B.Sathaiah

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Monday, this the 2nd day of May, 2 0 1 6 .

Present: Sri B.Sathaiah, Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC. Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.637 of 2010

==============================================================

1Name of the Complainant: The Circle-Inspector of Police, P.S.Paloncha Town.

2Name of the accused: A1-Jerripothula Santha, W/o.Late Mogili, 45 years, SC(Madiga), Coolie, R/o.Sanjeevnagar, Yellandu. A2-Jerripothula Srujana, W/o.Sunil Kumar, Computer Operator in KTPS, 23 years, R/o.Sanjeevnagar, Yellandu. A3.Bhargav, R/o.Yellandu(absconding).

3Crime Number: 239 of 2009 4P.R.C.Number: 19 of 2010 5Name of the officer who : Smt.R.M.Subhavalli, committed the case II Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem.

6Section of Law: 306 r/w.34 of IPC 7Prosecution conducted by: Sri V.Purushotham Rao,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8Defence conducted by: Sri B.Madhava Rao, Advocate, Kothagudem.

9Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

10 Finding of the Court: Found not guilty for the offences U/s.306 r/w.34 IPC.

11 Sentence or order : In the result, A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offence U/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC, they are acquitted U/s 235(1 )Cr.P.C for the offences U/s.306 r/w.34 IPC. Bail bonds of A1, A2 shall be in force for a period of (6) months.

2

This case coming before me for final hearing on 02-05-2016 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Madhava Rao, Advocate

for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the

arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arising out of P.R.C.No.19 of 2010 in Crime No.239 of 2009 for the offences U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC of P.S. Paloncha Town.

2.The C.I.of Police Paloncha Town chargesheeted the accused A1 and A2 for the offences U/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC and showing the A3 Bhargav as absconding and praying to file supplementary chargesheet against A3 as and when apprehended as every effort became futile to arrest A3, who went absconded noticing the registration of crime against him.

3.The prosecution case is that: the deceased Sunil Kumar, resident of Yellandu loved and married J.Srujana-A2 herein, who is also from Yellandu and after marriage, the couple started living together and even the deceased left the company of his mother Pw1-Bhagavathi Devi and sisters Pw2-Susman Paswan and

Pw3-Neelam Manju devi only to reside separately with his wife, A2 herein. But, thereafter A1, who is the mother of A2 and the mother-in-law of deceased Sunil

Kumar attacked Pws.1 to 3. Hence, they started living at Sanjaynagar, No.2 basthi,

Yellandu which is away from the colony of accused at Yellandu Town. So also, A3

Bhargav developed illicit intimacy with A2 and all the accused 1 to 3 attacked the deceased Sunil Kumar, resulting bleeding head injury . Thereafter, A2 had taken her husband Sunil Kumar to Paloncha for leading conjugal life at Bollurugudem of 3

Paloncha town in a rented house and during the said stay both A1 and A2 used to harass the deceased Sunil Kumar mentally and physically and A2 continued her illegal intimacy with A3. So also, A2 went to her mother's house at Yellandu and despite lapse of 3 days did not return to join the deceased and considering that his wife A2 did not change herself and A1 also supported A2 for continuing illegal intimacy with A3 and also considering he distanced himself from his mother and sisters, vexed with the life Sunil Kumar committed suicide by hanging in his house at Bollorugudem, Paloncha in the afternoon hours on 07-09-2009.

4.On 07-09-2009 at about 10 P.M Pw1 being mother of deceased Sunilkumar, having learnt her son committed suicide due to acts of accused as under Ex.P1 had lodged report with P.S.Paloncha Town which necessitated registering of Crime

No.239/2009 U/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC and FIR was issued by Pw-13 N.Ramesh, the then S.I.of Police , P.S.Paloncha Town.

5.Later on Pw16-T.Suresh Kumar, the then C.I.of Police, taken-up further investigation and visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses recorded their statements. So, also Lw19-B.Ravindranath, the then successor

C.I.of Police conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased in the presence of P.W.11-Ch.Sarveswara Rao and P.W.14-K.Sreenu and thereafter the deadbody was sent for autopsy and after P.M.Examination, the Medical Officer issued report, who is Pw-12 -Dr.J.V.L.Sirisha , Government Doctor, Paloncha, further on 03-10-2009 A1 and A2 were arrested when themselves voluntarily surrendered 4

before the Pw16 and they were produced before the court for judicial remand and

chargesheeted after due investigation.

The Learned II Addl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem took 6.

cognizance of the charge sheet for the offence Under Sections 306 r/w.34 IPC against the accused A1 and A2 in P.R.C.No.19/2010.

7.After appearance of the accused persons, Learned II Addl.Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem furnished the copies of the case documents

to the A1 and A2 as required U/s 207-A of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions Division, Khammam as the offence U/Sec.306 r/w.34 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, took the case on file and numbered it as

S.C.No.637/2010 and made it over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

8. After hearing the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate

for accused, charges U/Sec.306 r/w.34 IPC were framed, read over and explained

to the A1 and A2 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.In order to establish its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-15 full descriptions appended in the appendix of of evidence appended to the Judgment.

10. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 are examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in 5 the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused.

12.Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charges U/Secs.306 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13.PW1-Bhagavathi Devi is the mother of deceased Sunil Kumar, deposed that her son married A2 after love affair with A2 on 17-8-2006. But after some time having lived together, the love marriage suffered set backs as A2 developed illicit intimacy with one Bhargav, who is absconding accused No.3. The same was noticed by her son Sunil kumar. So, also A3 with a stick beat her son on his head and further her son revealed to her that all the accused 1 to 3 threatening him to kill and on 7-9-2009 her son committed suicide by hanging at Paloncha in a rented house which was informed by one Pramod over phone upon that she went to spot and found deadbody of her son and lodged Ex.P1 report with police.

14.Whereas Pw2-Susman Paswan-daughter of Pw1 and sister of deceased also stated that it was love marriage between her brother Sunil Kumar and A2 that taken place on 17-9-2006 and they got no information about the said marriage which was against to their will, but they did not attend the marriage as such her brother and A2 started living at the accused No.1's house, with whom they had no talking terms. She further revealed her brother told them that A2 got illlegal 6 intimacy with A3 when he noticed it, A3 beat him causing bleeding injury for which her mother only gave Rs.2,000/- for her brother's treatment.

15.Pw3-N.Manjudevi, another sister of deceased Sunil Kumar, deposed when her brother deceased Sunil Kumar noticed illegal intimacy between his wife A2 and one Bhargav A3 herein, all the accused beat her brother caused injuries and due to unbearable torture of accused 1 and 2 her brother committed suicide.

16.Pw4-Neelam Vijay-brother-in-law of deceased Sunil Kumar, deposed having undergone love marriage with A2 his brother-in-law Sunil Kumar left his mother and sisters and started living with A1 and A2. But, A2 developed illicit intimacy with one Bhargav and when that was noticed by her brother-in-law Sunil Kumar, the said Bhargav beat Sunil Kumar on his head and deceased shifted to Paloncha

Town and due to quarrells with his wife, his brother-in-law committed suicide on 07-09-2009.

17.Pws. 1 to 4 evidence, who are the persons constituting of same family deceased mother, sisters and brother-in-law respectively made it clear that Sunil

Kumar married A2 out of love and started living at his in-law's house. But said love marriage landed in troubles when A2 developed illegal intimacy with A3 and it was when known to deceased Sunil Kumar, who was beaten up when questioned the said illegal intimacy and all these events driven the deceased to commit suicide as per the versions of Pws.1 to 4.

18.Pw1 in her cross examination admitted that she did not attend the marriage of her son and she was against the love marriage of her son with A2. Hence, she 7 did not allow the deceased to enter into her house. She further admitted that she asked her deceased son to withdraw the money of Rs.30,000/- FDR lying in

Andhra Bank, Yellandu town to meet the marriage expenses of her younger daughter, when he refused for withdrawing the said amounts she approached police, who in turn summoned Sunil Kumar to the station. So, also Pw2 in her cross examination admitted that they pressurized the deceased to encash the F.D.R amount which was not agreed by the deceased and they also approached local police. She further admitted that she did not state to police about her brother informing her that he had seen A2 and A3 in compromising position. So, also Pw3 in her cross examination admitted that she does not remember whether she stated to police or not about deceased catching redhandedly A2 and A3. So, these admissions by Pws.1 to 3 also showing that they were against to the love marriage of Sunil Kumar with A2 and also revealed that there were disputes regarding withdrawal of fixed amount in the bank between them and the deceased. So, also the evidence by them that A2 developed illicit intimacy with A3 was made known to them only through the deceased Sunil kumar. Yet Pw2, according to her own admission she did not state the same to the police in her statement. So also, as per own admission of Pw3, She does not remember whether she stated about the illicit intimacy in her statement or not given to the police. In view of this, it cannot be certainly presumed that there is no doubt about the illicit intimacy affair between A2 and one Bhargav. If at all, that exists Pws.2 and 3 should be firm on that aspect and they ought to have revealed it in their statements. But 8 there is variation in their versions from chief evidence to cross examination evidence. It is more so in as much as for the said such affair there were no eye witnesses and the couple were living separately away from them and in this context their evidence is only hear say as they learnt it through the deceased. If at all any such affair is existing between A2 and A3 the same will be certainly known to PW5 to 10 who are the neighbours and circumstantial witnesses. But none of them stated the existence of any illicit intimacy between A2 and A3.

