Sri. B.syamsunder, Ii Adj Court, Adoni

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONSJUDGE::

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

Tuesday, this the 9 th day of APRIL, 2019.

SESSIONS CASE NO: 08/2016

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 71 Cr.P.C.

01 Name of the Police Station Mantralayam Police station.

02 Crime No: Cr.No.09/2015.

03 Name of the Lower Court Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Yemmiganur 04 P.R.C. Number 29/2015 05 Sessions Case Number SC.8/2016

DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED

SNo Name of the accused Father’s/Husband’s Religion name Age 01 Boya Gujjala Hanumanthu @ Boya Gujjala Hindu 35

Kallu Mukanna. Lakshmanna 02 Boya Gujjala Ravi Chandra @ Boya Gujjala Hindu 21

Kallu Ravi Chandra Eranna ( Late),

A1 is R/o.Chilakaladona village, Mantralayam mandal, Kurnool District.

A2 is R/o. Pygeri street, Chilakaladona village, Mantralayam mandal, Kurnool District.

DATE OF

Occurrence/Offence 20.02.2015

Complaint 20.02.2015

Arrest of accused 28-06-2015

Release of accused 29-07-2015.

Committal 23-11-2015

Commencement of trial 13.03.2019

Close of trial 01-04-2019

Sentence or order 09-04-2019

IN COMMITTAL COURT: (Vide diary extract of the Committal Court).

2

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS:

This case is made over to this Court by the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Kurnool on 08.01.2016 Charges U/Secs.302 of IPC against A1, U/sec.302 r/w.sec.34 of IPC against A2 and U/sec.201 of IPC against A1 and A2. are framed on 28.06.2016. On 01.04.2019 trial was commenced. P.W.1 to P.W.13 were examined, Exs. P.1 to P.18 got marked. On 01-04.2019 prosecution side evidence closed. No incriminating evidence against the accused A1 and A2, the examination U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Subsequently arguments on both sides were heard and

Judgment pronounced on 09-04-2019. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 I.P.C; A2 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under section 201 I.P.C. and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable properties, deposited in C.P.R.No.5/2019 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/-Smt.I.Sailaja Devi.

II Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni

To:

1. The Registrar Judicial, High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.

2. The Hon’ble Prl.District Judge, Kurnool.

3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur.

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

3

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONSJUDGE::

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

Present: Smt. I. Sailaja Devi II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

Tuesday, this the 9 th day of APRIL, 2019.

SESSIONS CASE NO: 08/2016

SNo Name of the accused 01 Boya Gujjala Hanumanthu @ Kallu Mukanna, aged 35 years, S/o. Boya Gujjala Lakshmanna, Name of the Accused.B.C colony, Chilakaladona village, Mantralayam mandal of Kurnool Districct. 02 Boya Gujjala Ravi Chandra @ Kallu Ravi Chandra, aged 21 years S/o. Boya Gujjala Eranna ( Late), Pygeri, Chilakaladona village, Mantralayam mandal of Kurnool Districct Charge U/secs. 302, 201 r/w.34 of IPC against A1 & A2

Plea of the accused. Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge. Found not guilty

Sentence order Acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Name of the Police Mantralayam Police station in Cr.No.9/2015. Station.

The prosecution is conducted by Addl., Public Prosecutor and the accused defended by Sri. T. Nagaraju, Advocate for Accused.

The case was committed by Sri. P.Ravi Sankar, Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Yemmiganur, in P.R.C.No.29/2015 and the case was taken on

file as S.C.No.08/2016 by the Hon’ble Principal District Sessions Judge,

Kurnool and the same was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

This case coming on 03-04-2019 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day this court deliver the following:

4

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused 1 and 2 are charge sheeted in Cr.No.9/2015 of

Mantralayam P.S. for the offences punishable U/sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of prosecution in nutshell is as follows:

The accused No.1 and the deceased Boya Gujjala Sankaramma @

Narasamma are residents of Chilakaladona Village of Mantralayam Mandal.

