Nanna Polam Panchamante Panchada? Ninnu

Champithe Mee Nannaku Vache Polam Kooda Naa kodukulake Vasthadi”

3

and so saying he threw a stone on him. When the stone hit on left shoulder, PW5 had fallen on the ground. Then the accused pressed on throat with leg with intent to kill and kicked on chest and face indiscriminately. On seeing the same, PW1, PW3, PW4, LW5/Mariyamma, her mother PW6 rushed to the scene and rescued her son from Obulesu.

Her son PW5 sustained invisible injuries on his left shoulder, on throat, head, near heart and got unconscious. Subsequently, they shifted her son to Kerala Hospital, at Chagalamarri in auto and providing treatment. Now her son Talari Rohith Kumar/PW5 is getting treatment in unconscious condition. She came to the P.S. along with her husband and lodged a report against accused. Basing on the report of the informant/PW1, S.I. of

Police/PW8 registered a case in Cr.No.01/2020 U/Sec.307, 509 IPC of

Chagalamarri P.S. and submitted the FIRs to all officers concerned and took up further investigation.

(iii)On 02.01.2020 S.I. of Police/PW8 secured witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements. On 03.01.2020 secured some more witness examined them and recorded their statements, and on same day arrested the accused, and sent to judicial custody for remand. On 09.01.2020 S.I. of Police secured injured and some more witness and examined them and recorded their statements. On 28.01.2020 received wound certificate of PW5, in which the Medical officer opined that the injuries sustained by PW5 are simple in nature.

Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable U/s.307, 509

IPC. Hence the charge.

4

4. Taking of cognizance:

After filing charge sheet by the SHO, Chagalamarri P.S. before

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda has taken cognizance of the offence of

the case for the offence punishable U/s.307 and 509 of IPC. After furnishing copies and following the procedure, the learned Magistrate of

First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool made over the case to this

Court for disposal according to law. 

5. Appearance of accused and opening of case :­

On appearance of the accused was examined under Section 228 of

Cr.P.C., and charges were framed under Section U/s.307 and 509 of IPC against the accused read over and explained to the accused for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P13. The evidence of LW5/Godiganuru Mariyamma,

LW8/Byreddy Maddilety Reddy, LW9/Nara Obulesu and LW11/ Dr.Prakash

Emmanuel George are given up by the learned APP as PWs.1 to 7 not supported the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution evidence was closed.

7. Examination of Accused u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.:

On perusing the entire evidence on record, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. calling upon them to give explanation for the incriminating evidence available from the prosecution witnesses. The same

5

is read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8. Arguments:

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as defence counsel argued that whatever evidence on record, may be considered and dispose the case on merits.

9.Now, the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under Sections 307, 509 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

10. Point:

The case of the prosecution is as follows as per record :

(i)One Talari Mariyamma/PW1 is the defacto complainant in this case. There is 5 acres of land situated in Godiganuru village limits stood in the name of PW1’s mother­in­law Akkamma. There is one crop canal flowing in the middle of the land, and since 10 years ago basing on the crop canal her husband PW2 and her brother­in­law i.e. accused have divided their land in the presence of village elders and enjoying their respective shares. But, since 6 months ago, the accused held panchayath before the village elders to divide the said land again. But PWs.1 & 2 didn't accept saying as they developed the land, which they got in division. From then onwards the accused has been quarrelling with PWs.1 & 2 without any reason. 

(ii)While so, on 01.01.2020 at night hours, while PWs.I & 2 were sleeping in house, one Timothi who is elder son of the accused knocked the door by fearing and told that his father is beating him, and he is unwilling

6

go to the home. As it is late night hours, her mother­in­law Akkamma sheltered Timothi in her house without intimating PW1. At morning hours i.e., on 02.01.2020, her mother­in­law narrated about the incident to PW1 and sent Timothi to his house. When her son and husband went to coolly work, the accused came to her house, insulted PW1 in vulgar language as she told lie by hiding his son Timothi in her house, and at about 07.30 PM, when her son PW5 returned from coolie work, PW1 narrated about the vulgar words, which the accused used towards her, and then PW5 asked accused about the same. Then the accused picked up quarrel with PW5 saying as “Nuvendira Kodaka Nannu Adigedi, inthalevu Nannu

Aduguthava? Mee Nanna Polam Panchamante Panchada? Ninnu

Champithe Mee Nannaku Vache Polam Kooda Naa kodukulake Vasthadi” and so saying he threw a stone on him. When the stone hit on left shoulder, PW5 had fallen on the ground. Then the accused pressed on throat with leg with intent to kill and kicked on chest and face indiscriminately. On seeing the same, PW1, PW3, PW4, LW5/Mariyamma, her mother PW6 rushed to the scene and rescued her son from Obulesu.