Pw5-Sk.Asia-the deceased house owner and circumstantial witness only stated that she does not know anything about the case. Pw6-P.Surender also neighbour stated that he does not anything about the case. Pw7-M.S.Yadav, who is the friend of deceased and circumstantial witness only stated that he does not know anything about the case. Pw8.M.Muntaz Begum also neighbour and circumstantial witness only stated that she does not know about the case. Pw9-G.Laxmi also circumstantial witness only stated that she does not know anything about the case. Pw10-Umarani also neighbour and circumstantial witness only stated that police did not record her statement. So, it is clear that Pw5 to 10 not supported the prosecution case and even Pw5, Pw6, Pw7, Pw8 denied to have stated as in

Ex.P2 to P5 their respective statements recorded by the police as such the versions of Pws.1 to 4 did not get any corroborative evidence from Pws.5 to 10 who are the independent witnesses with regard to existence and continuation of any illegal intimacy between A2 and A3. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists illegal intimacy between A2 and A3 in as much as there were financial and 9 economical disputes between Pws.1 to 4 and deceased. So also between them there was no agreement for undergoing love marriage and its performance between the deceased and A2 herein. In this back drop though Pws.1 to 4 denied a suggestion that they have just created affair of illegal intimacy between A2 and A3 to fix the accused, in view of no supporting evidence in that respect it cannot be deemed that such denial is free from any suspicion. It is more so, as the couple were living away from Pws.1 to 4 since the date of marriage and what transpired between the couple could not be seen by the Pws.1 to 4 except alleged phone call from the deceased himself.

19.Pw11-Ch.Sarweswara Rao panch for inquest and CDF in his evidence stated that police conducted inquest over the deadbody of Sunil Kumar and at that time he was present and also conducted scene of offence panchanamaas in Ex.P5 and P6 and he further revealed Ex.P7 and P8 are the suicide notes of deceased but in the cross examination he again stated that he put his signatures at police station and on white papers and he does not know why the deceased died as such Pw11 evidence since differing from chief to cross cannot be believed. So, also Pw14-

K.Sreenu, another panch for inquest stated that as under Ex.P11 he put his signature on the panchanama. So, also as under Ex.P12 on the crime detail form .

But he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased. So, except admitting his signatures Pw14 did not reveal about conducting of inquest panchanama in his presence. Even presuming that inquest panchanama was 10 conducted . It only shows conducting of inquest panchanama upon the death of the deceased which is infact not in dispute.

20.So, also Pw12-Dr.J.V.L.Sirisha, the Medical Officer, deposed that she conducted PME over the deadbody of Sunil Kumar on 8-9-2009 upon police requisition and issued PME rpeort Ex.P9 with a opinion that cause of death was due to cordio respiratory arrest asphyxia due to hanging. This medical evidence showing by way of hanging the deceased committed suicide. It need not be repeated that death of the deceased was and by way of hanging is not in dispute at all. So, also Pw15-M.Karunakar, photographer stated that at the request of police at the house of deceased he taken 10 digital photographs of the deceased which are Ex.p13 and handedover to police which also showing death of the deceased by way of hanging. Pw13- N.Ramesh, S.I.Of police, stated that he received Ex.P1 report from Pw1 and issued FIR under Ex.P10, having registered for the offence U/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC in Cr.239/2009 on 7-9-2009 and Pw16- subsequent Investigating Officer T.Suresh kumar evidence is that he took-up further investigation from Pw13 and proceeded to the scene of offence examined and recorded the statements of witnesses and in the presence of mediators as under Ex.P14, he drawn crime detail form and also as under Ex.P15 he conducted inquest over the deadbody and later on subjected deadbody for PME and arrested both the accused 1 and 2 on 3-10-2009 when they surrendered before him and produced them before the court and on his transfer his successor verified the investigation done by him and laid chargesheet. In his cross examination he 11 admitted that Pws.1 to 3 were against to the love marriage between A2 and deceased. So all through it is the prosecution contention that Pws.1 to 3 were against to the love marriage of deceased with A2 for their own reason. Due to said dislike the deceased was forced to live separately from them. Even it is Pw1 admission that they did not allow deceased to enter into their house as he married against to their will and wish. Further-more, there were quarrels and even approaching police by Pw1 with regard to withdrawal of FDR amounts from the bank. These siutations in one way or the other going to show that it was not so smooth sailing and not so cordial terms between deceased and Pws.1 to 3 and in view of Pws.5 to 10 nowhere whispered existence of any illegal affair between A2 and A3 stating the same only by Pws.1 to 4, it cannot be deemed as said fact proved and also cannot be deemed said fact as free from any suspicion. In view of not so cordial terms between deceaed and them and so also between them and the accused.

21.Ex.P7 and P8 are the only signatures of Pw11 on the alleged suicide notes of deceased who did not reveal about the seizure of suicide notes but only the signatures of PW-11 are marked on Ex.P7 and P8 on the said suicide notes allegedly of the deceased. Even then the prosecution utterly failed in getting them marked through another witness K.Sreenu, who is examined as Pw14. So, also the same is not done even through Investigating officer Pw16. As a whole there is no whisper about the seizure of said suicide notes from the deceased house and in 12 the presence of mediators. Hence, non marking of said alleged suicide notes by the prosecution is found tobe major lapse in the case.

22.The accused herein instigating and abetting the deceased to commit suicide for proving the offence U/sec.306 IPC are not at all established beyond doubt.

Even Pws.1 to 3 did not specifically attribute over tacts to the accused to hold them as guilty of instigating the deceased to commit suicide except they stated that A2 developed illegal affair with A3 and the accused harassed the deceased physically and mentally besides beating him. But to believe this piece of evidence, there is no corroborative evidence from any other indpendent witness in as much as Pws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses in this case constituting of same family who are also stood enimical to the accused on account of the deceased love marriage with A2 which was never liked by them. So, also the counsel for accused relied on a citation reported in 2012 criminal Law Journal NOC Page 205 in a case of

Nihaluddin alias Munna Vs. State of Chattisgarh Hon'ble Chattisgarh High Court held that

“When alleged quarrel took place two days prior to suicide by the

deceased and the suicide was not direct result of qaurrel between the

deceased and accused basing on such quarrel charge U/sec.306 IPC

against acccused cannot be framed.”

This ruling amply applicable to the facts of the case. As in this case this suicide was not a direct result of quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the alleged intimacy affair was much prior to the date of committing suicide by the deceased.

13

23.The counsel for the accused also relied upon Judgment 2003(2) ALT

Crimnal Page 549 A.P.l in a case of S.E.John Chakravarthi(A1) Vs. State of A.P. .

Our own Hon'ble High Court at para No.8 held that :

“in order to constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to have

intentionally aided to commission of the crime mere suspecting the

character of the deceased does not amount to intentionally aiding or

instigating as defined U/sec.107 IPC.

24.This ruling also applicable to the facts of the case as prosecution nowhere shown accused intentionally aiding or instigating the deceased for committing suicide on the other hand it is prosecution case own contention that having vexed with the life due to himself distanced from his mother and sisters and his wife A2 developed alleged affair with A3 he committed suicide which does not display that the accused aided or instigated the deceased to commit sucide. Therefore, the prosecution is found tobe at failure in view of above made discussion to prove the case against the accused beyond doubt and both the accused found tobe entitled for benefit of doubt. Therefore both the acused A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offences 306 r/w.34 IPC . Hence, acquitted for the same

U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of both accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months.

RESULT:

In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence U/sec.306 r/w.34 IPC .

Hence, acquitted for the same U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. Both the accused bail bonds shall be in force for a period ( 6 ) months.

14

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open court on this the 2nd day of May, 2016.

