Smt. B. Sridevi

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MIRYALGUDA

(Dated on this the 23rd day of December, 2021)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

SESSIONS CASE No.150 OF 2020

(P.R.C. No.14/2018 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Miryalguda in Crime No.68/2018 of P.S.Miryalguda I

town)

COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda I town.

ACCUSED:

1.Thalla Janardhan S/o.Sooraiah, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agriculture

2.Vakiti Nagarjun S/o.Chennaiah, Age: 51 yrs, Occ: Agriculture

3.Eerla Gurvaiah S/o.Narsaiah, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A1 to A3 are R/o.Rainipalam (V), Miryalguda (M), Nalgonda Dist.

4.Chennaboina Saidulu S/o.Venkataiah,Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agril.,

5.Chennaboina Ramesh S/o.Venkataiah,Age: 32 yrs, Occ:Agril.,

6.Anumula Ramulu S/o.Gurvaiah, Age: 65 yrs, Occ: Agriculture, A4 to A6 are R/o.Alagadapa (V), Miryalguda (M), Nalgonda Dist.

Under Section 306 of IPC For the offence :

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, accused Nos.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 306 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted : Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Addl. P.P. by Sri M. Arun Kumar Accused is defended by : Advocate for accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri M. Arun Kumar, Learned counsel for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

2

: J U D G M E N T:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda-I town, Police

Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No.80/2018 against the accused for the offence under Sections 306 of IPC.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i). That on 15.04.2018 at 1800 hours, Complainant Chirrapu

Nagamani (Lw.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint in which she stated that, her husband is a member of Alagadapa,

Rainipalem fisheries society and invested money for forming fishes. The members of Rainipalem fisheries society of accused

No.1 to 3 and Alagadapa fisheries society of accused No.4 to 6 are created problems and did not allowed her husband for catching fishes. In this connection on 27.03.2018 her husband along with society members are lodged a complaint at PS Miryalguda Rural.

In this regard all the members including her husband are gathered in old agriculture market behind Miryalguda rural Police station at 1200 hours. The accused No.1 to 6 are abated to her husband disgusted his left and consumed pesticide poison at 1600 hours to commit suicide. Immediately shifted him to Area hospital,

Miryalguda for necessary treatment, as per the advice of duty doctor shifted her husband Yashoda hospital Malakpet, Hyderabad for further treatment. Basing on the above complaint, Lw.13/D.

Vijay Kumar, S.I of police, registered a case in Cr.No.68/2018,

U/s.306 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(ii). During the course of investigation, Lw.13/D. Vijay

Kumar, S.I of police, examined Lw.1/Chirrapu Nagamani at police 3 station and recorded her statement. Immediately rushed to area hospital Miryalguda and found the dead body of the deceased. On the morning of 16.04.2018, Lw.13 visited scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of

Lws.7/Nimmala Laxman and Lw.8/Indrapalli Mattaiah and seized an empty pesticide tin of 500 ml., Chlorrpyrifos-EC, Batch

No.JUSCKA043 under a cover of panchanama and rough sketch also drawn. Thereafter visited mortuary of area hospital, examined and recorded the statements of Lws.2 to 4 viz.,Chirrapu Chinna

Narsaiah, Chirrapu Venkata Ratnam and Chirrapu Nagaraju.

Inquest held over the dead of the deceased in the presence of

Lws.9/Angothu Balu Naik and Lw.10/Rudrakshi Bichaiah, subjected the dead body for PME. The Lw.11/Dr. B. Kumar conducted PME and preserved viscera for analysis. On 17.04.2018 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of eye witnesses Lws.5/Mulkalapalli Sreenu and Lw.6/Narala Saidulu. On 23.04.2018 Lw.14/R. Nagaraju took up the investigation since the

Lw.13 transferred to Madgulapally PS. On 25.04.2018 at 09.30 hours, on receipt of reliable information Lw.14 along with available staff rushed to the bus stage of Alagadapa village and apprehended the accused No.1 to 6 at 10.00 hours. On interrogation A1 to A6 admitted their guilt. At 11.00 hours, brought the A1 to A6 to PS Miryalguda I town affected their arrest and sent them to judicial remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against them.

3. This case was taken cognizance by the learned I Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in P.R.C. No.14/2018 for 4 the offence under section 306 IPC against the accused. After supply of copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the learned

Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Nalgonda

U/Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of the case for the offence under

Section 306 IPC against the accused and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused No.1 to 6, this Court framed the charge against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC. The charge was read over to accused and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant Chirrapu Nagamani (LW.1/wife of deceased) as PW-1,

Chirrapu Chinna Narsaiah (LW-2/circumstantial witness) was examined as PW.2, Chirrapu Venkata Ratnam (LW.3/circumstantial witness) was examined as PW-3, Chirrapu

Nagaraju (LW-4/Circumstantial witness) was examined as PW-4,

Indrapalli Mattaiah (Lw.8/panch for scene of offence & seizure) was examined as PW-5, Mulkalapalli Sreenu (Lw.5/Eye witness) was examined as PW-6, Narala Saidulu (Lw.6/Eye witness) was examined as PW.7, Nimmla Laxman (Lw.7/ Panch for scene of offence & seizure) was examined as Pw.8, Angothu Balu Naik (Lw.9/Panch for inquest) was examined as Pw.9, Rudrakshi

Bichaiah (Lw.10/panch for inquest) was examined as Pw.10 and

Dr. B. Kumar (Lw.11/Doctor) was examined as Pw.11. The 5

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor given up the evidences Lw.12 to Lw.14 viz., K. Rama Devi, D. Vijay Kumar and R. Nagaraju. The prosecution also got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.13 which are Ex.P.1 is

Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1, Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1, Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.2, Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3, Ex.P.5:

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, Ex.P.6 is signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.5, Ex.P.7 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.5, Ex.P.8 is signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.8,

Ex.P.9 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.8, Ex.P.10 is signature portion on inquest panchanama of Pw.9, Ex.P.11 is signature portion on inquest panchanama of Pw.10, Ex.P.12 is

PME report, Ex.P.13 is FSL report.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 6 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances and incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and they reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

8. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under

Section 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

6

10. P O I N T:-

(i). PW.1, Chirrapu Nagamani, deposed in her evidence that, the deceased Venkateshwarlu is her husband. Her husband health was not good and hence he died. She does not know anything about this case. At the instance of police, she signed on blank papers. Ex.P.1 is signature portion on complaint. Police did not examine her and did not record her statement. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned APPO, nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidence of Pw-1, she turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, her evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Moreover mere marking of signature portion on complaint does not prove the contents in the complaint when the witness i.e., Pw.1 categorically stated that he did not lodge any complaint.