The marriage of the Accused No.1 was performed with the deceased Boya

Narasamma @ Sankaramma about 16 years back. Out of the wedlock, the deceased and A1 begot 3 daughters and 1 son. Now and then, the accused

No.1 and the deceased were visiting Bangalore and Mumbai cities for eking out their livelihood along with other villagers. About 7 years ago, the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma developed illegal intimacy with

LW10-Boya Ramalingadu of Chilakaladona Village. Coming to know of the same, the accused No.1 chastised the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma.

The accused No.1 while he was bedridden three months because of his illness, he came to know through his villagers that whenever the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma was go for coolie work, the accused No.1 used to follow her and on that the accused No.1 seriously warned the deceased and LW10-Boya Ramalingadu.

While so, one year prior to the occurrence of the offence in this case, the accused No.1 found the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma along with LW10 Boya Ramalingadu in the house of LW12-Ponakaladinne Bade

Sab. That then, the accused No.1 left the deceased Narasamma @

Sankaramma at the house of LW10- Boya Ramalingadu and on that a panchayat was held and again the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma 5 joined the society of the accused No.1. Inspite of that, the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma did not relinquish her extra marital relationship with LW10-Boya Ramalingadu. While so, on 20-02-2015, at about 6-00 p.m.

the accused No.1 found the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma talking with LW10-Boya Ramalingadu and on that he became wild and beat

Narasamma @ Sankaramma. On the same day, at about 8-00 p.m. the accused No.1 noticed LW10 Boya Ramalingadu at the hotel of LW5-Boya

Raju, grew wild and beat him. In the meanwhile, LW4-Mangali Ramudu,

LW5- Boya Raju and others intervened and separated them. Then, the accused No.1 threatened LW10-Boya Ramalingadu with dire consequences stating that he will see the end of LW10-Boya Ramalingadu and his wife

Narasamma @ Sankaramma. So saying, the accused No.1 returned to his house and informed about the incident to his wife Narasamma @

Sankaramma and on that she abused the accused No.1 in filthy language and thus, there was a wordy altercation between the accused No.1 and the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma.

While so, on the intervening night of 20/21-02-2015 when the accused No.1 along with the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma and their children were sleeping on a Cot in the verandah, A1 with active support of

A2, when the accused No.2 caught both the legs of the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma tightly, the accused No.1 sat on the chest of the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma and throttled her neck forcibly by closing her mouth and caused her instantaneous death. Then, the accused Nos.1 and 2 took the dead body of Narasamma @ Sankaramma to their fields and reached the well situated in the field of Harmonist Narasimha Reddy in the outskirts of Chilakaladona Village, kept the dead body there and also kept the chappal and jug near by the well and returned to their house. The same 6 was witnessed by LW8-Mangalai Kamalamma @ Lakshmi. When the accused 1 and 2 were returning home, at about 3-00 a.m. LW11-Boya Bangi

Hanumanthu saw them and talked with them. Later, A1 and A2 shifted the dead body of the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma in to the bathroom of the house of the accused No.1 and poured two pots of water on the dead body and covered the same with a bedsheet, in order to make believe the people that Narasamma @ Sankaramma committed suicide. At about 3- 30a.m. the accused No.1 made a phone call to LW3-Boya Hanumanthu, who is his brother-in-law and informed him that Narasamma @ Sankaramma died. When LW3-Boya Hanumanthu along with his relatives came to

Chilakaladona Village, the accused No.1 was not found in his house.

Initially basing on the oral complainant of the defacto complainant

Boya Mandla Narasamma, the Station House Officer, Mantralayam P.S.

registered a case in Cr.No.9/2015 for the offence under section 174 Cr.P.C.

and during course of investigation on 21-02-2015 LW23-S.I. of Police,

Mantralayam P.S., held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma in the presence of inquest panchayatdars, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and sent the dead body to Government

Hospital, Yemmiganur, for post-mortem examination. LW23-S.I. of Police,

Mantralayam P.S. also visited the well situated at the fields of Harmonist

Narasimha Reddy along with panchayatdars and the defacto complainant and drafted the scene of observation panchanama and seized chappal and plastic jug in the presence of panchayatdars. Later, LW24-S.I. of Police, took-up further investigation. The medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma after obtaining final report, issued post-mortem report and opined that the deceased died due to Asphyxia due to pressure over neck. Basing on the 7 said report, LW24- S.I. of Police, Mantralayam P.S. altered the section of law from 174 Cr.P.C. to Sec.302 I.P.C. and during course of further investigation, LW24- S.I. of Police, handed over the case file to

LW-25-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Circle and LW25-Inspector of Police,

Mantralayam Circle examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of the same.