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC. Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : Bhagavathi Devi ( Complainant and mother of deceased) P.W.2 : Susman Paswan (Sister of deceased and circumstantial witness ) P.W.3 : Neelam Manju Devi (sister of deceased and circumstantial witness ) P.W.4 : Neelam Vijay ( Brother of deceased and circumstantial witness ) P.W.5 : Shaik Asia (House owner and circustantial witness ) P.W.6 : P.Surender (neighbour and circumstantial witness ) P.W.7 : M.Sagar Yadav ( friend of deceased and circumstantial witness ) P.W.8 : Md.Muntaz Begum ( Neighbour and circumstantial witness ) P.W.9 : G.laxmi ( Neighbour and circumstantial witness ) P.W.10 : T.Uma Rani ( neighbour and circumstantial witness ) P.W.11 : Ch.Sarveswara Rao ( Panch for inquest) P.W.12 : J.V.L.Sireesha ( Medical Officer ) P.W.13 : N.Ramesh ( First investigating Officer ) P.W.14 : K.Srinu ( panch for inquest ) P.W.15 : M.Karunakar ( Photographer ) P.W.16 : T. Suresh Kumar (Second Investigating officer)

For Defence: -None-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Original report Ex.P-2 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw5 Ex.P-3 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw6 Ex.P-4 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw7 Ex.P-5 : 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of Pw8 Ex.P-6 : Inquest panchanama Ex.P-7 : Signature of PW11 on the CDF Ex.P-8 : Suicide note. Ex.P-9 : Suicide Note. Ex.P-10 :Post Mortem Examination Report 15

Ex.P-11 : F.I.R Ex.P-12 : Signature of Pw11 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P-13 : Signature of Pw11 on Crime Details Form Ex.P-14 : 10 photographs Ex.P-15 : Crime Detail Form Ex.P-16: Inquest report.

For Defence: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC.Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

Corrections carried out by me:

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

AT KOTHAGUDEM.

Thursday, this the 31st day of December, 2 0 1 5 .

Present: Sri B.Sathaiah, Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC, Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.376 of 2010

==============================================================

01.Name of the Complainant: The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Aswapuram.

02.Name of the accused:A1- Kunja Venkateswarlu, S/o.Paradeshi, 35 years, Koya, agriculture, R/o.Kommugudem village. A2- Kunja Narsamma, W/o.Paradeshi, 60 years, Koya, agriculture, R/o.Kommugudem village.

03.Crime Number: 101 of 2009 04.P.R.C.Number: PRC No.17 of 2010 05.Name of the Officer who : Sri M.Babu, committed this case. Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru.

06.Section of law: 498-A, 306 IPC.

07.Prosecution conducted by: Sri Dinesh Kumar Patel,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

08.Defence conducted by: Sri N.Somi Reddy, Advocate, Kothagudem. 09.Plea of the accused: Not guilty.

10.Finding of the Court: A1 and A2 found not guilty for the offences U/s.498-A and 306 IPC.

2 11.Sentence or order : In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC . Accordingly both the accused are acquitted U/sec.235(1)Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

=============================================================

This case coming before me for final hearing on 28-12-2015 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri N.Somi Reddy, Advocate

for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the

arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This case arising out of P.R.C.No.17 of 2010 in Crime No.101 of 2009 of

P.S.Aswapuram for the offences Under Section 498-A, 306 IPC.

2.The S.I. Of Police P.S.Aswapuram chargesheeted the accused 1 and 2 for the offences Under Section 498-A, 306 IPC.

3.The prosecution case is that: A1 marriage with Janakamma, daughter of

PW1-T.Venkateswarlu, complainant herein was performed in the year 1996 and the couple lived happily for some time. But thereafter accused No.1 alongwith his mother A2 started harassing Janakamma for bringing more money from her parents and they caused physical and mental torture to Janakamma. However,

Janakamma tolerated all the harassment with a hope that one day the accused will change themselves but no change occurred in the attitude of accused towards

Janakamma. But the accused increased their harassment, hence felt unbearable

Janakamma narrated such ordeal of harassment and torture to her parents. PW1 and PW2-T.Mangamma upon which PW1 approached the elders by name 3

E.Satyanarayana and others on two or three occasions who conducted panchayaths in the year 2006. Even then, the accused not cared the elders advice, instead A1 addicted to drinks and used to assault Janakamma in a cruel manner without any reason due to the heavy torture by both the accused Janakamma got frustration over her life, ultimately consumed pesticide poison at 6 P.M on 10-12-2009 at her in-law's house at Kommugudem, sooner she was shifted to Area Hospital,

Bhadrachalam where she died while undergonig treatment.

4.On a report by PW1 at about 10 a.m on 11-12-2009 at P.S Aswapuram a case in crime No.101/2009 U/sec.498-A, 306 IPC was registered by PW10 U.Samba

Raju, the then S.I.of police P.S. Aswapuram and investigated into. During the investigation PW10 visited the Government Hospital, Bhadrachalam and found the deadbody of the deceased Janakamma in the Mortuary Room and also examined and recorded the statements of PW1, 2 and 3-T.Sampath Kumar who is son of

PW1 and 2 so also recorded the statements of PW4.T.Muthaiah, Pw5-P.Nagendra- circumstantial witness and also one G.Kumari-LW4 herein and conducted inquest over the deadbody of the deceased before the mediators. PW6. K.Nageswara Rao and PW7-U. Ramaiah and subjected deadbody for Post Mortem Examination after completion of Post Mortem Examination the deadbody was handedover to the PW1 for funeral rites under proper acknowledgment. Later on PW10 visited the scene of offence situated at the house of accused at Kommugudem and prepared Crime

Detail form before the mediators PW8. T.Ramani and LW11. M.Prabhakar and he also arrested both the accused at Kommugudem at 1 P.M on 22-12-2009 and they 4 said to have confessed the offence during the interrogation hence their arrest was effected and were produced before the court for judicial remand.

5. Dr.N.V.Laxman-Medical Officer of Government Area Hospital,

Bhadrachalam who conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased basing on the RFSL report vide file WGL/TOX/02/2010 issued PME Report with an opinion that the cause of death of deceased was due to “consumption of

Organochloro insecticide poison” and after due investigation and after its completion chargesheet was laid.

6.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru took cognizance of the charge sheet for the offences Under Section 498-A and 306 IPC against the accused in P.R.C.No.17/2010.

7. After appearance of the accused persons, Learned Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Manuguru furnished the copies of the case documents to the A1 and

A2 as required U/s 207-A of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, this case was committed to the

Court of Sessions Division, Khammam as the offence U/Sec.306 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. The Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions

Judge, Khammam, took the case on file and numbered it as S.C.No.376/2010 and

made it over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

8. After hearing the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused, charges U/Sec.498-A and 306 IPC were framed, read over and explained to the A1 and A2 in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

9.In order to establish its case, the prosecution got examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-11.

10. After closure of prosecution side evidence, A1 and A2 are examined

U/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

11. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused.

12.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charges U/Secs.498-A and 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

13.Pw1, the defacto complainant and father of deceased Janakamma in his evidence stated that he performed his daughter's marriage with accused in the year 2002 and there were frequent quarrels between his daughter and accused

No.1 and on four occasions in respect of said quarrels panchayaths were conducted and accused No.1 used to quarrel wth the deceased in intoxication condition besides threatening the deceased to bring money, else he would divorce her and about three years back A1 over phone informed him that Janakamma consumed poison on that he went and saw the dead body of the deceased at Government

Hospital, Bhadrachalam and he lodged report Ex.P1 with police.

14.Whereas PW2-T.Mangamma, wife of PW1 and mother of deceased also deposed that there were quarrels between the deceased and accused No.1 and 6 deceased came to their house and refused to join the A1 society and panchayath was also held before the elders and there were disputes between A1 and deceased and dceased committed suicide by consuming poison and PW3-Thati Sampath

Kumar, brother of deceased deposed that in the year 1996 the marriage of his sister Janakamma was performed with A1 and the couple blessed with one son and daughter and they were informed by the A1 that Janakamma committed suicide and accused demanded the deceased to bring money and on one occasion his father-PW1 sold the paddy yield and gave money to the deceased. So, this is the evidence of Pws. 1 to 3 who are no other than the parents and brother of deceased Janakamma and even their versions revealed that there were quarrels between the deceased and A1 and A1 only informed them about the deceased consuming poison and even as per PW2 deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and on one occasiion the deceased came to her parents house and refused to join the society of A1. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was not ohappy with

A1 as refused to join him and the quarrels between couple also indicating it was not so smooth affair between them. It is also tobe noted that PW1 so also PW2 and Pw3 did not specifically reveal the specific physical and mental harassment caused by the accused to the deceased and they not even revealed about any consistent demand of dowry by the accused from the deceased. As a matter of fact none of them attributed anything against the A2 herein suggesting herself causing any harassment alongwith A1 to the deceased and even as per PW1 the couple having children ie., son and daughter aged respectively 12 years and 14 7 years. Thus, it can be said that the alleged offence taken place more than 14 years after the marriage of the couple and also as per PW1 cross examination A1 only kept the children with him and rearing them and deceased was his daughter through his first wife and he also admitted that he married second wife even during the life time of his first wife and also admitted that between the deceased and Dwakra Group members there were disputes regarding loan repayments and this admission by PW1 clearly disclosing there were disputes regarding repayment of loan between Dwakra group members and the deceased and PW1 married second wife even when first wife is alive and in view of the evidence of PW2 that deceased committed suicide by consuming poison and in the back drop of PW1 admission that there were disputes between deceased and Dwakra group members regarding loan repayments is a strong circumstance running counter to the case of prosecution also in as much as already noted Pws.1 to 3 did not attribute the accused ever demanding more dowry from the deceased and they not even specifically mention about over tacts attributable to the accused to project them as causing physical and mental harassment to the deceased. At the most as per

PW1 A1 threatened the deceased to bring money and else he would divorce her.

