Sri B.Satyanarayana, SCJ

Page 1 of 8

In the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge :: Dharmavaram

Present: Sri B.Satyanarayana, B.A., M.L., Asst. Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2015.

Sessions Case No.514/2014

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathalapalli P.S. …Complainant.

And

1.Gujjala Chinna Appaswamy, S/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 28 years.

2.Gujjala Pedda Appaswamy, S/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 30 years.

3.Gujjala Lakshmianrayanamma, W/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 56 years.

All are of Nallacherlopalli (V), Mudigubba (M).

…. Accused 1 to 3.

Nature of :1.Assault or criminal force to woman with offenceintent to outrage her modesty, an offence Andpunishable U/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC against the Section of lawaccused A2 and A3.

2.Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty, an offence punishable U/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC against the accused A1 to A3.

3.Abetment of suicide, an offence punishable U/sec.306 r/w 34 IPC against the accused A1 to A3.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Accused A2 and A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under section 354 r/w 34 IPC and A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC.

Sentence or order:Accused A1 to A3 are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution was conducted by Sri D.Fakruddin, Additional

Public Prosecutor, Dharmavaram and the accused A1 to A3 were defended by Sri D.L.N.Murthy, advocate.

Page 2 of 8

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused A2 and A3 stand charged u/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC for outraging the modesty of a woman Gujjala Saraswathi with common intention, accused A1 to A3 stand charged u/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC for subjecting said Saraswathi for cruelty and harassment with common intention and accused A1 to A3 stand charged u/sec.306 r/w 34 IPC for abetting the said Saraswathi to commit suicide with common intention.

2.The relevant brief averments of the charge sheet are that deceased Gujjala Saraswathi is the wife of A1 G.Appaswamy and their marriage was performed about six years back and thereafter A1 developed illegal intimacy with another lady and used to harass the deceased Saraswathi and taking advantage of the same, accused A2 and

A3 used to harass the deceased Saraswathi and A2 developed malafied intention against the deceased Saraswathi and tried to gain over her, but the deceased did not allow him and informed the same to her parents,

P.W.1 Sake Nadipi Linganna and P.W.2 Sake Nagalakshmi and thereafter mediations were held, however, the accused A1 to A3 did not change their attitude and while so, on 06.03.2014 at about 4-00 PM, the deceased Saraswathi visited Anantapur by weeping and on the same day,

A1 also visited the same place and complied that the deceased

Saraswathi reached Anantapuram without informing to anybody and on the same day at about 7-00 PM, the deceased went to nearby school to talk with her husband A1 and after some time, the deceased returned home and fell down and when enquired by P.Ws.1 and 2, deceased

Saraswathi informed them that A1 to A3 have been harassing her and did not allow her to live in her in-laws house and they also rebuke her to go to her parents house and die by consuming poison and that the deceased

Saraswathi consumed oozi tablets with an intention to end her life and thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 shifted her to the RDT hospital, Bathalapalli for treatment and on the next day morning at about 11.45 AM, Saraswathi

Page 3 of 8 died and on the complaint given by P.W.1, L.W.12 K.Santhilal, SI of Police,

Bathalapalli PS registered a case in Cr.No.24/2014 under sections 498-A, 354-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC and investigated the offence and in the meanwhile, A1 to A3 were surrendered before the court 26.03.2014 and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 354-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge. The accused A1 to A3 are on bail.

3.The learned Judl. I Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram took cognizance against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/secs.498-A, 354-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC and has committed the same in

PRC.46/2014 to the Court of Sessions, as the offences are exclusively triable by Sessions Court and the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Anantapur made over the said case to the Court of Asst. Sessions Judge,

Dharmavaram for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 to A3, they were examined u/s.228 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, for which the accused A1 to A3 have denied the same and after hearing both sides, charge u/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC has been framed against A2 and A3, charges under sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC have been framed against A1 to A3, read over and explained to the accused A1 to A3 in

Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as

PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9. The learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has given up L.W.8 Jakkamputi Sathyanarayana, L.W.9,