(ii). Pws.2 to Pw.4 who are said to be circumstantial witnesses in this case, deposed in their chief examination that about they do not know about this case. Police did not examine them and did not record their statement. Even during the course of cross- examination by the learned APPO nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidences of Pw.2 to Pw.4, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidences are of no use to the case of prosecution.

(iii). Pw.5/I. Mattaiah and Pw.8/N. Laxman who are said to be panchas for scene of offence panchanama deposed in their 7 examination that, police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in their presence. At the instance of police, they signed on blank papers. Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.8 are signatures portions on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.5 & Pw.8, Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.9 are signatures portions on rough sketch of Pw.5 & Pw.8.

Therefore, their evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of scene of offence panchanama and alleged drawing of rough sketch. As seen from the evidence of Pw.5 & Pw.8 they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Through

Pw.5 & Pw.8, Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 are marked, but same is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.

(iv). Pw.6/M. Srinu and Pw.7/N. Saidulu who are said to be Eye witnesses in this case, deposed in their chief examination that the deceased Venkateshwarlu was indebted. One day the deceased went to catch fished in the tank bund. The tank bund was indebted. They stated that they will not give money. They stated they will not give money. Then the case was filed. Then they came to station. Then their Sangam people came and they went side, money was not given. The deceased was taken to hospital at

Hyderabad for ten days he took treatment at Hyderabad.

Thereafter, he was shifted to a private hospital in Miryalguda.

While undergoing treatment he died. They do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them and did not record their statements. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, the witnesses Pw.6 & Pw.7 denied the suggestions put forth to them. However as seen from the 8 entire evidence of Pw.6 & Pw.7 nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidences of Pw.6 & Pw.7, they did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidences are of no use to the case of prosecution. Since the identity of the accused with the present offence is not established.

(v). Pw.9/A. Balu Naik and Pw.10/R. Bicahaiah who are said to be panchas for inquest panchanama deposed in their examination that, police did not conduct any inquest panchanama in their presence. At the instance of police, they signed on blank papers.

Ex.P.10 & Ex.P.11 are signatures portions on inquest panchanama of Pw.9 & Pw.10. Therefore, their evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of inquest panchanama.

(vi). Pw.11/Dr. B. Kumar, deposed in his chief examination that on 16.04.2018 he received requisition from SHO, Miryalguda I town police station. Basing on that requisition he conducted post mortem examination of deceased Chirrapu Venkateshwarlu, on conducting PME, he found no external injuries on the dead body.

The viscera was sent for Toxicology examination at FSL. Basing on toxicology report no poisonous substance found in them.

Accordingly, he issued PME report. Ex.P.12 is PME report and

Ex.P.13 is FSL report. However as seen from the evidence of

Pw.11 during the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, Pw.11 denied the suggestions put forth to him by the learned counsel for the accused. As seen from the 9 evidence of Pw.11 the alleged offence against accused No.1 to 6 is not made out. Since the sole evidence of Pw.11 is not sufficient to prove the alleged guilt of the accused. Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Moreover as seen from Ex.P.12 & Ex.P.13 they go against the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused because they do not establish the manner of the death in which prosecution alleged against the accused.

11. In view of the discussion above and from the evidence placed by the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the essential ingredient as contemplated by law for the offence under Section 306 of IPC alleged against the accused.

Therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 6 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under Section 306 IPC, hence the accused No.1 to 6 are entitled for the benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, the above point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, accused No.1 to 6 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 306 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of December, 2021.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

10

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Pw.1: Chirrapu Nagamani Pw.2: Chirrapu Chinna Narsaiah Pw.3: Chirrapu Venkata Ratnam Pw.4: Chirrapu Nagaraju Pw.5: Indrapalli Mattaiah Pw.6: Mulkalapalli Sreenu Pw.7: Narala Saidulu Pw.8: Nimmla Laxman Pw.9: Angothu Balu Naik Pw.10: Rudrakshi Bichaiah Pw.11: Dr. B. Kumar

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.5 Ex.P.7:Signature portion on rough sketch of PW.5 Ex.P.8: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.8 Ex.P.9: Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.8 Ex.P.10: Signature portion on inquest panchanama of Pw.9 Ex.P.11: Signature portion on inquest panchanama of Pw.10 Ex.P.12: PME report Ex.P.13: FSL report

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL –

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge Miryalguda

Page 1 of 10

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MIRYALAGUDA

(Dated, this the 15th day of March, 2022)

PRESENT: SMT B. SRIDEVI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

OS. No.188 OF 2016

Between:

Balagoni Janamma D/o.Ramaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o.Shaboo Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

… PLAINTIFF AND

Katekar Jyothi Bai W/o.Babulal, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.6-76, Shaboo Nagar, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANT

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G. Penta Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri K. Venkanna, Counsel for the defendant, upon perusing the material papers on record, stood over for consideration, till this day, this court delivered the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This is a suit filed for recovery of amount of

Rs.3,04,000/- by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of suit amount along with interest and costs.

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

(i). That plaintiff and defendant are known to each other.

Out of said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial accommodation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for her family needs. In pursuance of the said request, the plaintiff advanced an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.10.2014, at

Miryalguda and defendant executed a demand promissory note of

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 2 of 10 even date as a collateral security for the said loan amount, while agreeing to repay the same with interest of @Rs.2-00 per one hundred rupees per month, on demand either to her client or to his order. advantage of such acquaintance, the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) from the plaintiff on 01.07.2014 at Miryalaguda town for his agricultural necessities.

Immediately after receipt of said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff or his order with interest @ Rs.2-00 paisa per hundred per month.

