B Srinivasulu

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PALAMANER

Present : B. Srinivasulu Assistant Sessions Judge. Palamaner

Monday the 31st (Thirty First) day of December 2018

SESSIONS CASE No.305/2014

P.R.C.No.31/2012. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner --------------------------------------------------------------- Cr.No.105/2011 of Palamaner PS

Description of the Accused : 1. Jail Prakash Guptha S/O late G.S. Guptha R/O D.No.2 1st cross, Poletry colony, near Bamboo Bazar, Bangalore, Managing Director, Sanjay alloys, Nakkapalle Village, Palamaner Mandal. –A1

2. G.subramanyam, aged 54 years, S/O Govindaswamy, Mannar Naidupalle Village, Gangavaram Mandal, working as Lab incharge, Sanjay Alloys factory Pvt.Ltd., Nakkapalle village, Palamaner-A3 The case against A2 split up and numbered as PRC 29/2014) .P.R.C. Number : P.R.C. No. 31/2012 of the court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner

Committed by : Sri.Subhash Chandra Bose, Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Palamanaer

Prosecution conducted by : Smt Sailaja Addl. Public Prosecutor, Chittoor

Accused defended by : Sri.R. Kuppa Raju Advocate for accused

Offences charged : Attempt to murder u/s 306 IPC

Plea of the accused : ‘Not guilty’

Finding of the court : The accused found not guilty for the offence punishable u/sec 306 IPC and acquitted U/sec 232 Cr.P.C.

Sentence of Order: : In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused 1 & 2 are acquitted from the said charge under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Palamaner Police

Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.105/2011 for the offence punishable under section 306 IPC

2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that:- The deceased

K. Subbachari worked as labour in Sanjay Alloys Pvt., Ltd., Nakkapalle village since 10 years. His son K. Venkatramanachari also worked in the same factory.

But due to some trouble among the workers Venkatramanachari was involved in a theft case and sent to jail. Subsequently the accused 1 to 3 being the executive staff of Sanjay Alloys harassed and ill treated the deceased K. Subbachari for no fault of him and threatened that he will be removed duty. Hence the deceased K.

Subbachari vexed with his life due to the harassment and torture by the management and on 21-4-2011 morning he consumed some pesticide poison near the factory with intent to commit suicide. Then he was shifted to the Govt Hospital

Palamaner and Govt Headquarters Hospital, Chittoor for treatment but he died at 2.20 P.M. on 21-4-2011 while undergoing treatment. Then on the complaint of

LW1 a case in Cr.NO.105/2011 u/sec 306 IPC was registered and after completion of investigation the Sub-Inspector of police filed charge sheet.

3. The said case was taken on file against accused U/sec 306 IPC by learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Palamaner as P.R.C. 31/2012.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of documents was furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Palamaner vide Committal order.

5. The Honourable District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is pleased to make over the case to this court for disposal according to law vide Sessions Case No.

305/2014.

6. After appearance of accused before this court and on hearing both sides, charge under section 306 I.P.C has been framed, read over and explained to accused, during which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

7. During the course of trial the prosecution has examined Pws 1 to 6 and got marked Exs P.1 to P.7 and Ex.D1 were marked.

8. After completion of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. during which, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as false and reported no defence witnesses.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution has

proved its case against the accused for the offence punishable under

section 306 of I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

11. POINT:PW1 is the wife of deceased Subbachary. Her husband worked in Sanjay Alloys Pvt Ltd., Nakkapalle as a Blacksmith for a period of 4 years. PW 3 is the son of PW1 and deceased Subbachary. PW 3 worked in that company along with her husband. The accused foisted false theft case against her son i.e. PW 3. Later her son not joined in that company. The said theft case was ended in acquittal. The said Subbachary informed to her that the accused harassed. About 8 years ago Subbachary went to the factory at 7.30

A.M. Around 8.30 to 9.00 A.M. some persons informed her that her husband was fell down near the factory by consuming some substance. They brought

Subbachary to the Government Hospital, Palamaner and later shifted him to Govt

Hospital Chittoor. Her husband died at Govt Hospital Chittoor. She lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1. During the cross examination PW1 stated that she has not filed copy of the Judgment of the theft case foisted against her son i.e. PW 3.