Her son PW5 sustained invisible injuries on his left shoulder, on throat, head, near heart and got unconscious. Subsequently, they shifted her son to Kerala Hospital, at Chagalamarri. PW1 came to the P.S. along with her husband and lodged a report against accused. Basing on the report of the complainant/PW1, S.I. of Police/PW8 registered a case in Cr.No.01/2020

U/Sec.307, 509 IPC of Chagalamarri P.S. and submitted the FIRs to all officers concerned and took up further investigation. Thereby, the accused have committed an offence punishable under sections 307 and 509 of IPC.

Hence the charge. 

7

11.Coming to the evidence, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as PW1. PWs.2 to 4, 6 are the eye witnesses examined by prosecution to speak about the occurrence of offence, PW5 is the injured to speak about receiving injuries in the hands of accused, PW7 is the

Panchayatdar for Confession, Arrest and Seizure Panchanama, PW9 is the

Investigating Officer to speak about registering of case, examination of witnesses, preparation of rough sketch, and investigation done by him.

12. Now, it is to appreciate the evidence as follows:

PW1 who is the defacto complainant being mother of injured deposed that she do not know the accused and she do not know anything about the facts of the present case as to when, where and how the offence took place.

She further deposed that accused never beat PW5 at any time and no incident took place in between them. She stated that PW5 sustained injury in a road accident. She further deposed that she did not lodge any report

before police, and the L.T.I. of PW1 on report is marked as Ex.P1. Hence,

the learned Additional Public Prosecutor treated her hostile and her Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P2. 

13.PWs.2 to 4 & 6 being the eye witnesses deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case as to when, where and how the offence took place. They further deposed that accused never caused injuries and no incident took place in between them. Hence, the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor treated them hostile and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements are marked as Exs.P3 to P5 & P7. 

14.PW5 who are the injured in this case also turned hostile by stating that he do not know anything about the facts of the case as to when, where and how the offence took place, and the accused never caused injuries to him and no incident took place in between them. He further

8

stated that he received injury while riding two wheeler accidentally and he was not examined by police. Hence, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor treated him hostile and his Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.P6.

15.PW7 Gadda Prakash who acted as Panchayatdar for Arrest and seizure Panchanama also turned hostile deposing that he do not know anything about the facts of the case as to when, where and how the offence took place. He stated that he do not know the contents of arrest

Panchanama dated 03.01.2020 as the contents in it were not happened in his presence. He also stated that police did not arrest the accused in his presence. Hence, his signature in Panchanama is marked as Ex.P8.

16.PW8 who is the Investigating Officer deposed that on 02.01.2020 at about 10.45 PM, while he was in Police Station, he received a written report of PW1, and basing on the same he registered a case in

Cr.No.1/2020 U/s.307 and 509 of IPC. The original First Information

Report submitted to Court is marked as Ex.P10. Then he went to Kerala

Hospital and there he examined PWs.1 & 2 and recorded their statements, at which time PW5 was not in conscious and hence it is not possible to examine him. On the next day, i.e., on 03.01.2020 he visited the scene of offence situated at S.C. Colony, Guduguluru Village, Chagalamarri Mandal, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, and prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P11. Later on 09.01.2020 he went to the house of injured/PW5 and examined some more witnesses and recorded their statements. On 03.01.2020 on credible information, he arrested the accused near CIS Church under cover of Confession and Arrest Mahazar

Panchanama/Ex.P12 attested by mediators. On completion of investigation, and on receipt of wound certificate/Ex.P13 of PW5 he filed charge sheet.

9

In his cross­examination he denied all the formal suggestions putforth by the learned counsel for accused.

17.Except the Investigating Officer, remaining prosecution witnesses totally turned hostile stating that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Even the injured/PW5 who received injuries in the hands of accused also turned hostile. So, basing on the evidence of

Investigating Officer, the accused cannot be convicted as his evidence has to be considered to the extent of conducting investigation. In the absence of supportive evidence from the eye witnesses, the sole evidence of investigating officer cannot form sole basis to convict the accused under the charge. 