Cherukuri Pedda Linganna, L.W.10 Smt J.Seresha, Tahsildar, Bathalapalli,

L.W.11 Dr M.Sreeharsha, Medical Officer, GH, Dharmavaram and L.W.12

K.Santhilal, SI of Police, Bathalapalli P.S, as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused

Page 4 of 8

A1 to A3 and there are no circumstances appearing against the accused, the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

7.The accused A1 to A3 have complied with the provisions

U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused A2 and A3 have outraged the modesty of deceased Gujjala Saraswathi with common intention and accused A1 to A3 have subjected said Saraswathi to cruelty and harassment and A1 to A3 have also abetted her to commit suicide with common intention?

10. Point::- It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Saraswathi married A1 Appaswamy about six years back and after the marriage, A1 developed illegal intimacy with another lady and taking advantage of the same, A2, who is brother of A1 developed malafied intention against the deceased Saraswathi and tried to gain over the deceased Saraswathi and A1 to A3 subjected the deceased

Saraswathi to cruelty and harassment and also abetted her to commit suicide and in consequences of their acts, the deceased Saraswathi had committed suicide by consuming oozi tablets.

11.Coming to the evidence on record, P.W.1 Sake Nadipi

Linganna, father of the deceased Gujjala Saraswathi has not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross-examined P.W.1 with the permission of the court and elicited that he has compromised with the accused. In the cross-examination by the learned Addl.P.P., P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that he gave report to the police as in Ex.P.1 and stated to the police as in Ex.P.2 statement to the effect that the accused subjected his daughter Saraswathi to cruelty and harassment and also abetted her to commit suicide and A2 also demanded the deceased Saraswathi to have sexual connection with him and despite the information given by the deceased Saraswathi to her

Page 5 of 8 husband, the accused A1 to A3 did not change their attitude and on that the deceased Saraswathi committed suicide on the instigation of the accused by consuming oozi tablets. He has admitted his signature on the inquest report, dt.8.3.2014 under Ex.P.3 and nothing was elicited infavour of the prosecution in the cross-examination of P.W.1.

12. P.W.2 Sake Nagalakshmi, mother of the deceased

Saraswathi has not supported the case of the prosecution, so also, P.W.3

Sake Ramakrishna, brother of the deceased Saraswathi, P.W.4

D.Ramalingam, relative of P.Ws.1 to 3, P.W.5 Devarakonda Ganganna,

P.W.6 Sake Ramakrishna and P.W.7 Gavvala Sivaiah have also not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 to 7 have denied their 161 Cr.P.C statements allegedly given by them to the police and they have denied the contents mentioned in Exs.P.4 to P.9 respectively.

13. In view of the material evidence on record, it can be said that the Prosecution could not establish the guilt of the accused A1 to A3 for the charges leveled against them and it is also matter of record that

P.W1 to P.W.3, who are parents and brother of the deceased Saraswathi respectively have compromised with the accused and the accused A1 to

A3 are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.

14. In the result, the accused A2 and A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC and accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34

IPC and are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from to-day. The non valuable unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 19th day of May, 2015.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Page 6 of 8

Appendix of Evidence: Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: None.

PW.1/ Sake Nadipi Linganna.

PW.2/ Sake Nagalakshmi.

PW.3/ Sake Ramakrishna.

PW.4/ D.Ramalingam.

PW.5/ D.Ganganna.

PW.6/ Sake Ramakrishna.

PW.7/ G.Sivaiah.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1/ Report given to the police by P.W.1.

Ex.P.2/ 161Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3/ Signature of P.W.1 on the Inquest Report.

Ex.P.4/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.5/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.6/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.7/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.8/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.9/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7.

M.Os marked:

-Nil-

A.S.J.

Page 7 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: DHARMAVARAM

SESSIONS CASE NO.514/2014

1Name of the Complainant and Sub-Inspector of Police, Bathalapalli Cr.No.Police Station, Cr.No.24/2014. 2Name of the accused:1.Gujjala Chinna Appaswamy, S/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 28 years.