15.This stray evidence cannot be attirbutable as equivalent to demand of dowry by A1 from the deceased. Even, as per PW3 also it is the same that the accused demanded the deceased to get money but nowhere Pws.1 to 3 revealed A1 herein demanding dowry from the deceased and any cruelty if at all caused by the accused towards the deceased as alleged must relate to the demand of dowry so 8 as to presume that such coercing for dowry and causing cruelty will be amounting to causing physical and mental harassment so as to cause losing of mental equilibrium of the lady to the extent of ending her life. But all these ingredients are not clear out of the versions of Pws.1 to 3. It is not out of place to mention that A1 himself informed the deceased consuming poison to PW1 over phone. This piece of evidence is also strong circumstance against the prosecution case for a reason that if at all A1 was responsible for the alleged offence he was never expected to inform the incident to Pw1. In view of the evidence on record, more particularly Pws.1 to 3, whose evidence as already noted revealed there were quarrels between the couple for which exclusive responsibility does not lie with A1 only and there may be some other reasons unconcerned with A1. It appear so in view of the evidence that there were disputes regarding loan repayment between deceased and Dwakra group members.

16.The remaining evidence is that of Pws.4 to 7 PW4-Thati Muthaiah- circumstantial witness so also Pw5-P.Nagendra both only stated that they do not know anything about the case and they did not state to police as in Ex.P2 and P3 their statement given to police. PW6-K.Nageswara Rao mediator for CDF so also another meditor PW7-U.Ramaiah only stated that they do not know anything about the case and Ex.P4 and P5 respectively are their signatures on CDF are marked.

Pws.4 to 7 after declared hostile by the prosecutioin and in their cross examination by the prosecution clearly stated that they settled the matter out side the court with the accused and nothing incriminating evidence appeared from 9 their versions against the accused herein. Hence, their evidence failed to support the prosecution case and found tobe no use for it. PW8-T. Ramani inquest panch only stated that Ex.P6 is the inquest panchanama conducted by the police over the deadbody of the deceased Janakamma. This evidence only showing conducting of inquest by the police over the deadbody and PW9-Dr.N.V.L.Laxman Medical

Officer deposed that as in Ex.P7 he issued PME report basing on the RFSL report

Ex.P8 and upon requisition from the Police on 11-12-2009 he carried out autopsy on the deadbodyof Janakamm from 1.10 pm to 2 pm and he sent viscera to RFSL,

Warangal for medical analysis and report Items No.1 and 2 (Stomach and small intestine and liver and kidney) were analysed and in it 'Organochloro insecticide poison' is found and he further opined that the deceased died due to

Cordiorespiratory due to Organochloro poiso . So this evidence of Medical Officer disclosing coupled with the evidence of PW8 occurrence of death of deceased

Janakamma due to consuming poisonous substance ie., 'Organochloro insecticide poison' in fact the death of the deceased is not in dispute.

17.Whereas PW-10 -U.Samba Raju, investigating officer in his evidence stated that upon receipt of report from PW1, he registered the case and issued FIR under Ex.P9 and examined PW1 at the station and rushed to the Government

Hospital and conducted inquest panchanama before the mediators and also subjected the deadbody for autopsy and recorded the statements of Pws.2 to 5 and also proceeded to the scene of ofence and conducted panchanama of scene in the presence of PW6 and 7 as under Ex.P10 crime details form was also prepared 10 and he arrested both the accused, during the interrogation accused confessed the offence on 22-12-2009 and produced them before the court and he further revealed that he laid chargesheet after the investigation completion and also got photographed the deadbody as under Ex.P11 which are three photos with CD PW4 and 5 stated to him as in Ex. P2 and P3 and in the presence of same panchas he conducted inquest. But in the cross examination PW10 clearly admitted that he does not know whether deceased Janakamma was having any quarrels and disputes with Dwakra group members regarding misapproporation of amounts by

Janakamma. This admission is clearly counter to the evidence of PW1 that there were quarrels between the deceased and Dwakra group members regarding repayment of loan in the Dwakra group members and PW10 was required to enquire about this all important circumstances. He clearly admitted that he does not know anything about the said fact. Further, more PW10 also admitted that he did not examine Oruganti Sreenu and Edara Satyanarayana, who are the elders and conducted panchayaths even as per contents of Ex.P1 report. PW10 omission to examine the said elders who said to have convened panchayath to settle the quarrels between the couple appears tobe major lapse in this case and examination of both side elders by name Sreenu and Satyanarayana is very much essential in the facts of this case and their examination and their evidence definitely could be useful factor in this case as they reveal about the holding of panchayath between them regarding the dispute of couple and the reasons for disputes between the couple and any connection of accused with the alleged offence would 11 have been made known. Had their evidence been on record due to non examination of said persons and in the absence of their evidence the prosecution case suffered major blow. As a whole none of the ingredients for the alleged offences

U/sec.498-A, 306 IPC like the accused causing cruelty to the deceased with demand of dowry and caused physical and mental harassment to the deceased are not estalished much less accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The counsel for the accused relied upon Judgment reported in 2006

Crl.L.J.554 in a case of Harjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “the accused cannot be convicted when there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or any of his relative for or in connection with demand of dowry and presumption of Sec.113 B of Evidence Act cannot be invoked. “

19.This ruling is squarely applies for facts of this case, as in this case also the prosecution failed in showing the evidence that the deceased was subjected to cruelty .

“and such cruelty be so proximate live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned and when the cruelty is remote in time and has became stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned it could be of no consequence.”

20.And as a matter of fact in this case as already noted no cruelty as caused by the accused to the deceased is established. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is found tobe too short to fix any responsibility on the accused with the alleged offence, the prosecution failed in proving the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

12

21.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.498-A and 306 IPC . Accordingly, they are acquitted for the same U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2015.

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC. Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : T.Venkateswarlu (complainant/father of deceased) P.W.2 : T.Mangamma (mother of deceased) P.W.3 : T.Sampath kumar (brother of deceased) P.W.4 : T.Muthaiah (Circumstantial witness ) P.W.5 : P.Nagendra (Circumstantial witness) P.W.6 : K.Nageswara Rao (Panch for CDF) P.W.7 : U.Ramaiah (Panch for CDF) P.W.8 : T.Ramani (panch for inquest ) P.W.9 : Dr.N.V.Laxman ( Medical Officer ) P.W.10: U.Samba Raju ( investigating officer)

For Defence: -None-Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Original Report Ex.P-2 : 161 Statement of PW4 Ex.P-3 : 161 Statement of PW5 Ex.P-4 ; Signature of PW6 on CDF Ex.P-5 : Signature of PW7 on the CDF Ex.P-6 : Signature of Pw8 on the inquest. Ex.P-7 : P.M.E. Report Ex.P-8 : R.F.S.L. Report Ex.P-9: F.I.R Ex.P-10 : Crime Details Form Ex.P-11 : photos with CD.

13

For Defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil -

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge, Kothagudem, FAC.Addl.Assst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

Corrections carried out by me:

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL ASST SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC) AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2 0 1 7.

Present: Sri B.Sathaiah, Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge,

Kothagudem.

FAC.Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge (FTC)

Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No.635 of 2010

1Name of the :The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S., II ComplainantTown, Kothagudem.

2Name of the accused:Pathan Sadhik Khan S/o Yakub Khan, Age: 55 years, Occu: Coolie, R/o Penagadapa

Crime Number:31 of 2010.

4P.R.C.Number:16 of 2010 5Name of the officer :II Addll. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, who committed the Kothagudem case 6Section of Law:307 of IPC 7Prosecution conducted by: Sri V.Venkateshwarlu,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8Defence conducted by :Sri G.V.Prasad, Advocate, Kothagudem.

9Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

10 Finding of the Court:Not guilty 11 Sentence or order :In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC and acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of appeal preferred if any.

This case coming before me for final hearing on 20.01.2017 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri G.V.Prasad, Advocate for Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G E M E N T

1. The S.I., of Police, P.S., II Town, Kothagudem, charge-sheeted accused for the offence under Section 307 IPC in Cr.No.31/2010 of P.S., II

Town, Kothagudem, which is subject matter in P.R.C.No.16/2010 on the file of II Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Kothagudem.

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that: on 6-4-2010 P.W.2-

Ch.Venkat Rao, injured went to the accused push-cart for purchase of snacks (Mirchi bajjilu) at about 8.00 p.m., situated nearby the Ramaswamy shop at Penagadapa village and purchased the snacks from the vendor, who is accused herein but the accused picked up quarrel with P.W.2 and stabbed P.W.2 with knife in the stomach due to which P.W.2 received bleeding injury in his stomach. P.W.1-Ch.Ramesh, who is brother of

P.W.2 was informed the incident by P.W.3-K.Ramaswamy, eye witness to the incident. Sooner P.W.1 rushed to the spot and shifted his brother to the Government Hospital at Kothagudem for treatment and further lodged report with police P.S., II Town, Kothagudem on 7-4-2010 at 0015 hours.

3. On a report by P.W1, a case in Crime No.31/2010 under

Section 307 IPC was registered and investigated into by P.W.10-

M.Ramesh, S.I., of Police and during the course of investigation F.I.R., was dispatched to all concerned officers and recorded statement of P.W.1 and also referred the injured to the Government Area Hospital,

Kothagudem for treatment and certificate and also visited scene of offence and in the presence of mediators P.W.6-P.Pullaiah and P.W.8M.Appa Rao having apprehended the accused, interrogated and accused said to have 3 confessed the guilt in the presence of mediators and under cover of confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of said mediators, recovered weapon of offence, i.e., knife used by the accused in the commission of offence and also drafted Crime Details Form in the presence of said mediators. On 8-4-2010 at 10.30 a.m., the accused was arrested and produced before the Court for judicial remand and charge- sheeted upon completion of investigation.

4.The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kothagudem took cognizance of the charge sheet for the offence under

Section 307 of IPC in P.R.C.No.16/2010.

5. After appearance of accused, learned II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kothagudem furnished the copies of the case documents to the accused as required under Section 207-A of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions Division, Khammam as the offence under Section 307 of IPC was exclusively triable by Court of

Sessions. The Hon'ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Khammam, took

the case on file and numbered it as S.C.No.635/2010 and made it over to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

6. After hearing the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused, charge under Section 307 of IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

7. In its bid to prove its case, the prosecution got examined

P.Ws.1 to 11 and also got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 and M.O.1 and full descriptions of prosecution witnesses and exhibits are given in the appendix of evidence appended to the Judgment and after closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313

Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence and the case was posted for arguments.

8. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for accused.

9. Now the point for determination is

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the charge under Section 307 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10. P.W.1 the defacto-complainant-Ch.Ramesh in his evidence stated that his younger brother Venkat Rao went to the shop of accused for purchase of snacks at about 8.00 p.m., on 6-4-2010 at Penagadapa village and he received telephone message that his brother Venkat Rao received stab injuries and he shifted his brother to the hospital for treatment and lodged complaint Ex.P-1 with police and his brother told him that accused gave blow with knife in his stomach.

11. Whereas, P.W.2 the injured Ch.Venkat Rao himself stated that he went to the shop of accused at 8.00 p.m., on 6-4-2010 for purchase of 5 snacks (Bajjilu) having purchased the snacks he found some stone particles in the snacks, when he questioned the same with accused, accused went into his house and brought a knife and stabbed him in the stomach and he suffered bleeding injury and P.W.1 shifted him to the hospital.

12. In this case P.W.3-K.Ramaswamy is cited as eye witness to the incident but his evidence is that he does not know anything about the case and police did not examine him and he did not state to police as in Ex.P-2 and he is the only eye witness as cited by the prosecution but not supported prosecution case. Thus, P.W.2 evidence did not get any corroboration from the evidence of P.W.3.

13. So also P.W.2 in his cross-examination by the defence admitted that himself finding pebbles in the snacks purchased by him from the accused was not revealed in his statement to the police and when he questioned about the same accused went inside the house and brought a knife and stabbed him was also not revealed by him and also nowhere the same is found in the charge sheet as the motive for the offence and in the charge sheet it is only mentioned that accused picked up quarrel with

P.W.2 who purchased snacks from the accused. Thus, for what reason and what was the motive for the picking up quarrel by the accused with

P.W.2 is nowhere found in the charge sheet and for the first time it came on record in the evidence of P.W.2 only that when he questioned accused about the finding of pebbles in the snacks, accused stabbed him with the 6 knife in his stomach, so it is nothing but improvement made by P.W.2, as even investigating officer P.W.10-M.Ramesh in his cross-examination admitted that P.W.2 never revealed to him about the finding pebbles in the snacks purchased from the accused, so it is the improvement in the evidence of P.W.2.

14. So also as per P.W.1 he received telephone message about the incident. But, in his cross-examination by the defence he admitted that he did not state to police about himself getting message over phone about the incident. This in other words shows there is clear clash in the chief evidence of P.W.1 and his admission in the cross-examination with regard to receiving phone message about the incident and thereby showing any amount of suspicion in the veracity of P.W.1 version, who also in his cross- examination admitted that on the next day of incident he lodged report with police at about 10.00 a.m., which is also again found to be not correct in view of P.W.10 evidence that Ex.P-1 report was lodged at about 0015 a.m., on 7-4-2010 and there is much difference between 0015 a.m., and 10.00 a.m., and nearly time gap of 10 hours is there as difference between these two timings, in other words it shows the falsity regarding lodging of report with police by P.W.1. That apart even P.W.1 also failed to reveal what was the reason and motive for the offence as he only stated that his brother received stab injuries and not revealed how his brother so received injuries and further admitted that his brother did not give any particulars of incident, which appears to be so peculiar for a reason that though P.Ws.1 7 and 2 are real brothers, P.W.2 not revealing particulars of incident to

P.W.1 appears to be not normal. So also again P.W.2 in his cross- examination admitted that after the incident he went to the police station and gave complaint and went to the hospital. As against this it is the

P.W.10 admission that the injured P.W.2 straight away went to the hospital for treatment and on intervening night at about 0015 a.m., injured brother lodged report at police station. So the evidence of P.W.2 that he lodged report at police station by going there by himself after the incident and thereafter only went to hospital are also found to be quite inconsistent from that of evidence P.W.10. Thus, several material discrepancies are found in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 10. Apart from there is as already noted no corroborative evidence from the sole eye witness P.W.3. More particularly P.W.2 admission that he did not state to police about himself questioning about the finding pebbles in the snacks and said questioning provoked accused to stab him with knife is the material lapse. Yet it was previously not revealed by P.W.2 nor nowhere found in the charge sheet nor mentioned in the original report Ex.P-1 lodged by P.W.1.

15.P.W.4-Ch.Narasimha Rao is the circumstantial witness only stated he does not know anything about the case and denied to have stated as in Ex.P-3 his 161 Cr.P.C., statement recorded by police. So also

P.W.5-M.Karunakar, panch witness for Crime Details Form only stated that police obtained his signature on some written papers when he went to police station but he does not know the contents of panchanama and 8

Ex.P-4 is his signature and another mediator for Crime Details Form

P.W.7-R.Sydaiah similarly stated like P.W.5 that when he went to police station on some other works as under Ex.P-5 on the panchanama his signature was obtained by police on some blank paper. So, both P.Ws.5 and 7 have not supported prosecution case and cross-examined by the prosecution after declared hostile, in which also both of them denied in their presence conducting Crime Details Form by the police. Thus, conducting Crime Details Form is not established through the evidence of

P.Ws.5 and 7.

16.Whereas, P.W.6-P.Pullaiah, panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama only stated that when he went to police station police obtained his signature on the written papers and police not seized any weapon in his presence and Ex.P-5 is his signature. P.W.8-M.Appa

Rao, another mediator for confession-cum-recovery panchanama also not supported prosecution case as stated that police did not recover any weapon in his presence and not conducted any panchanama at the house of accused and the accused not confessed any commission of offence.

Ex.P-6 is his signature on the panchanama.