(ii). It is further contended that the plaintiff after waiting sufficiently demanded the defendant to clear the amount due under promissory note to which the defendant on one or the other reason postponed the payment on one or the reason. Believing the words of the defendant the plaintiff waited sufficiently got issued legal notice from the office of her Advocate on 27.09.2016 demanding her to repay the amount due under promissory note, the defendant failed to receive the notice by managing postal authorities, knowing well about the contents of notice. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to sue and defendant is liable to answer.

(iii). That the plaintiff calculated the interest @Rs.2-00/- p.s./p.m./p.h on Rs.2,00,000/- from 02.10.2014 to 01.12.2016, which comes to Rs.1,04,000/- same is added to principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- in the total Rs.3,04,000/- which is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 3 of 10

3. The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant are as follows:-

(i). That the Defendant denies all material factum averments of plaint. The plaintiff is put to strict proof each and every averment of plaint except which are specifically admitted by the defendant in her written statement.

(ii). That the plaintiff and defendant are same villagers both are well acquainted with each. The plaintiff is doing money lending business without valid license, the plaintiff lent amount for high rate of interest for who needy persons in the Miryalguda town. In that connection the plaintiff given amount to the defendant for her needs, the defendant paid total amount to the plaintiff with interest, at the time of payment the plaintiff told to the defendant that the demand promissory note was misplaced in her house, the plaintiff promised to the defendant when it was traced out then return to the defendant, the defendant believing the words of the plaintiff, after some time the defendant asked the plaintiff to return the said demand promissory note, in that connection some disputes arose between them. The plaintiff keep of the mind, the plaintiff forged the signature of the defendant with active collusion of scribe and attesters of the suit pronote filed this false suit against the defendant, the plaintiff filed this false suit against the defendant for harassment and extract more money from the defendant.

(iii). That the defendant is ready to prove her signature by way of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for expert opinion.

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 4 of 10

(iv). That the plaintiff is doing money lending business without valid license for high rate of interest.

(v). That the defendant never due any amount to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not having any right to claim against the defendant for recovery of money. Therefore, the defendant prays that this court may be pleased to dismiss the suit against the defendant.

4. On perusal of pleadings of plaintiff and defendant my

Learned Predecessor in office, dated 04.09.2018 framed the following issues for the purpose of trial:-

Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to

recover the suit amount as prayed for?

Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is doing money

lending business at high rate of interest

with valid license?

Issue No.3 : To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 is examined and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A3 whereas, on behalf of the defendant, she did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence on her behalf.

6. Heard both sides arguments.

7. Perused the material available on record.

8. Issue No.1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

(a). This is a suit for recovery of amount Rs.3,04,000/- along with interest and costs filed by the plaintiff against the

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 5 of 10 defendant. This suit is filed basing on the strength of the suit promissory note dated 02.10.2014 i.e., Ex.A1. Since this is a suit for recovery of money basing on suit promissory note, hence, the initial burden lies on the plaintiff to prove the execution of suit pronote. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendant are known to each other. Out of said acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff for financial accommodation of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) for her family needs. In pursuance of the said request, the plaintiff advanced an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- on 02.10.2014, at Miryalguda and defendant executed a demand promissory note of even date as a collateral security for the said loan amount, while agreeing to repay the same with interest of @Rs.2-00 per one hundred rupees per month, on demand either to her client or to his order. Immediately after receipt of said amount, the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of the plaintiff by agreeing to repay the same to the plaintiff or his order with interest @ Rs.2-00 paisa per hundred per month. It is further contended that the plaintiff after waiting sufficiently demanded the defendant to clear the amount due under promissory note to which the defendant on one or the other reason postponed the payment on one or the other reason.

Believing the words of the defendant the plaintiff waited sufficiently and then got issued legal notice from the office of her Advocate on 27.09.2016 demanding her to repay the amount due under promissory note, the defendant failed to receive the notice by managing postal authorities, knowing well about the contents of notice. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to sue and defendant is liable

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 6 of 10 to answer. That the plaintiff calculated the interest @Rs.2-00/- p.s./p.m./p.h on Rs.2,00,000/- from 02.10.2014 to 01.12.2016, which comes to Rs.1,04,000/- same is added to principal amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- in the total Rs.3,04,000/- which is due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff.

(b) On the other hand it is the contention of the defendant that the Defendant denies all material factum averments of plaint and the plaintiff is put to strict proof each and every averment of plaint except which are specifically admitted. The interest calculation as shown in the plaint is high and it is wrongly calculated by the plaintiff, the plaintiff put to strict proof of the same.

(c). In order to support the contentions of the plaintiff that the plaintiff got examined herself as Pw.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A3. Pw.1 also got examined Pw.2 who is said to be one of the attestor to the suit pronote under Ex.A.1. Pw.1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents on par with the plaint. Now coming to the cross examination of Pw.1, she categorically stated that she knows the contents of her chief affidavit and she filed this suit against Jyothi Bai (Defendant). Pw.1 categorically stated that it is true that the defendant borrowed the money on loan from her (Pw.1). Pw.1 categorically denied the suggestions put forth to her by the learned counsel for the defendant during the course of cross- examination and categorically stated that she is not license money lender and that the defendant did not discharge the entire amount due under suit pronote. As seen from the entire evidence of Pw.1,

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 7 of 10 she categorically stood consistent with her evidence during the course of her entire cross-examination. Therefore there is consistency in the evidence of Pw.1. To support the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also got examined Pw.2, categorically stated in his chief examination that he knows the plaintiff and defendant and he knows that the money transaction took place between them and that on 02.10.2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- from plaintiff to meet her family needs at Miryalguda.

After receiving the said amount as a collateral security the defendant executed a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @Rs.2.00/- ps/pm/ph and that at the time of money transaction himself, Sri. K.