In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the evidence on record is insufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused under the charges U/Sec.307 and 509 of IPC. Hence, this court holds that prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Accordingly, all points are answered. 

18.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 509 of IPC, and for the same he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of Accused and sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as required under Section 437­A of Cr.P.C.

19.The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case in between

Anukush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra reported in

2013 LS (SC) 391 that in every criminal case, Section 357 Cr.P.C confers a power coupled with a duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation to the victim. Therefore, the Court has to record reasons for awarding or refusing compensation in every case.

10

So far as the grant of compensation is concerned, PW5 the injured person in this case completely turned hostile and did not speak any incriminating material against the accused. PW5 stated that he sustained injuries while he was riding motor cycle accidentally. Considering the circumstances this court is not inclined to grant any kind of compensation to PW5. 

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr­II, corrected and

pronounced by me, on this the 24 th day of March, 2023.

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDYAL

FAC ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

ALLAGADDA.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Ex.amined

For Prosecution : P.W.1:Talari Mariyamma P.W.2:T. Chinnaiah P.W.3:G. Purushottam P.W.4:G. Yesebu P.W.5:T. Rohith Kumar P.W.6:A. Suseelamma P.W.7:G. Prakash P.W.8:C. Sarath Kumar Reddy

For Defence :None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution : Ex.P1: L.T.I. of PW1 on Report. Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P8: Signature of PW7 on Panchanama Ex.P9: Written report of PW1 Ex.P10: FIR Ex.P11: Rough Sketch Ex.P12: Signature of PW8 on Panchanama Ex.P13: Wound Certificate

For Defence :Nil Material objects marked : NIL

PASJ, NDL

FAC SCJ, ALG.

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present:- Smt.B.Radha Rani, Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nandyal

FAC Assistant Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sessions Case No.256 of 2022

Represented by.,The Sub Inspector of Police, Dornipaud PS. … Informant

Versus

1. Pagidala Raghavendra Reddy, S/o Siva Reddy Aged 30 years,

2. Pagidala Siva Reddy

3. Pagidala Naga Lakshamma, W/o Siva Reddy All are R/o Dornipadu Village and Mandal.

… Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case coming up on 21.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Informant, and of Sri P.Suryanarayana Reddy, Advocate for the Accused No.1 to 3, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having perused the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Dornipadu PS laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.42/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 420,323, 506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

2. The informant P.Sunitha/LW.1 is the resident of Hyder

Nagar, Hyderabad City and living by running Ganesh Mobile Shop. In the year 2009 the marriage of informant was took place with one

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

Surendra Yadav of Uttara Pradesh and survived with one son Due to dispute with her husband in the year 2015. The informant got diverse through the advocate by filing of affidavit. The accused is the native of

Dornipadu village and he is working in Sithara hotel, Hyderabad the accused A1 got close with her. Hence they married in Sivalayam of

Hyder Nagar in the year January 2018. The accused known the informant is the married woman, having a son and diverse from her former husband. Recently, the accused A1 listen of the words of his parents A2 and A3 escaped from Hyderabad and went to his native in

Dornipadu village and tried to marry other woman. On enquiry the A1 told with the informant that their marriage was not invalid as she has not taken the diverse from her first husband as per Law.

a) On 21.06.2018 the informant went to the house of accused in Dornipadu. But A2 and A3 not allowed her into house and sent out by beating with hands and warned that they would kill her if she did not leave their house. After that the accused also used the words about her character, insulted her to be die. Due to their attitude the informant felt insult and went to bus stand, Allagadda, consumed super Vesmol with a view to commit suicide and got admitted in

Government Hospital, Allagadda. After that the victim was shifted to

Saivani Hospital, Nandyal for better treatment. LWs.2 to 5 are neighbors to the accused witnessed the act of accused.

b) On 21.06.2018 at 20.30 hours, basing on the statement of the LW.1, LW.6 registered a case in Dornipadu PS, Cr.No.42/2018,

U/Sec.420,323,506,306 r/w 511 IPC and investigated into.