After foisting the case against her son the accused requested her husband to attend the duties in the factory. No complaint was lodged against the accused during the life time of her husband. She did not informed the harassment of the accused either to the Panchayat secretary or other officials.

12.PW 2 who is the elder brother of PW 1 deposed that his younger brother subbachary worked for a period of 6 years in Sanjay Alloys Pvt Ltd at

Nakkapalle. The accused foisted a theft case against PW3 and removed him from service. His brother Subbachary worked in that company. Subbachary informed him that A1 and A3 humiliated and the accused informed Subbachary to remove from service and thereby his brother is mentally suffering. On 4 21-4-2011 her received the information about the incident and went to the Govt

Hospital Chittoor at 5.30 A.M. and found Subbachary was died. Ex.P.2 a portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 is marked. During the cross examination PW2 deposed that he informed the police that he do not know the cause of death of his brother.

13. PW 3 who is the son of deceased Subbachary and PW1 deposed that he worked in Sanjay Alloys Pvt Ltd., for 2 to3 years prior to the death of his father.

His father also worked in that company as a blacksmith. Accused NO.1 lodged a complaint against him on the allegations of theft and the said case was ended in acquittal. Later he was removed from service. But still his father worked in that company. About 8 years ago at 9.00 A.M. he came to know that his father was fell down near the gate of Sanjay Alloys Pvt Ltd., in unconscious condition. Later they shifted his father to Government Hospital Palamaner and for better treatment shifted to Govt. Hospital Chittoor where his father was died.

His father informed him about the harassment of A1 & A3 The reason for the harassment against his father is that after lodging complaint against him. In the cross examination PW 3 deposed that he is not the eye witness of the harassement of A1 & A3. He has not handed over copy of judgment to the police.

Ex.D1 a portion of Sec 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 3 is not in the cross examination.

14. PW 4 who is the inquest panchayar deposed that inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased Subbachary at Government Hospital Chittoor. Ex.P 3 is the inquest report. They came to the conclusion that the deceased

Subbachary was died due to the harassment of A1 & A3 . the deceased consumed poison. During the cross examination PW 4 denied the suggestion that A1 & A3 lodged a complaint against PW 3 and again he deposed that PW 3 may be committed theft of iron rods. Further A1 and others may be lodged complaint against PW 3. PW 5 is the medical officer who conducted Post mortem examination over the body of the deceased. The deceased Subbachary died due to Organo phosphate and insecticide poisoning. Ex.P 4 is the post mortem certificate. Ex,.P.5 is the analyst report and Ex.P.6 is his opinion.

5

15. PW 5 is the medical officer who conducted Post mortem examination over the body of the deceased. The deceased Subbachary died due to Organo phosphate and insecticide poisoning. Ex.P 4 is the post mortem certificate.

Ex,.P.5 is the analyst report and Ex.P.6 is his opinion.

16. PW 6 investigating officer is examined as PW 6 and deposed that on 22-4-2011 at 1.30 A.M PW1 came to the police station and submitted Ex.P.1 report and on the basis of it he registered the case as in Ex.P.7 which is printed

FIR. On the same day inquest was conducted over the body of the deceased and he examined PW1, PW 2 and PW 3. He visited the scene ofoffence but not find any incriminating material at the scene of offence. As per his investigation the deceased Subbachary died due to harrasement of A1 to A3. During the cross examination PW 6 deposed that PW1 not specifically stated the names of the persons who harassed deceased Subbahcary. Before submission of Ex.P.1 niehtr PW1 nor deceased nor their son lodged any police report against the management of the factory who harassed Subbahcary. PW 6 further deposed that he do not know the details of theft case lodged against the son of the deceased. He has not seized the attendance register relating to the workers of the factory. He has not submitted any records to show that Subbachary and his son were in that factory. By that time nearly 150 members worked in that factory but he has not examined any of the workers.