Mahesh, Sri K. Naresh and A. Srinivas were also present and

Sri A. Srinivas scribed the promissory note on the instructions of defendant and that himself, Sri K. Mahesh, and K. Naresh attested the promissory note under Ex.A1. As seen from the cross examination of Pw.2 he categorically denied the suggestions put forth to him by the learned counsel and stated that at the time of suit transaction A. Srinivas, two sons of Jyothi Bai (Defendant) by names Mahesh and Suresh and Jyothi Bai (Defendant) and himself were all present and that the plaintiff gave the amount to the defendant in his presence on the date of suit transaction and at the time of suit transaction the plaintiff was also present along with all of them. Thus as seen from the evidence of Pw.2 it is perfectly corroborating to the evidence of Pw.1. Now coming to the documentary evidence relied on by the plaintiff, it categorically shows that Ex.A1 is the suit promissory note basing upon which the

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 8 of 10 present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. As seen from the averments in the written statement coupled with the suggestions posed by the learned counsel for the defendant during the course of cross-examination of plaintiff witnesses and also, in view of submissions made by learned counsel for the defendant during the course of arguments, the defendant had taken the discharge plea in her written statement. Therefore in view of the discharge plea taken by the defendant and in view of admissions made by the defendant in her written statement, the suit promissory note under Ex.A.1 stands true valid and binding on the defendant. Now the burden is on the defendant to prove the discharge plea taken by her, since the defendant alleged that she discharged the entire amount due under suit pronote (Ex.A.1).

However as seen from entire evidence, the defendant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence such as receipt, etc., in order to prove her plea of discharge. Whereas as seen from record

Ex.A.2 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant demanding the defendant to repay the amount due under the suit pronote (Ex.A1) and Ex.A3 is unserved cover. Thus as seen from the entire evidence on record and in view of admission made by the defendant with regard to execution of suit pronote, the plaintiff successfully proved the execution of suit pronote under

Ex.A1. Whereas the defendant took the plea of discharge under

Ex.A1 suit pronote but the defendant did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence to prove her plea of discharge under suit pronote (Ex.A.1). Thus in view of discussion above the plaintiff is

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 9 of 10 entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for from the defendant. Thus, this issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

9. Issue No.2 : Whether the plaintiff is doing money lending business at high rate of interest with valid license?

The defendant took the plea of discharge under suit pronote but failed to prove the same in view of reasons stated in the issue No.1.

The defendant also alleged that the plaintiff is doing money lending business at high rate of interest without valid license. However as seen from record the defendant did not adduce any cogent and reliable evidence in order to substantiate the pleas taken by the defendant in her written statement and arguments. Therefore, defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff is allegedly doing money lending business at high rate of interest without valid license. Thus, this issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

10. Issue No.3 : To what relief?

In view of my findings on issue No.1 and issue No.2, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,04,000/- along with further interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization on the principle sum due of Rs.2,00,000/-.

Dictated to my Personal Assistant, transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of March, 2022.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

Page 10 of 10

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

Pw-1: Balagoni Janamma Pw-2: Rudra Narayana

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT: None

EXHIBITS MARKED

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 : Demand Promissory Note, dated 02.10.2014.

Ex.A2 : Office copy of legal notice, dated 27.09.2016.

Ex.A3 : Returned unserved cover.

ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT: Nil

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA.

O.S.NO.188 of 2016

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MIRYALGUDA

(Dated on this the 7th day of January, 2022)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

SESSIONS CASE No.205 OF 2018

(P.R.C. No.06/2018 on the file of the I Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Miryalguda in Crime No.119/2017 of P.S.Miryalguda

II town)

COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II town.

ACCUSED:

1.Madugula Ramakrishna S/o.Buchaiah, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.35-312, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town.

2.Madugula Shiva S/o.Buchaiah, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Private Employee,R/o.H.NO.35-312,Prakashnagar,Miryalguda town.

3.Madugula Srinivas S/o.Kistaiah, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.35-183, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town.

4.Karampudi Vijaya Ramaraju S/o.Nagaraju, Age: 25 yrs, Occ: private employee, R/o.H.No.18-1143, Ashoknagar, Miryalguda town.

5.Ayilla Bhaskar S/o.Ramulu, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Rice mill driver, R/o.H.No.35-224, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town.

6.Renukuntla Ramakrishna S/o.Ramulu, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: welding works, R/o.H.No.35-208, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town.

7.Korivi Sathyanarayana @ Sathi S/o.Lingaiah, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Private employee, R/o.H.No.35-195, Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town. Under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC For the offence :

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER: In the result, accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted : Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Addl. P.P. by 2

Sri M.C. Koti Reddy Accused is defended by : Advocate for accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri M.C.Koti reddy, Learned counsel for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda II town, Police

Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No.119/2017 against the accused for the offence under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i). That on 16.06.2017 at 09.30 hours, Complainant Thanda

Kalpana (Lw.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint in which she stated that, on 15.06.2017 night at about 8.30 p.m., the complainants husband Lw.5/Lingaswamy, Lw.3/Saidulu and

Lw.2/Kumar are went to near railway track to have liquor. One month ago, a quarrel took place between A1 and Lw.3. In this regard Lw.2 made a phone call to A1 and informed to him that they are at FCI and requested him to come there for discussing, on that A1 said that he will come to near Prakashnagar cricket ground and he came to ground and he came to ground along with

A1 to A7 and their friends having Chilli powder pockets and thrown chilli powder on Lw.5/Lingaswamy received severe bleeding injuries to left hand, stomach and head. When they attacked on

Lw.5 with sticks and knife, Lw.2 & Lw.3 were tried to obstruct 3 them, but they did not heed their words. Hence, he requested to take legal action against them. Basing on the above complaint,

Lw.19/B. Saieshwar Goud, S.I of police, registered a case in

Cr.No.119/2017, U/s.324 R/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

(ii). During the course of investigation, Lw.19/B.

Saieshwar Goud examined Lw.1/Thanda Kavitha and recorded her statement. Later visited scene of offence situated at

Prakashnagar, Miryalguda town. Observed the scene minutely, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators Lw.14/ Kola Nagaraju and Lw.15/ Sk. Jahangir and seized two sticks, one knife and an opened chilli powder pocket, secured Lws.2 to Lw.4 viz.,Mudavath Kumar Naik, Baddula Saidulu and Surakarapu Renaiah examined them and recorded their statements. Later, he visited the Govt. Head quarters hospital,

Nalgonda, where he examined the injured Lw.5/Lingaswamy and recorded his statement. Later examined the witnesses Lws.6 to 13 viz., Thanda Anjamma, Shaik Yusuf, Baireddy Ashok Reddy,

Sadineni Srinivas Rao, Rapolu Ramakrishna, Kuchimalla Anand,

Boddupally Lalaiah and Chamarthi Srinivasa Shasthri and recorded their statements. On peruse of the statement of Lw.5, Lw.19 altered the section of law 307 R/w.34 of IPC to the existing 324

R/w 34 of IPC and submitted information to all concerned and took up further investigation. On 22.06.2017 at 1130 hours, Lw.19 arrested the accused persons at near Miryalguda railway station and recorded the confession statement of accused and later they 4 were to judicial remand. On 30.06.2017, Lw.5 came to police station along with Lws.7 to 9 and produced them before Lw.19 and stated these are also eye witnesses, examined them as Lws.7 to Lw.9 and recorded their statements. On 14.07.2017, A3 and alleged accused Madugula Vamshi are surrendered before concerned Court and released on anticipatory bail. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against them.