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

c) During course of investigation, on 22.06.2018, LW.6 examined informant as LW.1 at Sai Vani Hospital, Nandyal and recorded her detailed statement in his case diary part-II. Thereafter, he visited house of the accused at Dornipadu Village, examined the eye witnesses as LW.2 to LW.5 and recorded their detailed statements.

After that he visited scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same.

d) On 25.10.2018 accused A2 and A3 got anticipatory bail from

Hon’ble V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Allagadda and on

21.12.2018 LW.7 served Sec.41(a) Cr.P.C notice to the above cited accused A1 and satisfied with arrest.

e) Thus the accused cheated the accused and beat her and threatened the LW.1 with dire consequences, thereby committed offence punishable U/Sec.420,323,506, 306 r/w 511 IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda took cognizance of the offence Under Sections 420,323,506, 306 r/w 511 of

IPC. After furnishing copies and following the procedure, the learned

Magistrate of First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the accused, the accused was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., and charges were framed under Sections 420,323,506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code against the accused,

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

read over and explained to the accused for which the accused denied, 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 marked Exs.P1 to P6. The evidence of LW.6/N.Rama

Mohan Reddy, S.I of Police, Dornipadu PS, LW.7/B.Mallikarjuna, S.I of

Police. The Police not served summons on LWs.6 and 7 without any reasons. Perused the record and found no incriminating material against accused No. 1 to 3 from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material available against them from evidence of PWs.1 to 5.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under

Sections 420,323,506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal

Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT :

9. In order to establish a charge U/sec.420 of IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 cheated PW1 promising that he will marry her and

thereby committed an offence U/sec.420 of IPC.

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

1. In order to establish a charge U/sec.323 of IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 to A3 have caused simple injuries to PW1 by using

their hands.

2. In order to establish a charge U/sec.506 IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 to A3 have committed criminal intimidation

threatening PW1 that they will kill her.

3. In order to establish a charge U/sec.306 r/w 511 of IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 to A3 in furtherance of their common intention

abated to commit suicide by PW1.

At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

10. Evidence adduced by the prosecution:

a) To bring home of the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5. PW1 is examined by prosecution to speak about occurrence of act and presentation of report. PWs.2 to 4 are examined by prosecution to speak about witnessing of incident.

Now it is apt to appreciate the evidence.

b) In order to establish charge U/Sections 420, 323, 506, 306 r/w 511 of IPC against A1 to A3, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. PW1 is victim/informant. PWs.2 to 5 are independent witnesses.

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

11. Evidence of PW1

i) PW1 being victim, informant, injured has failed to support the case of prosecution. She admitted that A1 is her husband. A2 and A3 are her in-laws. Further stated that her marriage with A1 was solemnized on 02-01-2018 at Shivalayam Temple, Hyderngar,

Hyderabad. Their marriage is love marriage and it is consummated.

A1 is her second husband. One son was blessed with A1 during her wedlock with him. She has been leading happy marital life with A1.

Except that she does not know anything about the facts of the case.

She specifically state that no accused cheated her, caused injuries or criminally intimated or did any act abating her to commit suicide. Further stated that no substance of poison is consumed by her. Further stated that no statement given to the police. She admitted her signature in her statement as Ex.P.1 claiming that she contributed the same and the directions of police without knowing the contents.

ii) As PW1 resiled from the previous statement and her 161 statements, she was subjected to cross examination by the learned

APP. Inspite of it, no substance is elicited to concluded that A1 promised to her that he will marry her and then cheated by non keeping up of his promise. Then, he and his parents beat her with hands and caused injuries. Further, they threatened her with dire consequences stating that they will kill her and attempted to abate to commit suicide by Pw1. Of course her 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P2 in support of case of prosecution. Thus, the sum and

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

substance of evidence of PW1 is hostile evidence and not useful to the case of prosecution.

iii) PWs.2 to 5 being eye witnesses to the incident were in toto turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution by deposing that they do not know anything about the facts of the present case.

They did not witness any incident. They were not examined by the police. As they have resiled from their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements, they were subjected to cross-examination by the learned

APP. Inspite of it, except marking their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.2 to P.6 no support evidence in support of case of prosecution is established. Thus, the supportive evidence of independent witnesses is also lacking to the case on hand. As they all have turned hostile the evidence of remaining witnesses is closed by this court as no purpose would serve in examine them. As there is no incriminating material against accused from the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, the examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

iv) In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to place iota of evidence in proving the charges leveled against accused. Hence, they are entitle for the benefit of doubt.