During course of further investigation on 27-06-2015, LW17-

Y. Venkateswara Reddy, incharge V.R.O. of Chilakaladona Village produced

A1 and A2 before LW25-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Circle and gave a report along with extra-judicial confession of A1 and A2 recorded by him.

Then, LW25-Inspector of Police, Mantralayam Circle, examined and recorded the statement of LW17-Y. Venkateswara Reddy. Then LW25- Inspector of

Police, Mantralayam Circle arrested A1 and A2 and recorded the confession statement of A1 and A2 in the presence of LW17 Y. Venkateswara Reddy,

LW18-K. Janardhana Rao, V.R.O. and LW14-Boya Talari Narasappa and sent them to Court for judicial remand. After receipt of all reports and certificate and after completion of investigation, LW25-Inspector of Police,

Mantralayam Circle, filed chargesheet against A1 and A2 under sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, took cognizance against accused 1 and 2 for the offences under sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 IPC and committed the case to the Court of Principal Sessions

Judge, Kurnool, Vide P.R.C.No.29/2015 and the same was made over to this

Court in S.C.No.8/2016 for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of Accused 1 and 2 before this Court and on consideration, this Court framed charges U/sec.302 I.P.C. against A1, under 8 section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A2 and under section 201 I.P.C. against A1

A2 are framed, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to

PW13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked.

6. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of A1 and A2 under section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with and the evidence of the remaining witnesses was closed.

7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 and the learned in charge Additional Public Prosecutor.

8. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused No.1 for the offence under section 302 I.P.C., for the offences under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. against A2 and for the offence under section 201 IPC against A1 and A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. POINT:

(a) The case of the prosecution is that as the deceased Narasamma @

Sankaramma who is the wife of the accused No.1 developed illegal intimacy with LW10-Boya Ramalingadu and inspite of warnings by the accused No.1, she continued her intimacy with the said Boya Ramalingadu and as such, the accused No.1 with the active support of the accused No.2 killed her by throttling her neck when the accused No.2 hold the legs of the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma tightly and in order to screen the evidence of offence, took the dead body of the deceased to a well situated in the fields of

Harmonist Narasimha Reddy situated in the outskirts of Chilakaladona 9 Village and again brought it back to his house and kept the dead body in the bathroom, poured two pots of water and covered the same with bedsheet by placing the chappal and mug by the side of the dead body and made a phone call to the brother-in-law of the accused No.1 and informed that the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma died.

(b) The prosecution in order to establish the said fact, mainly relied- upon the evidence of PW1 who is the mother, PW2 brother, PW3 brother-in- law of the deceased Sankaramma @ Narasamma. But, they all in one voice stated that Sankaramma @ Narasamma committed suicide by jumping into the well as she was suffering with severe stomach-ache. The prosecution also examined PW4 to PW10 who are neighbours to the house of the accused

No.1 to prove that the accused 1 and 2 committed murder of the deceased

Narasamma @ Sankaramma. But all PW4 to PW10 categorically stated in their evidence that they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

The prosecution also relied-upon the evidence of PW11 to PW13 who are independent witnesses who were present at the time of confession of the accused 1 and 2 and seizure of material objects. But, they too did not support the case of the prosecution and stated that the police obtained their signatures on the statements when they went to Police Station, without disclosing the contents of the statement.

(c) On a careful reading of the evidence of PW1 to PW13 none of the witnesses have deposed that the accused 1 and 2 were responsible for the death of the deceased Narasamma @ Sankaramma. Finding that no useful purpose would be served even if the remaining witnesses are examined, the evidence of remaining prosecution witnesses was closed. Therefore, this

Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offences with which they are 10 charged. Hence, the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for an acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

10. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 I.P.C; A2 is found not guilty for the charge under section 302 r/w 34

I.P.C. and A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the charge under section 201

I.P.C. and accordingly, A1 and A2 are acquitted under section 235 (1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked non- valuable properties, deposited in C.P.R.No.5/2019 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.1, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 9th day of April, 2019.