2.Gujjala Pedda Appaswamy, S/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 30 years.

3.Gujjala Lakshmianrayanamma, W/o Gujjala Narayanappa, aged 56 years.

All are of Nallacherlopalli (V), Mudigubba (M).

3Date of offence:06.03.2014 4Date of complaint:08.03.2014 5Date of apprehension of 26.03.2014 accused 6Date of release on bail:17.04.2014 7Date of Committal:17.11.2014 8Date of commencement of trial:23.04.2015 9Date of close of trial:18.05.2015 10Date of sentence or order:19.05.2015

Explanation for the delay in committal court:-

This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Dharmavaram and numbered as PRC.NO.46/2014. On appearance of the accused A1 to A3 and on hearing both sides, this case was committed to the court of Sessions, Anantapur Division on 17.11.2014.

Explanation for the delay in Sessions Court:-

On 02.12.2014 this case was taken on file and numbered as

SC.No.514/2014 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dharmavaram. On 16.02.2015 on appearance of the accused A1 to A3, charge u/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC is framed against the accused A.2 and A3 and charges u/secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC are framed against the accused A1 to A3, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

Page 8 of 8 and posted for fixation of schedule. On 23.02.2015 schedule was fixed.

On 23.4.2015 the trial was commenced and closed on 18.5.2015. P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined and Exs.P.1 to P.9 are marked and the examination of the accused U/sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused A1 to A3. On 19.5.2015 the accused A1 to A3 have complied the provisions U/sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C, arguments heard and on the same day i.e., on 19.5.2015 judgment

pronounced, (VSJ). In the result, the accused A2 and A3 are found not

guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.354 r/w 34 IPC and accused A1 to

A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/secs.498-A and 306 r/w 34 IPC and are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall stand cancelled after expiry of six months from to- day. The non valuable unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Page 1 of 8

In the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge :: Dharmavaram

Present: Sri B.Satyanarayana, B.A., M.L., Asst. Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Friday, the 30th day of April, 2015.

Sessions Case No.49/2015

Between:

State represented by Sub-Inspector of Police, Dharmavaram Town P.S. …Complainant.

And

1.Palyam Muthyalamma, W/o Thimmaiah, aged 60 years.

2.Dappam Subbamma, W/o Peddanna, aged 25 years.

3.Dappam Peddanna, S/o Mareppa, aged 38 years.

All are Peddakondapuram village of Ramagiri Mandal.

…. Accused 1 to 3.

Nature of :1.Abetment of suicide, an offence punishable offenceU/sec.306 IPC against the accused A1 to A3.

And

Section of law

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Judge:Accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable u/sec.306 IPC.

Sentence or order:Accused A1 to A3 are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution was conducted by Sri D.Fakruddin, Additional

Public Prosecutor, Dharmavaram and the accused A1 to A3 were defended by Sri K.Surya Prakash Rao, Sri M.P.Subba Rao and Sri D.Abdul

Sab, advocates.

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused A1 to A3 stand charged u/sec.306 IPC for abetting Marekka, W/o Muthyalu to commit suicide.

2.It is the case of the prosecution through the charge sheet is that three years back, Marekka married one Muthyalu and the accused

A1 to A3 subjected her to cruelty in view of Government subsidy amount and while so, on 19.4.2014 at about 9.30 A.M in the absence of husband of deceased Marekka, namely, Muthyalu, the accused A1 to A3 chastised

Marekka for asking her about input subsidy and insulted her by removing

Page 2 of 8 her saree and instigated her to die and on that the deceased Marekka vexed with her life and poured kerosene on her body and lit fire and later she was shifted to Government General Hospital, Anantapur for treatment, and during undergone treatment on 24.4.2014 at 5-00 PM

Marekka last her breath and the doctors declared her as died and on the statement given by Marekka, a case in Cr.No.49/2014 under “Woman burns” has been registered on 19.4.2014 and during the course of investigation i.e., on 24.4.2014 at about 5-00 PM death intimation was received by the police and section of law was altered under section 306

IPC and the police have registered the case and during the course of investigation L.W.16 P.Nagendra Prasad, SI of Police arrested the accused

A1 to A3 on 2.6.2014 and send them to remand for judicial custody and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC. Hence, the charge. The accused A1 to A3 are on bail.