17. PW 6 further deposed that as per Ex.P.3 inquest report at page No.4 contains that the deceased has illicit contact with another woman and that on 20-4-2011 night the deceased having the said illegal contact with another woman who are living together by that time the wife of the deceased noticed the and asked him in the presence of villagers about the act of the deceased and chastised him or the deceased oftenly suffering with stomach ache or the deceased was harassed by the management or any other reason due to which he was mentally suffered thereby6 consumed pesticide on 21-4-2011

18. There is no dispute that PW1 is the wife, PW 2 is the elder brother and PW 3 is the son of deceased Subbahcary. As per the evidence of PW1 the accused foisted a theft case against the PW 3 and later PW 3 not joined in that company and the theft case was ended in acquittal. PW 2 also deposed that 6 the accused foisted a theft case against PW 3 and removed him from service. PW 3 deposed that A1 lodged a complaint against him and theft case was ended in acquittal and thereafter A1 was removed from service. During the cross examination PW 3 admitted that he has not handed over the copy of the judgment to the police.

19. PW 6 who is the then Investigating officer deposed that he do not know the details of theft case lodged against PW 3. Here none of the witnesses deposed either the case number or the name of the court or the date of disposal of the said theft case. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused lodged a theft case against PW 3 and the same was ended in acquittal.

20. As per the evidence of PW1 her husband Subbachary informed her that the accused harassed him. But PW1 m not stated the names of any persons who harassed her husband. PW 2 who is the elder brother of the deceased deposed that Subbachary informed him that A1 & A3 humiliated and informed the deceased to remove from service thereby his brother i.e.

Subnbachary is mentally suffering. PW 3 who is the son of the deceased

Subbahcary deposed that his father informed him that A1 & A3 harassed to the deceased. PW1 who is the wife of deceased Subbachary deposed that even after foisting the case against PW 3 the accused requested her husband i.e. subbachary to attend duty in the factory. No complaint was lodged against the accused during the life time of her husband.

21. PW 1 denied the suggestion that she has not stated in Ex.P.1 report about the names of the accused. PW 6 who is the investigating officer admitted that PW1 not specifically stated the names of the persons who harassed

Subbachary. PW 6 further deposed that even prior to Ex.P.1 neither the deceased Subbahcary nor PW1 nor their son i.e. PW 3 lodged any police report against the management of the factory who harassed him. PW 6 visited the scene of offence and not find any incriminating material. There are nearly 150 workers working in the said factory but none of them examined by PW 6. PW 6 deposed that none of them came forward. PW 6 not served any notices to any of the workers out of 150 members. He has not seized any record to show that

Subbachary worked in that factory.

7

22. PW 4 is the inquest panchayatdar who attested Ex.P.3 inquest report.

On perusal of page No.4 of inquest report contains that the deceased has illicit contact with another woman and that on 20-4-2011 night the deceased having the said illegal contact with another woman who are living together by that time the wife of the deceased noticed and asked him in the presence of villagers about the act of the deceased and chastised him or the deceased oftenly suffering with stomach ache or the deceased was harassed by the management or any other reason due to which he was mentally suffered thereby he consumed pesticide on 21-4-2011 at 9.00 A.M. The contents of Ex.P.3 is not rebutted by the prosecution witnesses. Suggestion was given to PW1, PW2, PW 3 and PW 4 who were denied that the deceased had illegal intimacy thereby suffering with un bearable stomach pain and consumed some substance and died. PW1, PW2 &

PW 3 are deposed that the accused harassed the deceased Subbachary. But none of them deposed the specific overtact of any of the accused. PWs 1 to 3 not stated the nature of harassment. PWs 1 to 3 not stated either the motive or intention of the accused in order to harass the deceased. PW1 specifically stated that even after filing theft case against PW 3 and removal from service the accused requested the deceased Subbachary to attend for duties in the factory.

Page No.4 of the Ex.P.3 inquest report shows the reason for the consuming poison of the deceased is that the deceased had got illegal intimacy with another woman and both were living together by that time PW1 witnessed the same and chastised her husband in the presence of villagers. As per page NO.4 of Ex.P.3 inquest report is that another reason is that the deceased was oftenly suffering with stomach ache and thereby he was mentally suffered and consumed pesticide on 21-4-2011. The prosecution has not established about the overact of the accused, the nature of harassment or the conduct of the accused towards the deceased or motive or intention of the accused. The prosecution has failed to examine any of the workers of the factory. The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

23. In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused 1 & 2 are acquitted 8 from the said charge under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and

pronounced in Open court, this the 31st day of December 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PALAMANER.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution : - Defence:- PW1: K. Reddemma PW 2: K. Gopalachari -None- PW 3: K. Venkataramanachari PW 4: C. Kamakshamma PW 5: Dr.K.vijaya Kumar PW 6: K. Mohan Chetty Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:- Ex.P1 : Report of PW1 Ex.P.2 : Portiono f 161 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P.3 : Inquest report Ex.P.4 : Postmortem certificate Ex.P.5 : Analysis Report Ex.P.6 : Final Opinion Ex.P.7 : F.I.R

Defence:- NIL Material Objects marked:- -Nil-

A.S.J./Palamaner.