Sd/-Smt.I.Sailaja Devi.

II Addl., District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Witness For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 Boya Narasamma. -

PW.2 Boya Eranna @ Urukundu. -

PW.3 Hanumanthu. -

PW.4 M.Ramudu. -

PW.5 Boya Raju. -

PW.6 B.G.Mahalakshmi. -

PW.7 Mala Dasari Lakshmi. -

PW.8 Chakalai Hanumanthamma. -

PW.9Mangali Kamalamma. -

PW.10B.Hanumanthu. - PW.11 Boya Talari Narasappa. -

PW.12 B.P.Hanumanthu. -

PW.13 J. Hanumanthu. - 11

EXHIBITS MARKED

Exhibits Exhibits marked on behalf of Exhibits marked on Prosecution behalf of Defence Ex.P1 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 -

Ex.P2 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.2.

Ex.P3 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 - recorded by C.I of police, dt 20.6.2015. Ex.P4 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 - recorded by C.I of police, dt 21.6.2015. Ex.P5 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 - recorded by C.I of police, dt 21.6.2015. Ex.P6 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 - recorded by C.I of police, dt 21.6.2015.

Ex.P7 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.7 -

Ex.P8 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 -

Ex.P9 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 - recorded by C.I of police. Ex.P.10 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.10 - recorded by C.I of police. Ex.P.11 Signature of PW.11 on inquest report. -

Ex.P.12 Scene of offence and seizure - panchanama Ex.P.13 Confessional panchanama, dt 27.6.2015 - at 10.30 hrs. Ex.P.14 Confessional statement dt 27.6.2015 dt - 8.00 am. Ex.P15 Signature of PW.12 on inquest report.

Ex.P16 Signature of PW.12 on scene of panchanama and seizure panchanama. Ex.P17 Signature of PW.13 on inquest report. -

Ex.P18 Signature of PW.13 on scene of offence and seizure panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

SD/-I.S.D.

II A.D.J Adoni.

12

1

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONSJUDGE::

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

Present: Sri N. Srinivasa Rao II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

Monday, this the 31 st day of December,2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO: 145/2017

TABULAR STATEMENT UNDER RULE 71 Cr.P.C.

01 Name of the Police Station Peddakadabur Police station. 02 Crime No: Cr.No.112/2011.

03 Name of the Lower Court Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Adoni 04 P.R.C. Number 42/2013 05 Sessions Case Number SC.145/2017

DESCRIPTION OF ACCUSED

SNo Name of the accused Father’s/Husband’s Religion name Age 01 Angaskal Rangamma A.Thimma Reddy Hindu 60 02 AngaskalShivamma D/o.Thimma Reddy Hindu 20 03 Angaskar Lokeswara Reddy A.Thimma Reddy Hindu. -

R/o. All are residents of Nagaulapuram village, Peddakadabur mandal of Kurnool District.

DATE OF

Occurrence/Offence 29-12-2009

Complaint 30-12-2009

Arrest of accused 30-12-2011

Release of accused 31-01-2012

Committal 12-07-2013

Commencement of trial 14-12-2018

Close of trial 28-12-2018

Sentence or order 31-12-2018

IN COMMITTAL COURT: (Vide diary extract of the Committal Court).

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS:

This case is made over to this Court by the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Kurnool on 28-04-2017. Charge U/Sec. 304-B or 302 of IPC is framed against accused on 13.11.2018. On 14.12.2018 the trial 2 was commenced. P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined, Exs. P.1 to P.9 got marked and APP given up the evidence of During course of trial, the evidence of LW3-Badinehal Thimma Reddy, LW4-Badinehal Loknath Reddy, (died) LW5-Badinehal Vishwanatha Reddy (died), LW6-Pinjari Gudamma,

LW8-Pinjari Ramjanbee, LW11-S.M. Madhusudhana Reddy, LW13-Dr.