3.The learned Judl. I Class Magistrate, Dharmavaram took cognizance against the accused A1 to A3 for the offences punishable u/sec.306 IPC and has committed the same in PRC.49/2014 to the Court of Sessions, as the offence is exclusively triable by Sessions Court and the Hon'ble Sessions Judge, Anantapur made over the said case to the

Court of Asst. Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 to A3, they were examined u/s.228 Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against them, for which the accused A1 to A3 have denied the same and after hearing both sides, charge u/sec.306 IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the accused A1 to A3 in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as

PWs.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. The learned Addl. Public

Page 3 of 8

Prosecutor has given up L.W.14 I.Murali, L.W.15 Dr G.Mahesh, MD, GMC,

Anantapur, L.W.16 P.Nagendra Prasad, SI of Police, Ramagiri P.S, as the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and closed the evidence of Palyam Marekka, who is the defacto complainant since died.

6. As there is no incriminating evidence against the accused

A1 to A3 and there are no circumstances appearing against the accused, the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

7.The accused A1 to A3 have complied with the provisions

U/sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C.

8.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

9.Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused A1 to A3 have abetted Palyam Marekka to commit suicide?

10. Point::- It is the case of the prosecution that there were disputes between the accused A1 to A3 and deceased Marekka in respect of subsidy amount to be received from the Government and in that connection, the accused insulted Marekka and instigated her to commit suicide and on that the deceased Marekka vexed with her life and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and lit fire to her body.

11. Coming to the evidence, P.W.1 J.Akulappa has stated on oath that he knew Palyam Marekka, who is no more. He has further stated that he does not know how Marekka died.

12. P.W.2 N.Venkata Ramudu, P.W.3 Harijana Venkataramudu who is father of deceased Marekka, P.W.4 H.Maruthi, brother of Marekka,

P.W.5 Harijayana Muthyalamma, mother of deceased Marekka, P.W.6

A.Venkatalakshmi, sister of Marekka, P.W.7 Harijana Nagendra, husband of P.W.6 and P.W.8 K.Ravindra Reddy, P.W.9 G.Rajasekhar Reddy, P.W.10

Golla Sreenivasulu, P.W.11 Ediga Nagabushanam and P.W.12

Page 4 of 8

K.Ramachandra Reddy, alleged inquestdars have not supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross- examined them with the permission of the court, however could not elicit anything regarding the case of the prosecution and elicited from the relatives of deceased Marekka that they have compromised with the accused. P.Ws.1 to 7 have denied their 161 Cr.P.C statements allegedly given by them to the police and they have denied the contents mentioned in Exs.P.1 to P.4 and P.6 to P.8 respectively. They have denied the suggestion of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor that the accused beat Marekka, removed her saree and drove out her from the house and asked her not to come to the house again and on that deceased felt insulted and committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her body and by lit fire to her body and on hearing the cries of Marekka, neighbours i.e., Akkulappa and Venkataramudu came there and put off the fire and shifted Marekka to GGH, Anantapur in 108 ambulance. The alleged Inquestdars have admitted their signatures in the statements allegedly recorded by the Revenue Officials and the Inquest reports of deceased Marekka.

13. It is a matter of record that initially, the police have registered the case as Woman Burns and during the course of investigation, section of law was altered to Sec.306 IPC on the allegation that the accused have abetted the deceased Marekka to commit suicide.

The prosecution has not marked the alleged statements. As per the registered First Information Report in Cr.No.49/2014 under section 306

IPC of Ramagiri PS, dt.19.4.2014, nobody gave report to the police. A written matter is enclosed to the registered FIR wherein the police allegedly recorded the statement from the deceased Marekka, wherein it is mentioned that the accused necked out the deceased and asked her to die and on that she felt insulted and poured kerosene on her body and lit fire to her body.