Accordingly, the points are answered.

12. In the result, the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 323, 506, 306 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code, and they are acquitted for the same under

Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of Accused No.1 to 3 and

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this Judgment as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order is passed on case property, as no property produced and marked on behalf of prosecution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case in between

Anukush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra reported

in 2013 LS (SC) 391 that in every criminal case, Section 357 Cr.P.C confers a power coupled with a duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation to the victim. Therefore, the

Court has to record reasons for awarding or refusing compensation in every case.

So far as the grant of compensation is concerned, PW.1 injured person in this case, completely turned hostile and did not speak any incriminating material against the accused. She and eye witnesses

PWs.2 to 5 categorically stated that accused did not caused any injuries to PW1. Considering the circumstances this court is not inclined to grant any kind of compensation to PW.1.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDYAL

FAC ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

ALLAGADDA.

S.C.No.256 of 2022 ASJ Court, Allagadda

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution :

P.W.1P.Sunitha P.W.2A.Subba Rayudu P.W.3B.Kambaiah P.W.4M.Srinu

P.W.5A.Karrenna

For Defence :

None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on complaint. Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

For Defence :

Nil

Material objects marked :

Nil

ASJ,NDL

FAC ASJ,ALG.

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, ALLAGADDA.

Present:- Smt.B.Radha Rani, Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge,

Nandyal

FAC Assistant Sessions Judge, Allagadda.

Friday, the 28th day of April, 2023.

Sessions Case No.248 of 2019

Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool … Informant

Versus

1. Yeddula Venkata Narasiah @ Moddu thalakayalodu, Aged 50 years, S/o Pamulety R/o R.kothapalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Caste-Mala-SC-Indian-Hindu

2. Yeddula Venkateswarlu @ Baligadu, aged 32 years, S/o Venkata Narasaiah, R/o R.Kothapalli Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Caste-Mala-SC-India-Hindu … Accused No.1 and 2

This case coming up on 21.04.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Informant, and of Sri C.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing the arguments on both sides, having perused the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.163/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

The brief averments of the charge sheet are that:

2. On 20.11.2016 at 09.00 hours where in the informant/LW.1/S.Pedda Narasimha Reddy accosted the accused

A2/Y.Venkateswarlu @ Baligadu while he was proceeding infront of his house and questioned the accused A2 for making bad propaganda about his wife.

The Informant/LW.1 picked up quarrel with the accused A2 abusing him touching his caste name and he beat the accused A2 with a stick, caused bleeding injuries. On knowing the same the accused A1 rushed to the spot and picked up quarrel with the complaint/LW.1 by keeping the previous ill- feelings in the mind and beat the informant/LW.1 with an iron rod on his head with intention to kill him and caused bleeding injuries. Meanwhile

LWs.2 to 6 intervened and separated them and LW.6 shifted the informant/LW.1 to the Government Hospital for treatment.

a) Basing on the report of LW.1 a case in Cr.No.163/2016, U/Sec.307

IPC of Rudravaram PS was registered by LW.8 and submitted copies of FIRs to all concerned officers.

b) As per the proceedings of Deputy inspector General of Police,

Kurnool Range, Kurnool holding charge of Superintendent of Police, Kurnool vide in RC.No.1397/C4/SC-ST/2016, dated.20.11.2016, LW.10/D.Muralidhar,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool took up investigation and examined LWs.1 to 6 and visited the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence with help of LW.9/G.Sathyam.

c) LW.7/Dr.A.Sreenivas, Government Medical Officer, District Hospital,

Nandyal who treated LW.1/ S.Pedda Narasimha Reddy and opined that the injuries of informant/LW.1 are simple in nature.

d) During the course of investigation, LW.10/D.Muralidhar, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool arrested the accused A1 and

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

A2 on 15.12.2016 and sent them for remand. After completion of investigation LW.10/D.Muralidhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST

Cell-I, Kurnool filed charge sheet.

e) Thus the accused had committed an offence punishable U/Sec.324, 307 r/w 34 IPC. Hence the charge sheet.