9 10

In the result

1

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PALAMANER CAMP AT KUPPAM

Present : Sri B.Srinivasulu Assistant Sessions Judge.

Friday the 21st (Twenty First) day of December 2018

SESSIONS CASE No.107/2017

P.R.C.No.9/2016 of Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam --------------------------------------------------------------- Cr.No. 15/2016 of Rallabudugur PS

Description of the Accused : 1. K. Hari, aged 25 years, S/O Kannappa @ Krishnappa,R/at Nanjampet village, H/O Sivaramapuram Village, Santhipuram Mandal.

2. Lakshmamma, aged 55 years, W/O Kannappa @ Krishnappa, R/at Nanjampeta Village, H/O Sivaramapuram Village, Santhipuram Mandal.

P.R.C. Number : P.R.C. No. 9/2016 of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam

Committed by : Sri N.Sirish, Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kuppam

Prosecution conducted by : Smt. G.Sailaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Palamaner

Accused defended by : Sri. P.Mohan Rami Reddy Advocate for accused

Offences charged : Under section 498-A & 306 of IPC Plea of the accused : Accused pleaded not guilty Finding of the court : Accused is found not guilty for the offence Punishable u/s 498-A & 306 IPC.

Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A & 306 IPC. Accordingly, accused 1 & 2 are acquitted from the said charge under section 232 of Cr.P.C. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over 2

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Rallabudugur

Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.15/2016 of Rallabudugur PS for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 of IPC.

2. The case of prosecution, in concise, is this :

The defacto complainant M. Devarajulu (LW1) is resident of

S.Santhampalle village, H/O Sivaramapuram Village, Santhipuram Mandal.

LWs 2 & 3 are the relatives of the deceased, LW 4 is the independent witness who dropped the deceased at house on 20-3-2016 on his motor cycle.

The deceased Subbamma was the younger sister of the complainant

M. Devarajulu. The deceased was deaf and dumb by birth. About 3 years back A1 married the deceased and begot a son. A1 is working in coconut fibre factory at Pernambut in Tamilnadu. A1 used to come to the house once in 15 days, stay for some days in the house and again went away to

Pernambut. While so on 20-3-2016 morning at about 8.00 A.M. Subbamma went to the flour machine for getting rice flour. After her returning to the house A1 and A2 beat her and on that she went to her parents house and informed the same through signs to her family members. A panchayat was convened and advised them to live amicably. While so on the same day evening during the absence of inmates of the house the deceased Subbamma disgusted on her life and poured kerosene on her person and lit fire with an intent to commit suicide being abated with the harassment caused by A1 and

A2 and died. On the complaint given by LW1 the brother of the deceased a 3

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

case in Cr.No.15/2016 U/sec 498-A & 308 IPC was registered and during the course of investigation on 31-3-2016 at 3.00 P.M. at Thummai cross Road

A1 was arrested and the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased opined that the deceased appear to have died of shock and after completion of investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Rallabuduguru PS has filed charge sheet in court and hence the accused are liable for punishment.

3. The said case was taken on file against the accused under section 498-A & 306 of I.P.C. by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Kuppam as P.R.C. 9/2016.

4. After appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Honourable Court of Sessions, Chittoor vide Committal order dated 24-1-2017.

5. The Honourable District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is pleased to make over the case to this court for disposal according to law vide

Sessions Case No. 107/2017.

6. After appearance of the accused before the court and on hearing both sides, a charge under section 498-A & 306 IPC has been framed against accused, read over and explained to them, during which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. On behalf of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 12 were examined and

Exs.P1 to P13 are marked. On behalf of accused, no witness is examined and no document is also marked.

4

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

8. Since there is no incriminating evidence against accused, 313

Cr.P.C. examination is dispensed with.