17.P.Ws.6 and 8 also cross-examined by the prosecution, in which also both of them denied in their presence police conducting confession-cum-seizure panchanama and thereunder seizing one knife from the accused possession. Thus, their evidence is also not supported prosecution case and thereby seizure of weapon from accused possession 9 in their presence is also not being established through their evidence. As such, P.W.10 evidence that in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 8 only he conducted confession-cum-recovery panchanama and seized M.O.1 knife from accused possession is remained uncorroborated. Thus, recovery of

M.O.1 from accused possession cannot be deemed as proved without any doubt in view of mediators not stating the same.

18.Whereas P.W.11-P.Ramaswamy, circumstantial witness also not supported prosecution case as only stated that he does not know anything about the case and police did not examine him and not recorded his statement and denied to have stated as in Ex.P-11 his statement recorded by police marked in his cross-examination after declared hostile.

19.P.W.9-Dr.S.D.Ram Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon,

Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem in his evidence deposed that on 6-4-2010 he received requisition for examination of injured Chintha Venkat

Rao at 9.30 p.m., and found injury of laceration of 3 x 1 x 1 on the left side of the chest over 10th and 11th ribs in mid clavicular line which is in nature fresh and simple injury and as under Ex.P-8 he issued wound certificate.

But, in his cross-examination by defence he admitted that there is correction of date on the requisition without any initial and further admitted that the injury mentioned simple in nature in Ex.P-8 can also be possible by way of fall by a drunken person or by self fall. So the injury as suffered by P.W.2 is opined to be possible by way of self fall as per the medical opinion and P.W.2 getting it by self fall also cannot be ruled out in view of 10 the Doctors evidence and the investigating officer evidence is that as under Ex.P-9 he issued F.I.R., after registering the case upon receipt of report from P.W.1 and as under Ex.P-10 he drafted Crime Details Form along with rough sketch in the presence of mediators P.Ws.5 and 7 and also recorded the statements of witnesses and further as under Ex.P-12 he conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama in the presence of

P.Ws.6 and 8 and thereunder seized M.O.1 knife from accused possession. But, as already noted neither mediators for the Crime Details

Form nor mediators for the confession-cum-seizure panchanama supported prosecution case. As already noted except admitting their signatures none of them revealed police conducting panchanamas in their presence and further in cross-examination P.W.10 admitted that he gave requisition to Government hospital for treatment of injured on 7-4-2010 and further admitted there is correction of date as 6-4-2010 without any initial making it as 7-4-2010 and also admitted that Crime Details Form mediators names were mentioned as P.Ws.6 and 8 herein by showing them as L.Ws.8 and 9 in the charge sheet. But, at signature column, signatures of P.Ws.5 and 7 who are cited as panchas for Crime Details

Form are appearing on Ex.P-10 Crime Details Form, though their particulars were not mentioned and though they are the only mediators for

Crime Details Form.

20.So, this is found to be yet another lapse in the case of prosecution which did not explain it properly and necessarily witness name 11 and signature which shall tally each other but in this Ex.P-10 the names mentioned as mediators not tallying with the signatures and names of mediators for confession and recovery panchanama were shown as mediators for Crime Details Form but again corresponding to their said names, their signatures were not obtained in stead signatures of P.Ws.5 and 7 are obtained and without their particulars and names who are actually cited as witnesses for the Crime Details Form. So many lapses found in the prosecution case. Even the motive for offence nowhere mentioned in the charge sheet as already pointed out. So also even

P.W.2 the injured victim not revealed the motive for the offence by the accused in his statement, much less there is any corroborative evidence from the independent witnesses to the evidence of P.W.2 and also even the seizure of M.O.1 from the accused possession is not being established and the prosecution case is filled up with full of interpolations and embellishments even with regard to material particulars. Therefore, this

Court came to an opinion that the prosecution utterly failed to prove this case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under

Section 307 IPC and the ingredients of offence under Section 307 IPC, like accused with intention and knowledge causing hurt to the P.W.2, i.e., which is likely to cause death of P.W.2 are not at all established.

Therefore, accused found not guilty for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

21. In the result, accused found not guilty for the offence under

Section 307 IPC and acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

12

The Bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of (6) months.

M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time and subject to the result of appeal preferred if any.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2017.

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : Ch.Ramesh (Complainant) P.W.2 : Ch.Venkat Rao ( Injured ) P.W.3 : K.Ramaswamy ( Eye witness ) P.W.4 : Ch.Narasimha Rao ( Circumstantial witness ) P.W.5 : M.Karunakar ( Panch witness for Crime Details Form ) P.W.6 : P.Pullaiah ( Panch witness for confession and recovery ) P.W.7 : R.Sydaiah ( Panch witness for Crime Details Form ) P.W.8 : M.Appa Rao ( Panch witness for confession and recovery ) P.W.9 : Dr.S.D.Ram Kumar ( CAS, Government Area Hospita, Kothagudem ) P.W.10:M.Ramesh ( Investigation Officer ) P.W.11:K.Ramaswamy ( Circumstantial witness ) For Defence: -None-

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P-1 : Complaint. Ex.P-2 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.3. Ex.P-3 : 161 Cr.P.C.Statement of P.W.4. Ex.P-4 : Signature of P.W.5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-5 : Signature of P.W.6 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P-6 : Signature of P.W.7 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-7 : Signature of P.W.8 on the panchanama. Ex.P-8 : Wound certificate of Chintha Venkat Rao Ex.P-9 : First Information Report Ex.P-10:Crime Details Form with rough sketch Ex.P-11: 161 Cr.P.C., Statement of P.W.11 Ex.P-12: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. For Defence:

-NIL-MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1 : Knife

Addl.Asst.Sessions Judge (FTC), Kothagudem.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 17th day of January, 2017.

Present: Sri B.Sathaiah

Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

O.S.NO.256 OF 2009

Between: K.Sudhakar S/o Laxmaiah, Age: 43 years, Occu: Teacher, R/o Kothagudem town and mandal, Khammam District.

... Plaintiff.

And

1. Pokkula Kumaraswamy S/o Mallaiah, Age: 50 years, Occu: School Assistant, R/o H.No.4-2-111, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Opp: 33 KV Sub-Station, Beside Sekhar Digital Studio, Khammam Town and District.

2. Pokkula Laxmi W/o Kumara Swamy, Age: 41 years, Occu: House wife, R/o H.No.4-2-111, Srinagar Colony, Rotary Nagar, Opp: 33 KV Sub-Station, Beside Sekhar Digital Studio, Khammam Town and District.

3. Desaboina Kumara Swamy S/o Yellaiah, Age: 52 years, Occu: SCCL Employee, R/o H.No.13-1-90, Peon Basthi, Sai Baba Temple, Kothagudem town and mandal, Khammam District.

...Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 03-01-2017 in the presence of Sri P.Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri A.Ramesh, Advocate for defendants No.1 to 3, upon perusal of material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff-K.Sudhakar seeking recovery of money from the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally for suit claim of Rs.3,04,300/-, filed this suit.

2

2.The plaint averments are that: there was acquaintance between plaintiff and defendants. Out of which defendant No.1 by name

P.Kumara Swamy borrowed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-04-2007 to meet his family necessities and for the said loan amount defendants 2 and 3 by names Pokkula Laxmi and

Desaboina Kumara Swamy respectively stood as guarantors for the defendant No.1 and executed joint pronote on the same day at

Kothagudem town in favour of plaintiff by promising to repay the debt amount along with interest @ 24% p.a., and as and when demanded by the plaintiff. Both the defendants 2 and 3 executed security bond in favour of plaintiff being guarantors but thereafter inspite of demands by the plaintiff to repay the debt amount along with interest the defendants did not pay the amount. Hence, legal notice was also issued to defendants on 30-03-2009 calling upon them to repay the amounts instead of repaying it they gave reply notice denying the transaction, thereby the plaintiff vexed with the attitude of defendants and filed this suit for the suit claim of Rs.3,04,300/- along with costs and interest and prayed for its decree also stating cause of action arose on 20-04-2007 and also stating both plaintiff and defendants are non-tribes and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, i.e., at

Kothagudem town the transaction taken place and finally prayed to decree for the suit claim and against the defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally as liable for the suit claim.

3

3.Defendant No.1 filed his written statement to be adopted by the defendants 2 and 3 to the effect that he never borrowed any amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-04-2007 and defendants 2 and 3 never stood as guarantors nor he executed any pronote in favour of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 also not executed any security bond and further mentioned that the plaintiff doing private chits business in the name and style of Employees

Credit Society, in which colleague employees of plaintiff were admitted and he also took admission in the said society on 20-04- 2007 at request of plaintiff and he secured loan of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff but he paid back entire amount in the form of instalments to the plaintiff and under passing of receipts by the plaintiff and after clearing the loan amount he again taken loan of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff who insisted him to put his signature on the blank pronote for sanction of said loan amount though he repaid entire loan amount in the second instance also the plaintiff did not return the blank pronote to him on the ground that it was misplaced and with a promise to return it as and when it was traced out. As against this on 30-03- 2009 plaintiff issued legal notice to him, for which he gave his reply on 30-04-2009 to the effect that he paid back the entire loan amount.