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda took cognizance of the offence Under Sections 324, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

After furnishing copies and following the procedure, the learned

Magistrate of First Class committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the accused, the accused was examined under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., and charges were framed under Sections 324, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, read over and explained to the accused for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Exs.P1 to P7. The evidence of

LW.7/Dr.A.Sreenivas, Civil Assistant Surgeon, LW.8/N.Hasnuman- thaiah, S.I of Police, LW.9/G.Sathyam, PC 2688 and

LW.10/D.Muralidhar, Deputy Superintendent of Police are closed.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is dispensed with as there is no

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

incriminating material available against them from evidence of PWs.1 to 6.

7. Heard both sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution proved the offence under

Sections 324 and 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT :

9. In order to establish a charge U/sec.307 of IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 and A2 caused simple injuries to PW1 by using

deadly weapons i.e., iron rod on his head due to ill feelings and

previous grudges.

1. In order to establish a charge U/sec.324 r/w 34 of IPC the prosecution should establish

That A1 and A2 in further of their common intention

voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 and caused injuries at left

frontal and parietal region and middle parietal region by using

deadly weapon.

At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the evidence adduced by the prosecution.

10. Evidence adduced by the prosecution:

a) To bring home of the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is examined by prosecution to speak about

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

occurrence of act and presentation of report. PWs.2 to 6 are examined by prosecution to speak about witnessing of incident.

Now it is apt to appreciate the evidence.

b) In order to establish charge U/Sections 307, 324 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 and A2, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 6. PW1 is victim/informant/injured. PWs.2 to 6 are independent witnesses.

11. Evidence of PW1

i) PW1 being victim, informant, injured has failed to support the case of prosecution. He deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of present case. No incident took place between him and accused. Accused never beat him and not caused any injuries.

He received injuries in attending agricultural work. He did not give any report before police against accused. He admitted his signature in report as Ex.P.1 claiming that he contributed the same without knowing the contents. He was not examined by the police.

ii) As PW1 resiled from the previous report and his 161 Cr.P.C statement, he was subjected to cross examination by the learned APP.

Inspite of it, no substance is elicited to concluded that A1 and A2 have attempted to commit murder of PW1 by using deadly weapon i.e., iron rod in doing so, they have caused simple injuries to PW1 and thereby committed the present offence.

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

Of course her 161 Cr.P.C statement is marked as Ex.P2 in support of case of prosecution. Thus, the sum and substance of evidence of PW1 is hostile evidence and not useful to the case of prosecution.

iii) PWs.2 to 6 being eye witnesses to the incident were in toto turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution by deposing that they do not know anything about the facts of the present case.

They did not witness any incident. They were not examined by the police. As they have resiled from their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements, they were subjected to cross-examination by the learned

APP. Inspite of it, except marking their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements as Exs.P.2 to P.7 no support evidence in support of case of prosecution is established. Thus, the supportive evidence of independent witnesses is also lacking to the case on hand. As they all have turned hostile the evidence of remaining witnesses is closed by this court as no purpose would serve in examine them. As there is no incriminating material against accused from the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, the examination of accused U/s.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

iv) In the light of aforesaid discussion, this court holds that the prosecution miserably failed to place iota of evidence in proving the charges leveled against accused. Hence, they are entitle for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the points are answered.

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

12. In the result, the Accused No.1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 r/w 511 of Indian

Penal Code, and they are acquitted for the same under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond of Accused No.1 and 2 and their sureties shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this

Judgment as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. No order is passed on case property, as no property produced and marked on behalf of prosecution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held in the case in between

Anukush Shivaji Gaikwad Versus State of Maharashtra reported

in 2013 LS (SC) 391 that in every criminal case, Section 357 Cr.P.C confers a power coupled with a duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question of awarding compensation to the victim. Therefore, the

Court has to record reasons for awarding or refusing compensation in every case.

So far as the grant of compensation is concerned, PW.1 injured person in this case, completely turned hostile and did not speak any incriminating material against the accused. He categorically stated that in attending agricultural work, he received injuries and accused did not cause any injuries to PW1. Considering the circumstances this court is not inclined to grant any kind of compensation to PW.1.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 28 th day of April, 2023.

PRL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

NANDYAL

FAC ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

ALLAGADDA.