Ravikumar, LW14-Dr. Ganna Prakash and LW16-Dr. Shemushi Bajpai, was given up by learned in charge Addl.P.P., as such their evidence is deemed to be closed. Prosecution evidenceclosed on 28.12.2018. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C on 31-12-2018. Subsequently on same day i.e. on 31-12- 2018 heard arguments on behalf of both sides and Judgment pronounced on same day i.e. 31-12-2018. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charge U/section 304-B IPC or in alternative under section 302

IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under section 437A Cr.PC. Since there is no case property, no property order is passed.

SD/-N.Srinivasa Rao.

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

To:

1. The Registrar Judicial, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool.

3. The I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni.

4. The Hon’ble Prl.District Judge, Kurnool.

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Adoni.

3

IN THE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL SESSIONSJUDGE::

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

Present: Sri N. Srinivasa Rao II Addl. District and

Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

Monday, this the 31 st day of December,2018.

SESSIONS CASE NO: 145/2017

SNo Name of the accused 01 Angaskal Rangamma, W/o. A.Thimma Reddy, aged 60 years 02 Angaskal Shivamma, aged 20 years, Name of the Accused. D/o.A.Thimma Reddy. 03 Angaskal Lokeswara Reddy, S/o.A.Thimma Reddy.

R/o. All are residents of Nagaulapuram village, Peddakadabur mandal of Kurnool District.

Charge 304-B or 302 of IPC

Plea of the accused. Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Judge. Found not guilty

Sentence order Acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Name of the Police Peddakadabur Police station in Cr.No.112/2011. Station. The prosecution is conducted by D.Srinivasulu/Incharge Public

Prosecutor and the accused are defended by Sri. Virupakshi Reddy

Advocate for Accused 1 to 3.

The case was committed by Miss.M.Prameela Rani, Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Adoni, in P.R.C.No.42/2013 and the case was taken on file as S.C.No.145/2017 by the Hon’ble Principal District Sessions Judge,

Kurnool and the same was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

This case coming on 31-12-2018 for final hearing before me and having stood over for consideration till this day this court deliver the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Adoni, laid charge sheet against accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.112/2011 of Peddakadabur PS 4 under sections 304 (B) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act.

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

(a) On 30-12-2011, Badinehal Shankar Reddy (LW.1) preferred a complaint to Peddakadabur Police that marriage of his daughter Kavitha (DECEASED) was performed with A.3 on 6-6-2011 by presenting

Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold to the accused as dowry. After marriage, the couple lead happy marital life for four months and later, A.1 to A.3 were harassing his daughter Kavita for additional dowry. When his daughter informed the harassment meted out to her by A.1 to A.3, he consoled her and assured to settle the matter soon. He came to know that A.1 to A.3 beat and forcibly poured poison in the mouth of his daughter Kavitha and his daughter died in the Hospital.

(b) Upon the complaint of Badinehal Shankar Reddy (LW.1), the instant case is registered by P. Thimmaiah, then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Peddakadabur P.S., (LW.15) and investigated into. After completion of investigation, Dr.Shemushi Bajpai, Assistant Superintendent of Police,

Adoni (LW.16) filed charge sheet against the accused. Hence, charge.

3. The trial court taken the case on file U/S 304(B) r/w 34 of

IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against A.1 to A.3. On their appearance, the copies of documents were furnished to them , as required U/S 207 Cr.PC.

4. On perusal of the entire case records, there is a prima-facie case made out against the accused for the offence U/S 304(B) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , out of which the offence U/S 304 (B) IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions.

Therefore, the case against the accused is committed to the Hon'ble Court of

Sessions, Kurnool Division U/S 209 (a) of Cr.PC and made over to this court

for disposal 5

5. On appearance of accused No.1 to 3 before this Court and on consideration, this Court framed charge U/section 304-B IPC or in alternative under section 302 IPC against A1 to A3, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During course of trial on behalf of the prosecution PWs.1 to PW8 are examined, Exs.P1 to P9, got marked. PW1 is no other than first informant and father of deceased. PW2 is mother of deceased. PW3, PW4, are independent witnesses. PW5, PW6 are inquest panchayathdars, PW7 is

Tahasildar, Adoni and PW8 is investigation officer.