While so, the instant suit filed only to extract money from him and by filling up the blank pronote and finally prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.

4

4.Basing on the above rival pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial:-

1) Whether suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendants or not ?

2) To what relief ?

5. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 having filed chief- affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and further got marked Exs.A-1- to A-7 and his evidence is once again literal repetition of plaint averments as stated that he advanced loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 under execution of pronote on 20-04-2007, for which defendants 2 and 3 herein were stood as guarantors but none of them taken responsibility of repaying the debt amount to him, therefore only he filed this suit, further deposed cause of action arose at Kothagudem town and within the jurisdiction of this Court.

6.In support of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2-S.Ramalaxman

Reddy, scribe of Ex.A-1-pronote and Ex.A-2 surety bond, dt.20-04- 2007, which is impounded by collecting the required fee is examined subsequent to filing his chief-examination affidavit and his evidence is that out of acquaintance with the plaintiff, defendant No.1 borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-04-2007 under execution of pronote in favour of plaintiff at Kothagudem town and having received the loan amount, which was taken place in his presence and further deposed defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors for the defendant

No.1 for the loan amount and he himself scribed the suit pronote, which was attested by one M.Mohan Rao and in their presence only 5 consideration was passed. Thus, the oral versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- were availed by defendant No.1 from the P.W.1 under execution of pronote on 20-04-2007 at

Kothagudem town, for which defendants 2 and 3 herein were the guarantors.

7. A perusal of Ex.A-1 original pronote is also disclosing and supporting the contention of plaintiff that he advanced loan of

Rs.2,00,000/- to the defendant No.1 at Kothagudem town on 20-04- 2007, for which defendants 2 and 3 herein also executed security bond and it was scribed by P.W.2 herein and the loan amount was agreed to be repaid with interest @ 24% p.a. Defendant No.2 herein is no other than the wife of defendant No.1 and Ex.A-2 security bond got marked only after collecting of impounding fees of Rs.1105/-, so also Ex.A-3 is the office copy of legal notice also disclosing defendants 1 to 3 were demanded to repay the debt amount along with accrued interest, which was issued on 30-03-2009, for which in their reply notice as under Ex.A-4 defendants denied the liability and claimed defendant No.1 only availed Rs.30,000/- each on two occasions and on the first occasion said amount was repaid through instalments by defendant No.1 and also repaid the second time loan amount of Rs.30,000/- and at the time of its sanction the plaintiff obtained blank pronote and did not return it though said loan amount was paid by him and said blank pronote is pressed into service by plaintiff in this matter by filling it up with a view to extract money from 6 him. Ex.A-5 is the postal acknowledgment card. Ex.A-6 is the returned postal cover. Ex.A-7 is the postal acknowledgment card.

Ex.A-5 disclosing defendant No.1 herein receiving of legal notice issued by the plaintiff for which only reply notice was given as under

Ex.A-4.

8.Whereas defendant No.1 himself filed chief-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination and further examined as D.W.1 and deposed before the Court entirely repeating the stand taken by him in the written statement that he only availed loan of Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff, who runs society in the style of Employees Credit Society and repaid it through instalments upon passing of receipts by the plaintiff and after its clearance he again availed loan of Rs.30,000/- by signing on blank pronote and the same is also repaid by him but blank pronote is not returned to him and he took the admission in the society only on 20-04-2007 and took loan of Rs.30,000/- in the first instance and after his admission in the society on 20-04-2007 and further got marked Exs.B-1 to B-32, which are i.e., Ex.B-1 legal notice issued from the plaintiff on 21-11-2005 for Rs.1,00,000/- loan amount as advanced by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 on 26-09-2003 and

Ex.B-2 is the reply notice given by defendants to the legal notice issued as under Ex.A-3 by the plaintiff which is again for

Rs.2,00,000/- amount. Thus, it is the defendants contention that the plaintiff claim is not certain and highly doubtful as in Ex.B-1 the loan amount was mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- and it was dt.21-11-2005, 7 while coming to legal notice issued as under Ex.A-3, dt.30-03-2009 the loan amount is put at Rs.2,00,000/-. So there is any amount of doubt in the case of plaintiff and further his contention is that Exs.B-3 to B-32, which are the original receipts passed by the plaintiff having received the instalments for various amounts from the defendant

No.1 in between the period from 7-10-2002 to 21-04-2005 and thereby he paid back the entire loan amount of Rs.30,000/- and no more in dues to the plaintiff. But, all these receipts even admittedly to be true and as issued by the plaintiff herein having taken the instalments ,amount ranging from various amounts in favour of employees society, they are dating back to the period from 7-10-2002 to 21-04-2005 which are much prior to the Ex.A-1 pronote, dt.20-04- 2007. Thus, they are not corresponding to the Ex.A-1 amounts but disclosing that might be pertaining to the other loan transaction between the parties other than the transaction under Ex.A-1, as it is the defendants own contention and admission that only having admitted in the employees society run by the plaintiff, by him on 20- 04-2007 he availed first loan amount of Rs.30,000/-. Therefore, the receipts under Exs.B-4 to B-32 are clearly showing loan amount of another transaction of defendant No.1, as he was not at all obliged to repay the instalments amount even before he availed loan of

Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff society on 20-04-2007 and any payments to clear the debt amount only starts from the date which is subsequent to 20-04-2007 but not prior to that. Therefore, Exs.B-4 to 8

B-32 are not at all helpful to the defendant contention, that he only availed loan of Rs.30,000/- in the first instance and repaid it as under

Exs.B-4 to B-32 to the plaintiff. This is clear contradiction in the stand taken by the defendant No.1, as in his chief-examination affidavit he categorically stated only having joined in the society on 20-04-2007 he availed loan of Rs.30,000/-. So this contention in view of Exs.B-4 to B-32, which are found to be not corresponding to the defendant

No.1 contention, on the other hand disclosing they are pertaining to some other transaction.

9.The next contention of the defendant No.1 is that he had again taken loan of Rs.30,000/- in the second instance from the plaintiff society having repaid the entire instalments of first instance loan amount of Rs.30,000/- and in that regard plaintiff obtained blank pronote from him and it is filled up and this false suit is filed. It is also to be discussed here and his contention that the plaintiff did not return blank pronote to him though he repaid the entire loan amount of

Rs.30,000/- taken by him in second instance from the plaintiff. His contention also appears to be not valid and believable. In as much as Ex.A-1 pronote is not only signed by the defendant No.1 alone but security bond was also executed by defendants 2 and 3 herein, who never denied their signatures on security bond, in which event it could have been different matter also in as much as it is nowhere the defendant No.1 contention that along with signatures of defendants 2 and 3 he gave blank pronote to plaintiff at the time of availing loan in 9 the second instance from the plaintiff. So also even the defendant

No.1 to ascertain whether Ex.A-1 was fabricated by forging signatures of defendants 2 and 3 is never the plea of defendant No.1.

Moreover, the scribe of Ex.A-1, P.W.2 herein has supported plaintiff case as stated that in his presence only defendant No.1 borrowed

Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 20-04-2007 under execution of pronote, which was scribed by himself and for which defendants 2 and 3 stood as guarantors, thereby the defendant No.1 contention that blank pronote is filled up and based the suit of the plaintiff does not hold any water. In view of the cogent evidence by P.W.2, which clearly corroborated P.W.1 evidence and claim. Moreover, the chief evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not suffered any material discrepancies even when they faced cross-examination by the defendants and both of them denied filing of false suit by filling up the blank pronote and denied a suggestion that the defendant No.1 did not avail loan from the plaintiff and did not execute pronote in favour of plaintiff on 20-04- 2007. Hence, the oral versions of P.Ws.1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence as under Exs.A-1 to A-7 are found to be consistent.