Page 5 of 8

14. It is pertinent to note that there is no signature or thumb mark of the deceased Marekka on the said statement. There is no name of the person who recorded the said statement. But according to the endorsement thereon, death intimation was received by S.I of Police,

Ramagiri on 24.4.2014 and he issued fresh F.I.R by altering Section of law under section 305 IPC and took up investigation of the case.

15. Since the said FIR has not been marked and the prosecution has not examined the S.I of Police, Ramagiri to prove the

First Information Report and as all the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused more particularly the charge punishable under section 306 IPC and hence, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/sec.306 I.P.C and are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months from today. The non valuable unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 30th day of April, 2015.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Appendix of Evidence: Witnesses examined:

For prosecution: For defence: None.

PW.1/ J.Akkulappa.

PW.2/ M.Venkata Ramudu.

PW.3/ H.Venkatramudu.

PW.4/ Harijana Maruthi.

PW.5/ Harijana Muthyalamma.

Page 6 of 8

PW.6/ Anke Venkata Lakshmi.

PW.7/ Harijana Nagendra.

PW.8/ K.Ravindra Reddy.

PW.9/ G.Rajasekhar Reddy.

PW.10/ G.Sreenivasulu.

PW.11/ Ediga Nagabushanam.

PW.12/ K.Ramachandra Reddy.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:

Ex.P.1/ 161Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2/ 161Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.3/ 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.4/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.5/ Signature of P.W.4 on the statement recorded by Revenue officials.

Ex.P.6/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.7/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.8/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P.9/ Signature of P.W.7 on the statement recorded by Revenue Officials.

Ex.P10/ Signature of P.W.8 on the Inquest Report.

Ex.P11/ Signature of P.W.9 on the Inquest Report.

Ex.P12/ Signature of P.W.10 on the inquest report.

Ex.P13/ Signature of P.W.11 on the inquest report.

Ex.P14/ Signature of P.W.12 on the inquest report.

M.Os marked:

-Nil-

A.S.J.

Page 7 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: DHARMAVARAM

SESSIONS CASE NO.49/2015

1Name of the Complainant and Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramagiri Cr.No.Police Station, Cr.No.49/2014. 2Name of the accused:1.Palyam Muthyalamma, W/o Thimmaiah, aged 60 years.

2.Dappam Subbamma, W/o Peddanna, aged 25 years.

3.Dappam Peddanna, S/o Mareppa, aged 38 years.

All are Peddakondapuram village of Ramagiri Mandal.

3Date of offence:19.04.2014 4Date of complaint:24.04.2014 5Date of apprehension of 02.06.2014 accused 6Date of release on bail:15.07.2014 7Date of Committal:05.01.2015 8Date of commencement of trial:15.04.2015 9Date of close of trial:24.04.2015 10Date of sentence or order:30.04.2015

Explanation for the delay in committal court:-

This case was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Dharmavaram and numbered as PRC.NO.49/2014. On appearance of the accused A1 to A3 and on hearing both sides, this case was committed to the court of Sessions, Anantapur Division on 5.1.2015.

Explanation for the delay in Sessions Court:-

On 03.02.2015 this case was taken on file and numbered as

SC.No.49/2015 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Dharmavaram. On 24.03.2015 on appearance of the accused A1 to A3, charge u/sec.306 IPC are framed against the accused A.1 to A3, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which the accused A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and posted for fixation of schedule. On 31.03.2015 schedule was fixed. On 15.4.2015 the trial was commenced and closed on 24.4.2015. P.Ws.1 to 12 are examined and

Page 8 of 8

Exs.P.1 to P.14 are marked and the examination of the accused U/sec.313

Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused and the accused have complied the provisions U/sec.437 (A) of

Cr.P.C and posted for arguments. On 28.04.2015 arguments heard and posted for judgment. On 30.4.2015 judgment pronounced, (VSJ). In the result, the accused A1 to A3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/sec.306 I.P.C and are acquitted u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A3 shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months from today. The non valuable unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmavaram.