9. Heard and perused the record.

10. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution

has proved its case against the accused for the offence

punishable under section 498-A & 306 of I.P.C. beyond

reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. In the present case, case of prosecution is that the accused 1& 2 being the husband and mother in law of the deceased Subbamma who is deaf and dumb by birth harassed her physically and mentally and due to that she vexed on her life and committed suicide. In order to substantiate the said charge under Sec. 498-A & 306 of IPC, prosecution has cited 20 witnesses; but it has succeeded to examine only twelve witness as PW 1 to PW 12.

As per the case of prosecution, all the said material witnesses did not render any support to the case of prosecution.

12. PW1 deposed in his evidence that he is the elder brother of the deceased

Subbamma. That about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. Ex.P.1 is his signature and he do not know about the contents of the report Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.1 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.2.

5

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

13. PW 2 who is the mother of the deceased Subbamma deposed in her evidence that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.2 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.3.

14. PW 3 who is the younger sister of the deceased deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned

Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and

cross examined PW.3 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.4.

15. PW 4 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.4 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 6

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.5.

16. PW 5 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.5 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.6.

17. PW 6 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.6 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.7

18. PW 7 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.7 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 7

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.8.

19. PW 8 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.8 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.9.

20. PW 9 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.9 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.10.

21. PW 10 deposed that that about 2 ½ years back at about 7.00 P.M. she committed suicide by pouring kerosene and committed suicide and the accused 1 & 2 are not responsible for the same and villagers informed that she died and he do not know about the incident. She do not know about the contents of the report. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.10 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 8

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.11.

22. PW 11 who is the inquestdar in this case deposed that he do not know the facts of the case and nothing was happened in his presence. Ex.P.12 is his signature in inquest report. He do not know the contents of the inquest report and he signed Ex.P.12 at Nanjampeta in the fields of Narayanappa shed and police did not examine him. . Learned Additional Public prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined PW.11 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution .

23. PW 12 deposed in his evidence that he do not know the facts of the case and nothing was happened in his presence. Learned Additional Public prosecutor, left with no option, had sought permission and cross examined

PW.11 but, nothing worth is elicited to support the case of prosecution and not stated as in 161 Cr.P.C statement i.e. Ex.P.13.

24. In view of non-support rendered by material witnesses to the case of prosecution, learned Additional Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of remaining prosecution side witnesses.

25. Therefore, in the present case, prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt.

26. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of accused.

27. In the result, the accused 1 & 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 498-A & 306 of I.P.C. Accordingly, accused 1 & 2 are acquitted from the said charge under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

9

SC No. 107/2017 CAMP AT KUPPAM

Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me

and pronounced in Open court, this the 21st day of December 2018.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

PALAMANER.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of: Prosecution : - Defence:- PW1: M. Devarajulu Nil PW2: K. Mangamma PW3: Dhanalakshmi @ Dhanamma PW4: Laxman Reddy PW5: Narayanappa PW6: Vijaya Kumar PW7: P.Subramanyam PW8: K.M. Srinivasulu PW9: Gowramma PW10: Gangamma PW11: Krishnamurthy PW12: GhouseBaig Exhibits marked on behalf of: Prosecution:- Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P.4: Statement of PW 3 Ex.P.5: Statement of PW4 Ex.P.6: Statement of PW5 Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P.10: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P.11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW 10 Ex.P.12 : Signature of PW11 in inquest report Ex.P.13: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW12 Defence:- NIL Material Objects marked:- -Nil- A.S.J./Palamaner.

1

HMOP 9/2016

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PALAMANER.

Present :-Sri B. Srinivasulu,

Senior Civil Judge.

Wednesday this the Twenty Sixth(26th) day of December 2018

H.M.O.P.No. 9/2016

Between:- A.M. Arun Kumar

... Petitioner

And:- G.R. Yasoda

... Respondent.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 21-12-2018 upon perused the petition and other material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of Sri.D.R. Thulasi Ram learned counsel for petitioner, the respondent called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed Under Sec.9 of Hindu Marriage Act praying to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner and discharge her conjugal rights.