7. During course of trial, the evidence of LW3-Badinehal Thimma

Reddy, LW4-Badinehal Loknath Reddy, (died) LW5-Badinehal Vishwanatha

Reddy (died), LW6-Pinjari Gudamma, LW8-Pinjari Ramjanbee, LW11-S.M.

Madhusudhana Reddy, LW13-Dr. Ravikumar, LW14-Dr. Ganna Prakash and

LW16-Dr. Shemushi Bajpai, was given up by learned in charge Addl.P.P. as such their evidence is deemed to be closed.

7. After the prosecution evidence was closed, accused examined under section 313 CrPC. They denied the incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported that they have no witnesses to be examined. Hence, no witness is examined and no document is marked on behalf of the accused.

8. The prosecution version as unfolded from the trial is as follows:

9. At the trial, PW1, B. Sankar Reddy, who is father of deceased , asserted in his evidence that deceased Kavitha is her daughter and she died due to stomach ache nearly 7 or 8 years back and accused no way responsible for death of his daughter. PW2, B. yashodamma, who is mother of deceased, she also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1. PW3 and PW4 who are said to be eyewitnesses in the case, deposed that they did 6 not know anything about the case. PW5, who is acted as mediator at the time of inquest over dead body of deceased deposed that he did not know contents of Ex.P6. PW6-N. Thippanna, deposed that on 30-12-2011 in his presence SI of Police conducted inquest over dad body of deceased in Area

Hospital, Adoni, PW5 and LW11 also present and signed in inquest report

Ex.P7 and Tahasildar, conducted inquest over dead body of deceased. PW7-

B. Srinivasulu, Tahasildar, deposed that on 30-12-2011 at 1-00 noon time he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased A. Kavitha in area hospital, Adoni. Blood relatives and panchayatdars were present at the time of inquest. They all came to conclusion that deceased died due to consumption of pesticide. In that connection he prepared inquest ( Ex.P7).

He signed in the inquest. He recorded the statements of PWs.1, 2, LW.3

Thimma Reddy, LW.4/Loknatha Reddy and LW.5 Viswanatha Reddy. PW8-P.

Thimmaiah, SI of Police, deposed that on 29-12-2011 at about 11-00 am,

PW.1 came to Peddakadabur P.S and gave a written report. The report lodged by PW1 is marked as Ex.P8. He registered Ex.P8 as in

Cr.No.112/2011 U/sec.,304-B r/w.34 of IPC. FIR is marked as Ex.P.9. Fir send to all concerned officials. he send requisition to MRO to conduct the inquest over the dead body of deceased who died below the 7 years of marriage.

10) Case of accused is one of total denial.

11) I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the accused No.1 to 3 and the learned in charge Additional Public Prosecutor.

12) Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence with which they charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

7

POINT:

13) At the trial PW1, PW2 who are father and mother of deceased is not supported to the case of the prosecution and PW1 deposed only presenting Ex.P1 report to police. PW3 and PW4 who are eye witnesses are not supported to the case of prosecution and they declared as hostile witnesses by learned Addl.P.P., and they categorically denied contents of their 161 CrPC statements which are marked as Ex.P2 to P5. PW5 and PW6 who acted as mediators at the tie of inquest over dead body of deceased denied contents of Ex.P6 and PW6 admitted his signature marked as Ex.P7.

PW7 deposed only conduct of inquest over dead body of deceased. PW8 deposed about his part of investigation.

14) As already stated that learned Addl.P.P. has given up several witnesses whose names mentioned in the charge sheet and therefore, the entire edifice of the case of the prosecution rested upon testimonies of PW5,

PW6 and PW7, who conducted inquest and acted as mediators. PW1 who is father of deceased PW2 who is mother of deceased themselves deposed that

A1 to A3 are no way responsible for death of their daughter. PW8 deposed about his part of investigation. Therefore, there is no positive or satisfactory evidence on record to show that accused No.1 to 3 are responsible for death of deceased. Therefore, prosecution miserably failed to bring home guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby benefit of doubt shall be given to accused. Accordingly, the point is answered negative to the case of prosecution

15. In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the charge U/section 304-B IPC or in alternative under section 302 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as 8 contemplated under section 437A Cr.PC. Since there is no case property, no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31st day of December, 2018.