Page 1 of 4

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM

Present:- Sri B. Satyanarayana,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram.

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2015.

Original Petition No.13/2015 Between:

Smt Pujari Thulasi, W/o A.Venugopal, aged about 32 years, Hindu, employee, Resident of D.No.13/85, Indira Nagar, Dharmavaram Town, Now working as S.G. Teacher, at M.P.P.School, Chennekothapalli (V&M), Anantapur District. ….Petitioner.

And

A.Venugopal, S/o A.Yerra Ganganna, aged about 38 years, Hindu, Resident of D.No.3-13-C, Bramhanapalli village, Sree Sathya Sai Mandal, Now working as School Assistant, at Z.P. High School, Madhudi village, Agali Mandal, Anantapuram District. ….Respondent.

This petition coming on 28-4-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Ravindra Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and of

Sri D.Visweswara Rao and Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra, advocates for the respondent, and having perused the material papers and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1.The petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife

U/sec.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent/husband and for decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner that she is legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was solemnised on 23.2.2014 at Seetha Ramanjaneya Swamy Kalyanamandapam in

Dharmavaram town as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and thereafter they spent marital life for three months only and subsequently, the respondent used to abuse her and subjected her cruelty, and driven her out from the matrimonial home on 30.5.2014 and despite the several panchayaths, the respondent has not changed

Page 2 of 4 his attitude. Hence, the petitioner is constrained to file this petition to declare him as insolvent on the ground of cruelty.

3.The respondent/husband has filed the counter and admitted the marriage, but denied the other allegations of the petitioner and further averred that he requested the petitioner on number of times to come and join with him in his house at Bramhanapalli and he also expressed his willingness to put up a separate family for her convenience and the father and brother of the petitioner also abused him and insulted him and compel him to give divorce on mutual consent and as such, the petition is to be dismissed.

4.On behalf of the petitioner, PW.1 is examined and

Exs.P.1 to P4 are marked. On behalf of the respondent, RW.1 is examined and no documents are marked on his behalf.

5.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

6.Now the point for determination is “Whether the petitioner has proved that the respondent subjected her to cruelty, and she is entitled for decree of divorce?”

7.Point::- It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent subjected her to cruelty and harassment and whereas the respondent/husband denied the same.

8.P.W.1 Pujari Thulasi, the petitioner/wife herein has filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief examination in support of her contention and confronted to her and admitted by her on oath to be true and correct. Exs.P.1 to P4 are marked on her behalf. Ex.P.1 is marriage wedding card, 23.2.2014, Ex.P2 is marriage photograph of the petitioner and respondent, Ex.P3 is a Legal Notice, dt.25.9.2014 issued by the petitioner to the respondent and Ex.P.4 is the reply notice from the respondent, dt.15.10.2014. P.W.1 has reiterated her pleadings in her affidavit to the effect that her marriage was solemnised with the respondent on 23.2.2014. The petitioner has filed this petition on

Page 3 of 4 2.3.2015. The petitioner has filed this petition one year after the marriage with the respondent. There is no cross-examination on the evidence of P.W.1.

9.R.W.1 A.Venugopal, the respondent/husband herein has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination in support of his contention and confronted to him and admitted by him on oath to be true and correct. The respondent has reiterated his contention in his chief affidavit and there is no cross-examination on the evidence of

R.W.1.

10.It is the evidence of R.W.1 that there is no likely hood of reunion between him and the petitioner in future and requested the court to pass appropriate orders. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 and

R.W.1, it can be said that the petitioner and respondent have settled their dispute out side the court and there is no possibility for reunion.

As per the docket notes, dt.24.4.2015, the unchallenged evidence of

P.W.1 proved her case to the effect that the respondent has subjected her to cruelty, and it is a fit case to grant divorce with a view to give them an opportunity to live peacefully in the rest of their lives. Hence, the point is answered infavour of the petitioner.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed, however, without costs by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent on the ground of cruelty u/s.13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act and a decree of divorce is granted. Office is directed to give copy of decree of divorce to the petitioner and the respondent forthwith at free of cost, as per the provision u/s.23 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Directly dictated to the Personal Assistant, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram.