2. The brief averments in the petition are:-

The petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 9-8-2013 at Bommanapalle village as per Hindu rites and customs. Both of them lived happily for a period of one month. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child. The petitioner further submits that the respondent left the house of the petitioner about 2 ½ years back without intimation to him in the month of September 2013. He further submits that he issued a notice on 29-1-2014 to the respondent to come and join with him to lead a happy marital life. Even after receipt of the same the respondent either failed to give reply or come and join with the petitioner to lead conjugal life. Later they convened a panchayat before the elders but the respondent has not heed to their words. As the respondent is living away from the matrimonial home the petitioner is facing domestic problems and also deprived of conjugal happiness. Hence he prays the court to direct the 2

HMOP 9/2016

respondent to come and join with him. Hence the petition.

3. After receipt of notice the respondent is set exparte.

4. In support of the Petitioner case, the petitioner himself is examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex A1 to A7 and closed his evidence.

5. Heard the arguments of petitioner side.

6 Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief to lead conjugal life between the petitioner and respondent dated 9-8-2013 as prayed for not?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT No.1:

Since the petitioner averred in the petition and contending that they lived as husband and wife for a period of one month. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child. The respondent left the matrimonial home in the month of September 2003 without intimation to the petitioner and did nor return back to the matrimonial home even after several mediations. In order to discharge the initial burden the petitioner himself is testified as PW1 and he reiterated the petition averments in his chief examination affidavit which goes to show that the petitioner and the respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnized on 9-8-2013 at Bommanapalle village as per Hindu rites and customs. Both of them lived happily for a period of one month. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child. The petitioner further submits that the respondent left the house of the petitioner about 2 ½ years back without intimation to him in the month of September 2013. He further submits that he issued a notice on 29-1-2014 to the respondent to come and join with him to lead a happy marital life. Even after receipt of the same the respondent either failed to give reply or come and join with the petitioner to lead conjugal life. Later they convened a panchayat before the elders but the respondent has not heed to their words. As the respondent is living away from the matrimonial home the petitioner is facing domestic problems and also deprived of conjugal happiness. Hence he prays the court to direct the respondent to come and join with him. Hence the petition.

3

HMOP 9/2016

8. Contrary to the evidence of PW1 the respondent not adduced any positive evidence as she is set exparte. In view of the irrebuttable evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A7 the petitioner convincingly proved his case. I do not found any justification on part of the respondent to live separately. Thus it is a fit case to direct the respondent to come and join with the petitioner to lead conjugal life with the petitioner. Accordingly this point is answered.

10. POINT NO:2:- In view of the findings in point No:1 the petition is liable allowed by directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner to lead conjugal life with the petitioner.

In the result, the petition is allowed by directing the respondent to come and join with the petitioner within one month from the date of this order. In the Circumstances of the case both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictation to Personal Assistant corrected by me and

pronounced in open court this the 26th day of December 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

PALAMANER.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined :-

For Petitioner: - For respondent:-

PW1 : A.M. Arun Kumar -None-

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.A1 : Wedding card of the petitioner and respondent dt 9-8-2013 Ex.A2 : Marriage photos of the petitioner with the respondent dated 9-8-2013 Ex.A3 : Office copy of notice issued to the respondent dated 29-1-2014

Ex.A4 : Office copy of the notice issued to the respondent dt 6-1-2016 Ex.A5 : Office copy of the notice issued to the respondent dt 6-1-2016

Ex.A6 : Two postal receipts Ex.A7 : Served acknowledgment of the respondent.

For respondent:

Nil

S C J Draft order in HMOP 9/2016 DT:- 26-12-2018 4

HMOP 9/2016

1

HMOP 32/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: PALAMANER.

Present :-Sri B. Srinivasulu,

Senior Civil Judge.

Thursday the 27th (Twenty Seventh) day of December 2018

H.M.O.P.No. 25/2018

Between:- Manchala Madhavi

... Petitioner

And:- K. Hemagiri

... Respondent.

This petition coming on before me for final hearing on 26-12-2018 upon perused the petition and other material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of Sri.S.Ismail learned counsel for petitioner and the respondent called absent and set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed with a prayer to dissolve the marriage held on 8-12-2016 between the petitioner and Respondent by way of decree of divorce and for costs.