S.C.No.248 of 2019 ASJ Court, Allagadda

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution : P.W.1S.Pedda Narasimha Reddy P.W.2G.Vardana Reddy P.W.3D.Talari Basha P.W.4Y.Maddilety P.W.5S.R.Venkata Lakshmamma P.W.6G.Surendra Kumar Reddy

For Defence :

None

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on informant. Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1. Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P4:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P7:Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

For Defence :

Nil

Material objects marked :

Nil

ASJ,NDL

FAC ASJ,ALG.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

NANDYAL

Present: Smt. B. Radha Rani,

 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal,

 FAC. II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. Thursday, the 17thday of November, 2022 I.P.No.48/2019

1) Pavan Kumar Veeraboyini, S/o.Yella Swamy, Aged 30 years, Hindu, business, R/o.H.No.25/247­10­A1, Dabarala Maseedu Street, Sanjeeva Nagar gate, Nandyal Town and Mandal, Kurnool District. … Petitioner

 ­Versus­ 

1) Mopuri Rajeshwari, Address ­ W/o.M.Venkatesu, aged 45 years, R/o.14­477/3, Panyam (V) and (M), Kurnool District.

2) G.Sudharshanam, S/o.Late Gaddam Bala, aged 45 years, R/o.4­55, Gospadu (V), Gospadu (M), Kurnool District.

3) Shyam Kumar Reddy, S/o.Thirupam Reddy, aged 43 years, C/o.Bharath Khadi Bandar, H.No.4­5, Ground floor, Sri Amrutha Children's Hospital Building, Near Ghandi Chowk, M.G. Road, Raichur town and District, Karnataka State.

4) V.Balakrishnudu, S/o.V.Ramaiah, aged 42 years, UGD/1­140, W.No.05, Nijalingappa Colony, Nijalingappa Nagar, Raichur, Karnatka State.

5) Gaddam Prasad, S/o.G.Munaiah, aged 38 years, R/o.H.No.4­25,K Ampamalla (V), Koilakuntla (M), Kurnool District.

6) Danduri Chennayya, S/o.Late D. Lingayya, aged 58 years, R/o.9­05, Julepalle (V), Near Panchayat Raj Office, Gospadu (M), Kurnool District.

7) V.Ajay Krishna Yadav, S/o.V.Veeraiah, aged 30 years, R/o.H.No.28­848­E, Opp. Afrun Icecreams, NGO's Colony, Nandyal Town and (M), Kurnool District.

8) T.Prakash, S/o.T.Chandraiah, aged 60 years, R/o.H.No.10/22, Panyam (V), Panyam (M), Kurnool District.

9) T.Siva Prasad, S/o.T.Venkateshvtharam, aged 58 years, R/o.H.No.27­327­503, Moolasagaram, Nandyal town and (M), Kurnool District.

10) Gangisetty Pushpa Deepak Kumar, S/o.G.Vijay Kumar, aged 26 years, R/o.Plot No.59, C/o.The Kitchen Garden, Opp. Municipal Indoor Stadium, Padmavathi Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

11) Madam Subash Chandrabose Reddy, S/o.M.Sow Reddy, aged 30 years, R/o.H.No.27/62, Moolasagaram, Nandyal town and (M), Kurnool District.

12) Karna Venkateswarulu, S/o.K.Pichanna, aged 52 years, R/o.H.No.26­365 B, Moolasagaram, Nandyal town and (M), Kurnool District.

13) Gotike Sreenivasa Reddy, S/o.Gotike Jayapratap Reddy, aged 53 years, R/o.H.No.28­774 C1, Lalitha Nagar, NGO's Colony, Nandyal town and (M), Kurnool District.

14) Mahendra Kumar Agarwal, S/o.Late Sedhmul Agarwal, aged 49 yeas, H.No.69/3Rt, S.R. Nagar, Near Community Hall, HYderabad, Telangana State.

15) Abhilash Katkuri, S/o.Katkuri Sreenivas, aged 30 years, R/o.H.No.2­22­156, Flat No.303, Aishwarya Nivas, Jaya Nagar, Kukatpally­500072, Land Mark.Lane next to Jaya Nagar, Kaman, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

16) Bane Laxman, S/o.Late Bane Kadappa, Aged 35 years, R/o.H.No.8­3­ 228/1280/217, Jawahar Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

17) D.Ravi Krishna, S/o.D.Prasad, C/o.Rajendra Kumar, aged30 years, R/o.Flat No.303, A block, Door No.1­56, 57, Vamsi Enclave, Snehapuri Colony, Moti Nagar, Hyderabad 500018. Landmark.Opp.SBI Bank Lane Telangana State.