SD/-N.SRINIVASA RAO.

II ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Witness For Prosecution For Defence

PW.1 B.Shankar Reddy -

PW.2 B.Yasodamma. -

PW.3 Gudamma. -

PW.4 Eranna -

PW.5 Narasaappa -

PW.6 N.Thippanna. -

PW.7 B.Srinivasulu. -

PW.8 B.Thimmaiah. -

EXHIBITS MARKED

Exhibits Exhibits marked on behalf of Exhibits marked on Prosecution behalf of Defence Ex.P1 Signature of PW.1 on Complaint. -

Ex.P2 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 -

Ex.P4 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 -

Ex.P5 Sec.161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 -

Ex.P6 Signature of PW.5 on inquest report dt. - 30.12.2011

Ex.P7 Signature of PW.6 on inquest report dt. - 30.12.2011

Ex.P8 Complaint of PW.1 dated 29-12-2011 -

Ex.P9 FIR in Cr.No.112/2011 dt 30.12.2011 - U/sec.304-B r/w.34 of IPC.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

SD/- NSR.

II A.S.J.

9 10

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

PRESENT: SRI.B.SYAMSUNDER, I ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

F.A.C. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MAY,2019.

APPEAL SUIT NO.15/2018.

P. Jayalakshmi. … Appellant.

Versus.

Kuruva Yellamma … Respondent.

Appeal against the Order and Decreetal Order passed by the Prl., Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni, in O.S.No.156/2011, dated 25-01-2018.

Between:

P. Jayalakshmi. … Petitioner.

And

Kuruva Yellamma …Respondent.

This Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. is by the Appellant who is the petitioner in O.S. No.156/2011, dt 25-01-2018 on the file of Prl., Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Adoni, praying this Court to set aside the order and decreetal

order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Prl.,Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, in the above matter while allowing this Appeal with costs and to allow the petition in O.S.156/2011 on the file of Prl.,Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni, with costs as prayed for.

This Appeal coming on this for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. L.K.Sunder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. A.Sardar Ahmmed,

Advocate, for the Respondent, and the appellant filed a memo not pressing the appeal, and this Court delivered the following:

: J U D GM E N T :

I.A.71/2019 allowed. Petition is advanced today from 4.6.2019. The appellant filed memo not pressing the appeal and same is recorded. Appeal is dismissed as not pressed without costs.

Pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st day of May, 2019.

I Addl., District Judge, Kurnool, FAC., II Addl., District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

PRESENT: SRI.B.SYAMSUNDER, I ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

F.A.C. II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MAY,2019.

APPEAL SUIT NO.15/2018.

P. Jayalakshmi, S/o. Chandrasekhar Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 60 years, Cultivator, R/o.

D.No.3/66, Santhekudlur village,

Adoni mandal of Kurnool District. … Appellant.

Versus.

Kuruva Yellamma, Virupakshi, Hindu, aged about 60 years,

Sinecure, R/o. Santhekudlur village,

Adoni mandal of Kurnool District … Respondent.

Appeal against the Order and Decreetal Order passed by the Prl., Junior

Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni, in O.S.No.156/2011, dated 25-01-2018.

Between:

P. Jayalakshmi, S/o. Chandrasekhar Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 60 years, Cultivator, R/o.

D.No.3/66, Santhekudlur village, … Petitioner.

And

Kuruva Yellamma, Virupakshi, Hindu, aged about 60 years,

Sinecure, R/o. Santhekudlur village,

Adoni mandal of Kurnool District …Respondent.

This Appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. is by the Appellant who is the petitioner in O.S. No.156/2011, dt 25-01-2018 on the file of Prl., Junior Civil

Judge’s Court, Adoni, praying this Court to set aside the order and decreetal

order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the learned Prl.,Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, in the above matter while allowing this Appeal with costs and to allow the petition in O.S.156/2011 on the file of Prl.,Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Adoni, with costs as prayed for.