3. This case is taken cognizance by the learned I Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in P.R.C. No.06/2018 for the offence under section 307 r/w.34 of IPC against the accused.

After supply of copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda U/Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Principal

District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 7 and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused, this Court framed the charge against the accused for the offence under Section 307 r/w.

34 of IPC. The charge was read over to accused and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant Thanda Kalpana (LW.1/wife of Injured) as PW-1,

Mudavath Kumar Naik (LW-2/ eye witness) was examined as 5

PW.2, Thanda Lingaswamy (LW-5/Injured & eye witness) was examined as PW-3, Baddula Saidulu (LW-3/Eye witness) was examined as PW-4, Surakarapu Renaiah (Lw.4/ eye witness) was examined as PW-5, Shaik Yusuf (Lw.7/circumstantial witness) was examined as Pw.6, Baireddy Ashok Reddy (Lw.8/Circumstantial witness) was examined as Pw.7, Sadineni Srinivas Rao (Lw.9/circumstantial witness) was examined as Pw.8, Rapolu

Ramakrishna (Lw.10/eye witness) was examined as Pw.9,

Kuchimalla Anand (Lw.11/eye witness) was examined as Pw.10,

Boddupally Lalaiah (Lw.12/eye witness) was examined as Pw.11,

Chamarthi Srinivasa Shasthri (Lw.13/eye witness) was examined as Pw.12, Kola Nagaraju (Lw.14/panch for scene of offence & seizure) was examined as Pw.13, Sk. Jahangir (Lw.15/panch for scene of offence & seizure) was examined as Pw.14, Ayilla

Venkanna (Lw.16/panch for confession of A1) was examined as

Pw.15, Macharla Pedda Anjaiah (Lw.17/Pw.16) was examined as

Pw.16. The prosecution also got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.19 which are Ex.P.1 is Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1, Ex.P.2 is

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1, Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.2, Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3,

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5, Ex.P.7: Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.6, Ex.P.8: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7,

Ex.P.9: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8, Ex.P.10: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.9, Ex.P.11: Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.10, Ex.P.12: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of 6

Pw.11, Ex.P.13: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.12,

Ex.P.14: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.13, Ex.P.15 is Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.13, Ex.P.15: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.14, Ex.P.16 is Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.14, Ex.P.18 is Signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.15, Ex.P.19 is signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.16.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 7 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances and incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused No.1 to 7 denied the same and they reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

8. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the accused No.1 to 7 for the offence punishable under

Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10. P O I N T:-

(a). PW.1, Thanda Kalpana, deposed in her evidence that, she does not know anything about this case. At the instance of police 7 she signed on blank papers. Police did not examine her and did not record her statement. Even during the course of cross- examination by the learned APPO, nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidence of Pw-1, she turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, her evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Moreover mere marking of signature portion as Ex.P.1 on complaint does not prove the contents in the complaint when the witness i.e., Pw.1 categorically stated that she did not lodge any complaint. Therefore Pw.1 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

(b). Pws.2 to Pw.12 who are said to be eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses in this case, deposed in their chief examination that they do not know anything about this case.

Police did not examine them and did not record their statement.

Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned APPO nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution.

Hence, as seen from the evidences of Pw.2 to Pw.12, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidences are of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the mere marking of signature portions on their statements.

(c). Pw.13/K.Nagaraju and Pw.14/Sk. Jahangir who are said to be panchas for scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama deposed in their chief examination that, police did not conduct any scene of offence panchanama in their presence.

8

At the instance of police they have signed on blank papers.

Ex.P.14 & Ex.P.16 are Signature portions on scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama of Pw.13 & Pw.14, Ex.P.15 & Ex.P.17 are signature portions on rough sketch of Pw.13 &

Pw.14. However mere marking of signature portions under Ex.P.14 to Ex.P17 are not sufficient to prove the alleged conduct of alleged scene of offence panchanama and alleged drawing of rough sketch. Therefore, Pw.13 & Pw.14 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of scene of offence panchanama and alleged drawing of rough sketch.

(d). Pw.15/A. Venkanna and Pw.16/M. Peda Anjaiah who are said to be panchas for confession panchanama deposed in their chief examination that, police did not conduct any confession panchanama of accused in their presence. At the instance of police they have signed on blank papers. Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.19 are

Signature portions on confession panchanama of Pw.15 & Pw.16.

However mere marking of signature portions under Ex.P.18 &

Ex.P.19 are not sufficient to prove the alleged conduct of alleged confession panchanama. Therefore, Pw.15 & Pw.16 evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting confession panchanama.

11. In view of the discussion above and from the evidence placed by the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the essential ingredients as contemplated by law for the offence under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC alleged against the 9 accused. Therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under

Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC, hence the accused No.1 to 7 are entitled for the benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, the above point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, the accused No.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 307 R/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of January, 2022.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Pw.1: Thanda Kalpana Pw.2: Mudavath Kumar Naik Pw.3: Thanda Lingaswamy Pw.4: Baddula Saidulu Pw.5: Surakarapu Renaiah Pw.6: Shaik Yusuf Pw.7: Baireddy Ashok Reddy Pw.8: Sadineni Srinivas Rao Pw.9: Rapolu Ramakrishna Pw.10: Kuchimalla Anand Pw.11: Boddupally Lalaiah Pw.12: Chamarthi Srinivasa Shasthri Pw.13: Kola Nagaraju Pw.14: Sk. Jahangir Pw.15: Ayilla Venkanna 10

Pw.16: Macharla Pedda Anjaiah

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P.7: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P.8: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P.9: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P.10: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.9 Ex.P.11: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.10 Ex.P.12: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.11 Ex.P.13: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.12 Ex.P.14: Signature portion on scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama of Pw.13 Ex.P.15: Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.13 Ex.P.16: Signature portion on scene of offence panchanama cum seizure panchanama of Pw.14 Ex.P.17: Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.14 Ex.P.18: Signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.15 Ex.P.19: Signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.16

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL –

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge

Miryalguda

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MIRYALGUDA

(Dated on this the 14th day of March, 2022)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

SESSIONS CASE No.174 OF 2019

(P.R.C. No.26/2018 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Miryalguda in Crime No.60/2018 of P.S.Miryalguda

Rural)

COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural.