Page 4 of 4

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioner:

PW.1: Pujari Thulasi. (Petitioner)

Respondent:

RW.1: A.Venugopal. (Respondent)

Documents marked for Petitioner:

Ex.P.1/ Wedding Card, dt.23.2.2014.

Ex.P.2/ Marriage photograph of petitioner and respondent.

Ex.P.3/ Legal notice, dt.25.9.2014.

Ex.P4/ Reply notice, dt.15.10.2014.

Documents marked for Respondent:

Nil

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, DHARMAVARAM

Present:- Sri B. Satyanarayana,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2015.

Original Petition No.47/2014 Between:

1. G.Manjula @ Vimala, w/o vijayashekar, D/o Gurrappa, aged about 27 years, Hindu, D.No.9/558, Behind Sreedevi Talkies, Dharmavaram.

2. G.Vijayashekar, s/o G.Narasimhulu, aged about 32 years, Hindu, D.No.17/651, Thilak Nagar, Guntakal. ….Petitioners.

And

--NIL-- ….Respondent.

This petition is coming on 22-04-2015 for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri D.Vijaya Raghavendra and Smt

J.Sumalatha, advocates for the petitioners, having perused the material papers and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

O R D E R

1. The petition is filed on behalf of the petitioners/wife and husband respectively for dissolution of their marriage u/sec.13-B of the

Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mutual consent.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners through their petition that their marriage was solemnised on 30.11.2012 at Sri

Mahendra Kalyana Mantapam, Thilak Nagar, Guntakal as per the Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community and they lived happily for a period of two months and thereafter misunderstandings, serious disputes, differences and incompatibility occurred between them, as a result they began to live separately till date and several mediations are held, however, they did not give any fruitful result and the second petitioner has paid Rs.1,80,000/- and the same is received by the first petitioner towards permanent alimony and hence, they filed this 2 petition for decree of divorce with view to dissolve their marriage through court of law on ground of mutual consent. Hence, the petition.

3.After appearance of both parties, the petitioners themselves are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P.1 and P.2 on their behalf.

4. Heard the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Now the point for determination is “Whether the petitioners are entitled for decree of divorce on the ground of mutual consent?”

6. Point::- It is the contention of the petitioners that their marriage was solemnised on 30.11.2012 and they lived happily for two months and thereafter disputes and differences arose between them and they are living separately since then to till date and there is no possibility for reunion. The petitioners have filed this petition on 21.10.2014. The mandatory period of six months has been completed.

Inspite of that the petitioners want to take divorce and there is no possibility for reunion.

7. P.W.1 G.Manjula @ Vimala, the first petitioner/wife herein has filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief examination in support of her contention and confronted to her and admitted by her on oath to be true and correct. Exs.P.1 and P.2 are marked on her behalf, they are

Wedding card and marriage photograph of the petitioners.

8. P.W.2 G.Vijayashekar, the second petitioner/husband herein has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination in support of his contention and confronted to him and admitted by him on oath to be true and correct. It is the contention of the petitioner/husband that their marriage was solemnised on 30.11.2012 and thereafter differences arose between them and since then, they are living separately and there is no possibility for reunion. In view of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it can be said that both the petitioners are wife and husband respectively and their marriage was solemnised on 3 30.11.2012 as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community, they lived happily for a period of two months only and thereafter differences and disputes arose between them and since then they are living separately and in view of the differences and disputes arose between them they have decided to take divorce and there is no possibility for reunion. Both the petitioners have filed this petition

U/sec.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act on the ground of mutual consent. In view of the circumstances and as the petitioners are not in a position to live together in future, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant divorce on the ground of mutual consent with a view to facilitate the petitioners to live happily in the remaining period of their lives. Accordingly, this point is answered infavour of the petitioners.