Appeal presented on 06-03-2018 and filed on 20-03-2018. L.R.P. on 19.03.2018. A fixed Court fee of Rs.411/, 1111 and 966/-- is paid U/Sec.49 of

A.P.C.F. Act.

This Appeal coming on this for hearing before me in the presence of

Sri. L.K.Sunder Singh, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri. A.Sardar Ahmmed,

Advocate, for the Respondent, and the appellant filed a memo not pressing the appeal, and this Court doth order and decree:

1) That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed

2) That there shall be no costs as to this Appeal.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this the 1st day of May, 2019.

I Addl., District Judge, Kurnool, FAC., II Addl., District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

MEMO OF COSTS.

-- NIL --

I A.D.J, KNL.

FAC., II A.D.J.

KNL at AND.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

PRESENT: SRI.B.SYAM SUNDER, I ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

F.A.C., II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KURNOOL AT ADONI

THE 26th DAY OF APRIL, 2019.

E.P.NO.685/2018, AA.443/2015

Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Branch office at 1/730, UTY complex, Park Road, Yemmiganur., represented by its GPA holder and authorized signatory T.Urukundappa, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.

… Decree-Holder/Petitioner. Versus.

1. K. Ahobilam, S/o.K. Narayanappa, R/o. H.No.1/689, Adoni Byepass

Road, Yemmiganur town of Kurnool District.

2. B.Nagendra S/o. B.Hanumanthappa, R/o. H.No.1-3486, Raghavendra colony, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District.

3. K. Sreeramulu, S/o. K. Eranna, H.No.1/2397-2, SMT colony, near

Matrala Thimmappa temple, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District, Now he working as Police constable, in Mantralayam P.S, Kurnool. District.

--- Judgment-debtors/Respondents.

This EP filed by DHr U/o.21 Rule. 48 of CPC.

This Petition coming on 26-04-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. S.Shashavali, and Sri. B.Veeresh, Advocates for the

Decree-Holder, The Dhr counsel filed a F.S memo and this Court made the following:

: O R D E R:

DHr filed petition to advance the petition and the same is allowed.

This EP is advanced to this day. DHr counsel filed F.S memo and the same is recorded. Hence, EP is terminated. Intimate the Garnishee-DDO on payment of process by DHr.

SD/- B.Syam Sunder.

I Addl., District Judge, Kurnool,

FAC.II Addl., District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni 2

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

KURNOOL AT ADONI.

PRESENT: SRI.B.SYAM SUNDER, I ADDL., DISTRICT JUDGE, KURNOOL

F.A.C., II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KURNOOL AT ADONI

FRIDAY, 14TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019.

E.P.NO.964/2018, AA.1135/2015

M/S.Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, Sri. Diwan Amanulla, S/o. D. Abdul Rasool, aged about 36 years, Working as Senior Legal Officer, R/o. Krishna Arcade, Above Andhra Bank, Near Bellary Chowrastha, Kurnool town and District.

… Decree-Holder/Petitioner. Versus.

1. Boya Chinna Bojjanna, S/o.B.Chinna Gowrappa,

H.No.5/82,, Near Temple Mukkella village and post,

Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.

2. Boya Parvathi, W/o. Boya Chinna Bojjanna,

H.No.5/82,, Near Temple Mukkella village and post,

Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.

3. Bandapalli Venkatesh, S/o. Lakshmanna Naidu,

H.No.5/123, Near Man Road, B.C.Colony,

Mukkella village and post, Tuggali mandal, Kurnool District.

… Judgment-debtors/Respondents.

This EP filed by DHr U/o.21 Rule. 37 & 38 of CPC.

This Petition coming on 14-06-2019 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri. B.Veeresh, Advocate for the Decree-Holder, The Dhr counsel filed a memo and this Court made the following:

: O R D E R:

D.Hr Advocate filed a memo that petition is settled out of court.

Hence, petition is dismissed as not pressed.

SD/- B.Syamsunder.

I Addl., District Judge, Kurnool,

FAC.II Addl., District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni 2