10.The contention of defendants that P.W.1 in his cross- examination admitted that there was no transaction in between himself and defendants prior to 20-04-2007 but as under Ex.P-1 legal notice was issued in the year 2005 and for Rs.1,00,000/- and when there was no transaction at all prior to 20-04-2007, there was no 10 necessity at all for issuing legal notice as under Ex.B-1 in the year 2005, as such, the plaintiff claim is barred by limitation and only to get over that situation blank pronote is filled up to be used in this case but

Ex.A-1 is reflecting taking place of transaction as on 20-04-2007 and though it is the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 about the issuing legal notice as under Ex.B-1 in the year 2005, it equally applies and affects contention of defendant No.1 that he availed only loan amount of Rs.30,000/- only having become member in the employees society run by plaintiff on 20-04-2007 and on this count also his contention is not correct in view of Exs.B-4 to B-32 which are receipts pertaining to the period much prior to the date of execution of

Ex.A-1 on 20-04-2007 and in view of the documentary evidence as under Exs.A-1 and A-2 and in view of preponderance of probabilities plaintiff contention is placed on better footing than the defendants. In as much as D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that plaintiff being Teacher is his colleague, thus there was close acquaintance between them and thereby there were transactions between them apart from the suit transaction. In view of the very existence of

Exs.B-4 to B-32 which are found to be much prior to the instant suit transaction, though it is true that Ex.B-1 was issued on 21-11-2005 to the defendants in respect of loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- said to be received on 26-09-2003 under execution of pronote that itself cannot wipe out the plaintiff claim, in as much as the adduced evidence oral and documentary is consistent and by virtue of Ex.A-1 which is 11 pronote along with security bond, dt.20-04-2007, the issuance of

Ex.B-1 loses its significance. In view of the fact that basing on Ex.B-1 no suit is filed but the instant suit is based only on the basis of Ex.A-1 for which only Ex.A-3 legal notice was issued to the defendants on 30-03-2009, thereby indicating plaintiff had not made any claim in respect of the amounts covered under Ex.B-1 though it was also based on execution of pronote by the defendants in favour of plaintiff.

At best the defendants to establish their contention need to prove that

Ex.A-1 is fabricated one and no consideration was passed thereunder but they did not discharge said onus thereby thrown inference that

Ex.A-1 is the pronote along with security bond as genuine and thereunder consideration was passed also in view of the evidence of

P.W.2 and mere basing on the Ex.B-1 the defendants cannot escape their liability as covered under Ex.A-1. Therefore, suit claim deemed proved.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed for Rs.3,04,300/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realization on the principal sum of

Rs.2,00,000/- holding defendants 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 17th day of January, 2017.

ADDL.SENIOR CIIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

12

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

P.W.1: K.Sudhakar (Plaintiff) -- NIL -- P.W.2. S.Ramalaxman Reddy (Scribe)

Exhibits Marked.

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A.1 : promissory note dated 20-04-2007 Ex.A-2 ; Security Bond, dt.20-04-2007 Ex.A.3 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.30-03-2009 Ex.A-4 : Reply notice, dt.30-04-2009 Ex.A-5 : Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.1 Ex.A-6 : Unserved returned postal cover of defendant No.2 Ex.A-7 : Postal acknowledgment of defendant No.3.

For Defendants: Ex.B-1 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.21-11-2005 Ex.B-2 : Reply notice Ex.B-3 : Postal receipt. Ex.B-4 to: B-32 : Original receipts.

ADDL.SENIOR CIIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

-1-

IN THE COURT OF ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC) AT

KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 9th day of December, 2 0 1 6

Present :- Sri B.Sathaiah,

Addl.Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem.

O.S.No.32 of 2010

Between:- Tetali Trinatha Reddy S/o Rama Reddy, Age: 42 years, Occu: Business, R/o Post Office Area, Kothagudem town and mandal, Khammam District. …..…PLAINTIFF

And

Md.Rahaman Sharief S/o Sharief, Age: 52 years, Occu: Electrician, 'B' Power House, SCCL, Kothagudem, R/o H.No.10-12-56, Writer Basthi Gollagudem, Kothagudem town and mandal, Khammam District. ……… DEFENDANT

This suit is coming up before me on 3-11-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Gopikrishna, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri M.S.R.Ravichandra, Advocate, for defendant, upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments, this Court made the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff-T.Trinatha Reddy, seeking recovery of money from the defendant-Md.Rahaman Sharief, filed this suit.

2.The plaint averments are that : there was acquaintance between plaintiff and defendant. Out of which, defendant borrowed

Rs.1,10,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-09-2007 to meet his family necessities and also executed pronote on the same day in favour of plaintiff at Kothagudem town promising to repay it with interest @ 24% p.a., and as and when demanded by the plaintiff.

-2-

But, thereafter, the defendant only post-poned the payment on one or other reason inspite of demands made by the plaintiff for repayment of the debt amount along with interest as there was no recovery, the plaintiff filed this suit for suit claim of Rs.1,69,400/- praying for its decree along with costs and future interest further stating both parties are non-tribes and cause of action arose in non- agency area and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and suit is filed within the limitation period and prayed for the decree of the suit.

3.The defendant filed his written statement specifically denying taking any loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- from the plaintiff on 16-09- 2007 and also denying execution of any pronote in favour of plaintiff and also denied making any demands for repayment of amount by the plaintiff with him and there was no cause of action at all and no consideration was passed under pronote and in fact suit pronote is rank forged one and finally prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.For the above rival pleadings, following issues were framed for trial:-

1. Whether the suit pronote is true, valid and binding on the defendant or not ?

2. To what relief ?

5.In order to establish his claim the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 having filed his chief-affidavit in lieu of chief- examination and deposed before the Court entirely repeating plaint -3- averments once again and stated that only at request of defendant and out of acquaintance and considering necessity of defendant he advanced loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the defendant who executed pronote in his favour on 16-09-2007 for the agreed interest @ 24% p.a., at Kothagudem town and also Ex.A-1 original pronote is got marked in the evidence of P.W.1. Its perusal also disclosing plaintiff herein advancing loan amount of Rs.1,10,000/- to the defendant at Kothagudem on 16-09-2007 with interest @ 24% p.a.

This oral and documentary evidence is very consistent about the advancing of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant and on 16-09- 2007 and further when cross-examined by the defendant counsel

P.W.1 denied a suggestion that he was dealing illegal money lending business and further denied that defendant did not execute

Ex.A-1 in his favour and also denied that he did not lent any money to the defendant. Thus, P.W.1 evidence is not being shaken even when cross-examined and thereby his chief evidence is quite intact and displayed himself advancing loan to the defendant under execution of pronote by the defendant as under Ex.A-1

6.Whereas defendant himself having filed chief-affidavit in lieu of chief-examination further examined as D.W.1 only to repeat once again the stand taken by him in his written statement that he did not avail loan amount from the plaintiff like Rs.1,10,000/- on 16- 09-2007 and also did not execute any pronote. This is the only defence taken by the defendant but with regard to his contention that -4-

Ex.A-1 is rank forged one and it is his oral contention as a matter of fact he did not deny his signature on the pronote except dubbing it as forged one and having taken plea that Ex.A-1 is forged and fabricated document, then it is his onus to establish the said contention and by taking proper steps and by referring Ex.A-1 to the hand-writing expert to know about its genuineness or forged one but the defendant not taken any steps to see that Ex.A-1 is referred to hand-writing expert. In which event it could have been known whether Ex.A-1 was forged or not as contended by the defendant but in the absence of no expert evidence the defendant oral contention need not be accepted, for a reason that if at all Ex.A-1 was rank forged document definitely he would have taken steps for referring Ex.A-1 to hand-writing expert. It is more so, in view of the fact that he did not deny his signature on Ex.A-1. Hence, it appears only to escape his liability the defendant taken oral plea that Ex.A-1 was forged and fabricated document. When that is so, by virtue of preponderance of probabilities execution of Ex.A-1 by the defendant whose signature is appearing on Ex.A-1, execution of Ex.A-1 is can be deemed proved, even though its attestor is not examined nor its scribe and again for a reason that the defendant did not specifically deny his signature on Ex.A-1 except contending that Ex.A-1 is the rank forged document. Further defendant contention that plaintiff dealing illegal money lending business is also not supported with any evidence nor there is any mentioning of other loan transactions -5- by the plaintiff by specifically mentioning said transactions numbers and in view of the fact that the plaintiff himself denied a suggestion that he was dealing illegal money lending business, the defendant contention on this aspect also fails for non mentioning of any other specific case numbers to show that plaintiff was dealing illegal money lending business. Therefore, suit claim deemed proved.

7.In the result, suit is decreed for Rs.1,69,400/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of suit, till the date of decree and further interest @ 6% p.a,. from the date of decree till the date of realization on the principal sum of

Rs.1,10,000/-, holding the defendant liable.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of December, 2016.

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),

KOTHAGUDEM.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:- For Defendant: PW.1 : T.Trinatha Reddy D.W.1 : Md.Rahman Sharief

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:- Ex.A.1 : Pronote, dt.16-09-2007.

For Defendant:- --NIL—

ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),

KOTHAGUDEM.