9. In the result, the petition is allowed, however, without costs, by dissolving the marriage between the petitioners on the ground of mutual consent u/s.13-B of Hindu Marriage Act and a decree of divorce is granted. A decree shall be drawn up accordingly. Office is directed to give copy of decree of divorce to the petitioners forthwith at free of cost, as per the provision u/s.23 (4) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge

Dharmavaram.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Petitioners:

PW.1: G.Manjula @ Vimala (1st Petitioner)

PW.2: G.Vijayashekar. (2nd petitioner)

Respondent: None.

Documents marked for Petitioners:

Ex/P.1: Lagnapathrika (Wedding Card)._

Ex/P.2: Marriage photograph of the petitioners.

Documents marked for Respondent: Nil.

S.C.J.,

1

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Present:- Sri B.Satyanarayana,

Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram

Friday, the 1st day of May, 2015.

E.P.94/2014 in AC.1632/2013

Magma Fincrop Ltd., “Magma House”, 24, Park Street, Kolkata-700 001, having its Branch Office at D.No.301 & 302, 3rd Floor, Madhana Towers, D.K.Road, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, Reptd., by its authorized signatory- Senior Legal Executive. …. Petitioner/D.Hr.

And

1. T.Seshama Naidu, S/o Krishnama Naidu, aged 30 years, H.No.5-1, Turakapalli, Tadimarri (M), Anantapuramu District.

2. Thammineni Tholasamma,W/o T.Krishnama Naidu, aged 50 years, H.No.5-1, Turakapalli, Tadimarri (M), Anantapuramu District.

3. Maddupalli Polla Naidu, S/o Chinna Vengamuni, aged 40 years, H.No.5-33-A, Parnapalli village, Lingala Mandal, Kadapa District. … Respondents/J.Drs.,

This petition coming on 20-04-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Narasimhudu and Sri K.Durga Prasad, advocates

for the petitioner/D.Hr and of Sri P.Lakshminarayana, advocate for the

respondents/J.Drs., and the matter having stood over for consideration, this Court made the following:-

ORDER

1.The petition is filed on behalf of the petitioner/D.Hr under

Or.XX1, Rules 64 to 66 CPC for attachment of the moveable property of the J.Drs., and bring them for sale for realization of the decretal amount.

2.It is the contention of the petitioner/D.Hr., through the affidavit of A.Yogananda Swamy, Senior Legal Executive, Magma Fincorp

Company Ltd., that after passing of the Arbitration Award, the respondents have not paid the decretal amount and since the respondents 1 and 2 are having petition schedule moveable property and they have intentionally evading to pay the E.P amount, this petition is filed for attachment of the moveable properties and bring them for sale for realization of the decretal amount.

3.The respondents have filed counter denying the material contentions of the petitioner and further stated that there is no such property available in the village and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

2

4.Heard, both sides and perused the record.

5.Now the point for determination is “whether the petitioner is entitled for bringing the E.P schedule properties for sale for realization of the decretal amount?”

6.Point::- It is a matter of record that as per the docket notes, dt.1.12.2014, the petition schedule properties are ordered for attachment and the petitioner has also taken steps for break open the lock with the police aid and the Field Assistant returned the warrant with an endorsement that the said moveable properties are not available.

Subsequently, the respondents have filed counter denying the contention of the petitioner. The D.Hr., has filed this petition within two years from the date of Arbitration Award. It is the contention of the petitioner that the J.Drs.1 and 2 are the owners of the petition schedule moveable properties. According to Field Assistant, there are no such moveable properties. The petitioner/D.Hr., has not filed any documentary proof regarding the ownership of the property possessed by the J.Drs., 1 and 2 with reference to the petition schedule moveable properties. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit matter to proceed with the petition schedule moveable property. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioner.

7.In the result, the petition is dismissed, however without costs.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court on this the Ist day of May, 2015.

Senior Civil Judge,

Dharmavaram. Appendix of Evidence: Witnesses examined for the petitioner/D.Hr: None Witnesses examined for the respondent/J.Dr: None Exhibits marked for the petitioners/D.Hr: Nil Exhibits marked for the respondent/J.Drs: Nil S.C.J.