18) Sivapuram Ramayogi, S/o.Late S.Chinna Subbarayudu, aged 50 years, R/o.10­ 2­70, Netaji Colony, Near santoshimatha Temple, Fathenagar, Ameerpet, Sanathnagar, I.E., Hyderabad, Telangana State.

19) Y.Raju, S/o.Y.Yadgiri, aged 33 years, R/o.H.No.3­6­51/a, Srinivasulu Gardens, West Marredpally, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

20) B.Naveen, Aged 37 years, S/o.Bushanam Balaiah, R/o.D.No.8­3­228/916, Ramanath Nagar, Hyderabaed, Telangana State.

21) R.V.Prasad, Aged 40 years, S/o.R.Sreenivasa Rao, C/o.AP Ranjan IPS, R/o.Plot No.9, Amarjyothi colony, Bharana Main Raod, Near S.R.Digi school, New Bowenpally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

22) M.Anith, Aged 40 years, W/o.M.Venkat, R/o.Plot No.7, Flat No.Boosareddygudda, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

23) Jukanti Kalyan Komal, Aged 35 years, S/o.J.Radhalingam, R/o.D.No.7­1­ 396/9, Balkampet, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

24) Padakanti Ven Madhav, Aged 29 years, S/o.Padakanti Ramulu, R/o.11­12­327, Near MGM Bakery, Opp.ICICI, ATM, Warasiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

25) G.Santosh Reddy, Aged 35 years, S/o.G.Narasimha Reddy, R/o.H.No.7­1­ 302/59/2, Dasaram Basti, B.K. Guda, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

26) A. Sangamayya, Aged 43 years, S/o.A.Bala Krishna, R/o.H.No.7­1­304/21/B B.K.Guda, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

27) Y.Balraju, Aged 30 years, S/o.Y.Venkataswamy, R/o.H.No.208, Gajularamaram, Quthbullapur (M), Medchal District, Telangana State.

28) Dharmesh Yadav, Aged 40 years, S/o.Peda Seetarao Yadav, R/o.H.No.11­5­ 203, Bhavani Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

29) Thumu Nikhil Kumar, Aged 26 years, S/o.T.Shravan Kumar, R/o.H.No.12­5­ 2/1, Maruthi Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

30) Narala Raghu, Aged 30 years, S/o.N.Veeresham, R/o.3rd floor, H.No.1­54/89, Plot No.89, Near Masjid, Survey No.87, Madinaguda, Ankura Hospital side lane, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

31) Chinka Peda Sivaiah, Aged 50 years, S/o.Chinka Sambaiah, R/o.H.No.2­966­ 7/9 Hill Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

32) H.Swathi, Aged 25 years, W/o.H.Narasimha, R/o.H.No.12­13­1152/4, Street No.11, Keemty Colony, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. Telangana State.

33) Jagadeesh Yadav, Aged 45 years, S/o.Bala Yadav, R/o.Matha Wines shop No.27, H.P.Road, Moosapet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

34) Boda Sujatha, Aged 45 years, W/o.Beeraiah, R/o.Road No.6A, 25/36­A1, Dwarakapuram, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

35) Guntha Madhu, Aged 28 years, S/o.G.Venkata Subbaiah, R/o.H.No.7­1­ 38/1/21, Babu Jagjeevanram Nagar, D.K.Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

36) Sri Balaji Enterprises, Rep.by its Proprietor, H.No.7­4­70/1, Ferozguda, Balanagar, Hyderabad, Telangana State. … Respondents This Petition filed under Sections 10 and 13 of Provincial Insolvency

Act 1920 prays this Court to declare the petitioner as an insolvent as he is unable to discharge the debts of respondents shown in ‘A’ schedule. 

This Petition coming on this day before me Petitioner Evidence as last chance in the presence of Sri. M.Rama Krishna Murthy, Advocate for petitioner. R.1 to R.36 are Set Ex­parte.

O R D E R

Petitioner is called absent. No representation. Petitioner side evidence not adduced. Hence, I.P. is dismissed for default in the interest of

Justice.

Typed to my dictation to the Typist, and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17 th day of November, 2022.

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, 

FAC. II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal.

Appendix of Evidence ­Nil­

Pr. S.C.J, NDL,

II A.S.C.J, NDL.