2. The brief averments in the petition are:-

The respondent is husband of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 8-12-2016 at Sri Annamadevi Devasthanam, Magistic as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage the petitioner was residing with the respondent at Sankarayalpet village, Peddapanjani Mandal. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child and due to ill health the said child was died. The respondent looked after the petitioner for a period of three months only. Thereafter the respondent suspected the fidelity of the petitioner and used to beat her and harassed her physically and mentally. While so on 15- 10-2017 the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner for the reason that she had not bring additional dowry and driven her out of the matrimonial home. Since then both the petitioner and respondent are living separately and there are no scope and chances for their reunion. Hence the petitioner prays to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage. Hence this petition 2

HMOP 32/2017

3. After receipt of notice the respondent is set exparte.

4. In support of the Petitioner case, the petitioner herself is examined as

PW1 and got marked Ex A1 to A4 and got examined the father of the petitioner as PW2 and closed her evidence.

5. Heard the arguments of petitioner side.

6. Now, the point for determination is:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent

dated 8-12-2016 as prayed for not?

2) To what relief?

7. POINT No.1: Since the petitioner averred in the petition and contending that they lived as husband and wife for a short period. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child and due to ill health the said child was died. The respondent looked after the petitioner for a period of three months only.

Thereafter the respondent suspected the fidelity of the petitioner and used to beat her and harassed her physically and mentally and later driven her out of the matrimonial home. Therefore the initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove her case. In order to discharge the initial burden the petitioner herself is testified as PW1 and she reiterated the petition averments in her chief examination affidavit which goes to show that the respondent is husband of the petitioner and their marriage took place on 8-12-2016 at Sri Annamadevi

Devasthanam, Magistic as per Hindu rites and customs. After the marriage the petitioner was residing with the respondent at Sankarayalpet village,

Peddapanjani Mandal. Out of the wedlock they were blessed with a female child and due to ill health the said child was died. The respondent looked after the petitioner for a period of three months only. Thereafter the respondent suspected the fidelity of the petitioner and used to beat her and harassed her physically and mentally. While so on 15-10-2017 the respondent picked up quarrel with the petitioner for the reason that she had not bring additional dowry and driven her out of the matrimonial home. Since then both the petitioner and respondent are living separately and there are no scope and chances for their reunion. Hence the petitioner prays to grant decree of 3

HMOP 32/2017

divorce by dissolving the marriage. In order to substantiate her case she got examined her father as PW2 and he also deposed in the same lines of PW1.

9. Contrary to the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 the respondent not adduced any positive evidence as he is set exparte. In view of the irrebuttable evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to A4 the petitioner convincingly proved her case.

Thus it is a fit case to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent by granting a decree of divorce. Accordingly this point is answered.

10. POINT NO:2:- In view of the findings in point No:1 the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage between the parties dated 8-12-2016.

In the result, the petition is allowed by granting decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage in between the petitioner and respondent. In the

Circumstances of the case both parties shall bear their own costs.

Typed to my dictationcorrected by me and pronounced in open court this the 27th day of December 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined :-

For Petitioner: - For respondent:-

PW1 : M. Madhavi -None- PW2:- M. Shankara Babu

Exhibits marked

For petitioner:-

Ex.P1: Marriage wedding card dated 8-12-2016 Ex.P.2: Marriage photo of the petitioner and respondent

Ex.P.3: Xerox copy of AadharCard of petitioner dated 21-12-2017 Ex.P.4: Xerox copy of aadhar card of the respondent dated 29-3-2012

For respondent:

Nil

S C J

Fair order in HMOP 25/2018 DT:- 27-12-2018 4

HMOP 32/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : PALAMANER.

Present: Sri B. Sreenivasulu

Senior Civil Judge, Palamaner.

Dated this the Twenty First day of December 2018

H.M.O.P. No. 67 of 2017

Between:- M.S. Kodanda @ Kodandappa

... Petitioner.

And:- S. Bhargavi

... Respondent..

This suit is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Irshad Ali Khan learned counsel for the Petitioner and of

Sri.Syed Mahaboob Basha learned counsel for respondent and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This petition is filed by the petitioner praying to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and respondent which was solemnized on 6-12-2013 as per Hindu rites and customs.

2. Process not paid. Petitioner is called absent. No representation for partitioner. Petition is dismissed for default

Pronounced by me in the open court this the 21st day of December, 2018.

Senior Civil Judge,

Palamaner.

Appendix of Evidence - Nil -

SCJ, PLMR