ACCUSED:

1.Koppu Satheesh S/o.Venkanna, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: wine shop worker, R/o.Nomula Village of Nakrekal (M), Nalgonda District.

2.Makka Suresh S/o.Pethuru, Age: 25 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o.Akaram Village of Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3.Utkuri Prashnath S/o.Yakub, Age: 22 yrs, Occ: Driver of tractor, R/o.Ambarpeta Village of Shaligouraram (M), Nalgonda District.

4.Gundu Nagaraju S/o.Venkanna, Age: 20 yrs, Occ: Student, R/o.H.No.8-90/6, Musi Road, Nakrekal (V & M), Nalgonda District.

Under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC For the offence :

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, accused Nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted : Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Addl. P.P. by Sri P. Paramesh Accused is defended by : Advocate for accused.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri P. Paramesh, Learned counsel for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

2

: J U D G M E N T:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalguda Rural, Police

Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No.60/2018 against the accused for the offence under Sections 307 R/w.34 of IPC.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i). That on 14.03.2018 at 21.20 hours, Complainant Sheelam

Saidamma (Lw.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint in which she stated that, on 14.03.2018 at 17.00 hours, while her husband Lw.2/Sheelam Veeraiah was returning to his house from his leased agriculture land after completion toddy tapping, at the same time nephew of her husband namely Koppu Satheesh along with unknown persons were assaulted on Lw.2 and A1 was stabbed Lw.2 stomach with broken beer bottle with an intention to kill him and caused bleeding injury, due to previous disputes, when he reached to the outskirts of Thadakamalla Village of

Miryalguda Mandal, Lw.2 Veeraiah phoned the complainant (Lw.1) and informed the same incident, immediately Lw.1 reached to

Lw.2 and shifted him to Area Hospital, Miryalguda for treatment and getting treatment. Finally she requested to take legal action as per law. Basing on the above complaint, Lw.12/Md. Ghouse, S.I of police, registered a case in Cr.No.60/2018, U/s.307 R/w.34 of

IPC and took up the investigation.

(ii). During the course of investigation, Lw.12/Md.

Ghouse, S.I of police, examined Lw.1/Sheelam Saidamma. Due to night hours he did not visit the scene of offence. On next day on 3 15.03.2018 Lw.12 along with visited to the Govt. Area Hospital,

Miryalguda, examined and recorded the statement oif Lw.2 and summoned to mediators Lws.7/Sheelam Srinivas and

Lw.8/Donthireddy Venkat Reddy and seized the shirt and towel of

Lw.2 Sheelam Veeraiah from Lw.2 in the presence of Lws.7 and

Lw.8. Thereafter, Lw.12 along with available staff rushed to scene of offence situated at outskirts of Thadakamalla Village of

Miryalguda Mandal and examined Lws.3/Utharala Nagaraju and

Lw.4/Thupakula Laxamaiah and recorded their statements.

Thereafter, Lw.12 rushed to Ravulapenta Village of Vemulapally

Mandal and examined the Lws.5/Sheelam Venkanna and

Lw.6/Gajjala Narendar Reddy and recorded their statements, then returned toi scene of offence, along with panchas and observed the scene minutely and conducted scene of offence panchanama of in the presence of panchas Lws.7 and Lw.8, also drawn rough sketch of scene of seized beer bottle pieces, which was used by accused to stab the Lw.2 Sheelam Veeraiah from scene of offence in the presence of mediators and caused enquiries about the accused persons. Subsequently, Lw.13/D. Saida Babu took the CD file for further investigation and verified the investigation done by

Lw.12 and found on proper lines. On 20.03.2018 at 14.00 hours,

Lw.13 arrested the accused No.1 to 3 at RTC Bus stand,

Miryalguda and summoned to mediators and conducted the confession panchanama in the presence of panchas and sent the

A1 to A3 to judicial remand on the same day. Later, on 07.07.2018 at 15.00 hours, on credible information, Lw.13 along with available staff rushed to Rajiv Chowk, Miryalguda town and 4 apprehended the A4 at 15.30 hours and summoned to mediators

Lws.9/Sheelam Srinivas and Lw.10/Kandhula Nagi Reddy and conducted confession panchanama in the presence of mediators.

Thereafter, Lw.11/Dr. B. Kumar who treated the Lw.2 furnished medical certificate of Lw.2. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against them.

3. This case was taken cognizance by the learned II Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in P.R.C. No.26/2018 for the offence under section 307 R/w.34 of IPC against the accused.

After supply of copies to the accused U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions,

Nalgonda U/Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Principal District and

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of the case for the

offence under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC against the accused No.1 to 4 and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused No.1 to 4, this Court framed the charge against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC. The charge was read over to accused No.1 to 4 and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant Sheelam Saidamma (LW.1/wife of Lw.2) as PW-1,

Sheelam Veeraiah (LW-2/Injured and husband of Lw.1) was examined as PW.2, Utharla Nagaraju (LW.3/Eye witness) was examined as PW-3, Thupakula Laxmaiah (LW-4/Eye witness) was 5 examined as PW-4, Sheelam Venkanna (Lw.5/Eye witness) was examined as PW-5, Sheelam Srinivas (Lw.7/Panch for scene of offence & seizure panchanama) was examined as PW-6,

Donthireddy Venkat Reddy (Lw.8/Panch for scene of offence & seizure panchanama) was examined as PW.7, Sheelam Srinivas (Lw.9/panch for confession of accused) was examined as Pw.8,

Kandhula Nagi Reddy(Lw.10/panch for confession panchanama of accued) was examined as Pw.9. The Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lw.6/Gajjala Narender Reddy.

The prosecution also got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.12 which are

Ex.P.1 is Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1, Ex.P.2 is

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1, Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of Pw.2, Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3,

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, Ex.P.6 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5, Ex.P.7 is signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.6, Ex.P.8 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.6, Ex.P.9 is signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.7, Ex.P.10 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.7, Ex.P.11 is signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.8, Ex.P.12 is signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.9.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting all incriminating circumstances and incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused No.1 to 4 denied the same and they reported no 6 defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

8. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the accused No.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under

Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10. P O I N T:-

(i). PW.1, Sheelam Saidamma, deposed in her evidence that, she does not know anything about this case. At the instance of police, she signed on blank papers. Police did not examine her and did not record her statement. Ex.P.1 is signature portion on complaint. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned APPO, nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidence of Pw-1, she turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, her evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

Moreover mere marking of signature portion on complaint does not prove the contents in the complaint when the witness i.e.,

Pw.1 categorically stated that he did not lodge any complaint.

(ii). Pws.2 to Pw.5 who are said to be injured person and eye witnesses to this case, deposed in their chief examination that about they do not know about this case. Police did not examine them and did not record their statement. Even during the course 7 of cross-examination by the learned APPO nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidences of Pw.2 to Pw.5, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidences are of no use to the case of prosecution.

(iii). Pw.6/Sheelam Srinivas and Pw.7/D. Venkat Reddy who are said to be panchas for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama deposed in their examination that, they do not know anything about this case. At the instance of police, they signed on blank papers. Ex.P.7 & Ex.P.9 are signatures portions on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.6 & Pw.7, Ex.P.8 &

Ex.P.10 are signatures portions on rough sketch of Pw.6 & Pw.7.

Therefore, their evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of scene of offence panchanama and alleged drawing of rough sketch. As seen from the evidence of Pw.6 & Pw.7 they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Through

Pw.6 & Pw.7, Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10 are marked, but same is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution.

(iv). Pw.8/Sheelam Srinivas and Pw.9/K. Nagireddy who are said to be panchas for confession panchanama deposed in their examination that, they do not know the accused. They do not know anything about this case. At the instance of police, they signed on blank papers. Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 are signatures portions on confession panchanama of Pw.8 & Pw9. Therefore, their evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the 8 prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of inquest panchanama.

11. In view of the discussion above and from the evidence placed by the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the essential ingredients as contemplated by law for the offence under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC alleged against the accused. Therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC, hence the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for the benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, the above point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge under Section 307 R/w.34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of March,

2022.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Pw.1: Sheelam Saidamma Pw.2: Sheelam Veeraiah Pw.3: Utharla Najaraju Pw.4: Thupakula Laxmaiah Pw.5: Sheelam Venkanna 9

Pw.6: Sheelam Srinivas Pw.7: Donthireddy Venkat Reddy Pw.8: Sheelam Srinivas Pw.9: kandhula Nagireddy

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – :EXHIBITS MARKED: FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P.7: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.6 Ex.P.8:Signature portion on rough sketch of PW.6 Ex.P.9: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.7 Ex.P.10: Signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.7 Ex.P.11: Signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.8 Ex.P.12: Signature portion on confession panchanama of Pw.9

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- NIL –

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge Miryalguda

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

AT MIRYALGUDA

(Dated on this the 27th day of December, 2021)

PRESENT: SMT. B. SRIDEVI

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MIRYALAGUDA.

SESSIONS CASE No.258 of 2019

(P.R.C. No.106/2013 on the file of the II Addl. Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Miryalguda in Crime No.223/2013 of P.S.Wadapally)

COMPLAINANT: The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally.

ACCUSED:

A1.Ramavath Pakeera S/o.Roop Singh,Age: 30yrs, Occ: Agriculture, A3. Ramavath Rathna S/o.Narsingh, Age: 32 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A4. Ramavath Swamy S/o.Huniya, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A5. Ramavath Ravi S/o.Narsingh, Age: 23 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A6.Ramavath Bheeku S/o.Harichendra,Age:40 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A7.Ramavath Jayaram S/o.Harichendra, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agril., A8. Ramavath Kalu S/o.Lakpathi, Age: 38 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A9. Ramavath Latchiram S/o.Bhasha, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A10.Ramavath Thavuriya S/o.Harichendra, Age: 45 yrs, Occ: Agrl., A11. Ramavath Meghya S/o.Thavuriya, Age: 30 yrs, occ: Agrl., A12. Ithaboina Anji S/o.Muthyalu, Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A13. Ithaboina Muthyalu S/o.Yellaiah, Age: 50 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A15. Katam Seenaiah S/o.Saidaiah, Age: 40 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A16. Katam Kondalu S/o.Saidaiah, Age: 35 yrs, Occ: Agriculture A17. Ramavath Srinu S/o.Mothilal, Age: 27 yrs, Occ: Agriculture All are R/o.Kothanandikonda Village of Damaracherla Mandal.

Under Section 143, 147, 307 R/w. For the offence : 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

In the result, accused No.1, A3 to A13, A15 to A17 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted : Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Addl. P.P. by Sri E. Karunakar Accused is defended by : Advocate for accused.

2

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Lingampally Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri E. Karunakar, Learned counsel for accused having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T:

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Wadapally, Police Station, filed charge sheet in Cr. No.223/2013 against the accused for the offence under Section 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:-

(i). That on 28.07.2013 at 00.30 hours, the Complainant

Ramavath Balu (Lw.1) came to Police Station and lodged a complaint in which he stated that, on 27.07.2013 night at about 21.30 hours he and his congress party persons went to near

Ramavath Laxmi house asked her to cast vote to congress party but she replayed that she cast vote to TDP party leader of A1, immediately A1 to A6 and some other TDP persons gathered and picked up quarrel with him due to old political grudges keep in mind and attacked on them at about 21.40 hours due to which his party person Ramavath Bheeku sustained head injury, Ramavath

Vijaya received injury to her stomach left side, Ramavath Peeka sustained head injury, Ramavath Swamy received injury to his right shoulder, Ramavath Balu received injury to his left hand,

Ramavath Naga received injury to left eye. All TDP party members created dangerous situation in the village by thrown stone on the complainant party, the complainant party and the accused party 3 having old political grudges in past which are keep in mind and attempt to murder the complainant party members. Hence he requested to take legal action them as per the law. Basing on the above complaint, Lw.14/G. Manmadha Kumar, S.I of police, registered a case in Cr.No.223/2013, U/s.143, 147, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and Sec.7(1) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932 and took up the investigation.

(ii). During the course of investigation, Lw.14/G.

Manmadha Kumar, S.I of police, examined and recorded the statements of the complainant Lw.1/Ramavath Balu and Lws.2 to

Lw.7 viz., Ramavath Bheeku, Ramavath Vijaya, Ramavath Peeka,

Ramavath Swamy, Ramavath Balu and Ramavath Nageshwara

Rao at police station. Later Lw.14 sent the injured persons Lws.2 to Lw.7 with a given requisition to the Medical Officer, Area

Hospital Miryalguda for necessary treatment. Later Lw.14 rushed to the scene along with his staff and summoned to two panchas

Lws.8/Ramavath Muni and Lw.9/Ramavath Ranga and conducted the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in presence of them and drew rough sketch of the scene. Lw.14 seized nine stones and four sticks from the scene. On 29.07.2013, accused persons are arrested by Lw.14 and produced before the Hon’ble Court for

Judicial custody. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against them.

3. This case was taken cognizance by the learned II

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalguda in P.R.C.

No.106/2013 for the offence under sections 143, 147, 307 R/w.

149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932 against 4 the accused. After supply of copies to the accused U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Hon’ble

Court of Sessions, Nalgonda U/Sec. 209 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda took cognizance of

the case for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149

IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932 against the accused No.1, A3 to A13 and A15 to A17 and made over to this court for trial and disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of the accused No.1, A3 to A13,

A15 to A17, this Court framed the charges against the accused for the offence under Section 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and

Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932. The charges were read over to accused and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, prosecution examined the complainant Ramavath Balu (LW.1) as PW.1, Ramavath Bheeku (LW-2/eye witness & Injured) was examined as PW.2, Ramavath

Vijaya (LW-3/eye witness & injured) was examined as PW-3,

Ramavath Swamy (LW-4/Eye witness & injured) was examined as

PW-4, Ramavath Balu (Lw.6/Eye witness & injured) was examined as PW-5, Ramavath Nageshwara Rao (Lw.7/Eye witness &

Injured) was examined as PW-6, Ramavath Muni (Lw.8/Eye witness) was examined as PW.7, Ramavath Ranga (Lw.9/Eye witness) was examined as PW.8, Ramavath Swamy (Lw.10/Panch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama) was examined as

PW.9. The prosecution also got marked Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11, Ex.P.1 is signature portion on complaint, Ex.P.2 is Sec.161 Cr.P.C 5 statement of Pw.1, Ex.P.3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.2, Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3, Ex.P.5:

Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, Ex.P.6: section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5, Ex.P.7 is section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6,

Ex.P.8 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7, Ex.P.9 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.8, Ex.P.10 is signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchamama of Pw.9, Ex.P.11 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.11.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1,

A3 to A13, A15 to A17 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

by putting all incriminating circumstances & incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which the accused denied the same and they reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

7. Heard arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused.

8. Perused the material available on record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt

of the accused for the offence punishable under Section

143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law

Amendment Act, 1932 beyond all reasonable doubts”?

10. P O I N T:-

(a). PW.1, Ramavath Balu, deposed in his evidence that, he does not know anything about this case. Police did not examine 6 him and did not record his statement. Ex.P.1 is signature portion on complaint. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned APPO, nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidence of Pw-1, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

Therefore, his evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution.

Therefore the prosecution failed to prove the contents in the complaint since the witness turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.

(b). Pws.2 to Pw.8 who are said to be eye witnesses and injured persons in this case, deposed in their chief examination that about they do not know anything about this case. Police did not examine them and did not record their statement. Even during the course of cross-examination by the learned APPO nothing worthwhile was elicited to support the case of prosecution. Hence, as seen from the evidences of Pw.2 to Pw.8, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, their evidences are of no use to the case of prosecution.

(c). Pw.9/Ramavath Ranga who is said to be one of the panch witness for the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama deposed in his chief examination that, police did not conduct any scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in his presence. At the instance of police he signed on blank papers. Ex.P.10 is Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of Pw.9.

Ex.P.11 is signature portion on rough sketch of Pw.9. Pw.9 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Moreover, mere marking of signature portions is not sufficient to prove the 7 allegations against the accused. Therefore, their evidence is of no use to the case of prosecution. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged conducting of scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and alleged drawing of rough sketch.

11. In view of the discussion above and from the evidence placed by the prosecution, the prosecution utterly failed to establish the essential ingredients as contemplated by law for the offences under Section 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and

Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932 alleged against the accused. Therefore, prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence under

Sections 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law

Amendment Act, 1932, hence the accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt in their favour. Thus, the point is answered accordingly.

12. In the result, accused No.1, A3 to A13 and A15 to

A17 are found not guilty for the charges under Section 143, 147, 307 R/w. 149 IPC and Sec.7(1) of Crl. Law Amendment Act, 1932 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and sureties are discharged after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of December, 2021.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MIRYALAGUDA

8

: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE :

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Pw.1: Ramavath Balu Pw.2: Ramavath Bheeku Pw.3: Ramavath Vijaya Pw.4: Ramavath Swamy Pw.5: Ramavath Balu Pw.6: Ramavath Nageshwara Rao Pw.7: Ramavath Muni Pw.8: Ramavath Ranga Pw.9: Ramavath Swamy

FOR DEFENCE: - NONE – :EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature portion on complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4 Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5 Ex.P.7: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.6 Ex.P.8: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.7 Ex.P.9: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.8 Ex.P.10: Signature portion on scene of offence cum seizure Panchanama of Pw.9 Ex.P.11: Signature portion on rough sketch of PW.9

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

NIL

Sd/-

Assistant Sessions Judge

Miryalguda