APNE0B0006042012
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-CUM-
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) :: GUDUR ::
SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT
Present: Smt. B.V.SULOCHANA RANI,
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Gudur
Dated, this the 01st day of May, 2026
Calendar Case No: 03 of 2023
Old CC No. 563 of 2015
Between:- Ravula Sarada @ Radhika W/o. Ravindra, Hindu, Aged about 32 Years, Resident of Balaji
Nagar, Podalakur Town, SPSR Nellore District.... Complainant
And
1. Duvvuru Ravindranadh Reddy S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, Malavya Nagar, West Gudur, Gudur Town, SPSR Nellore District. (A1)
2. Ravula Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd S/o. Ankaiah Gowd, Hindu, Aged about 55 Years, Business, Resident of Plot No.10, Prasanthi Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore City. (A2)
3. Yellasiri Gopal Reddy S/o. Venku Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 65 Years, West Gudur, Gudur Town, SPSR Nellore District. (A3)
4. K.Padmavathi W/o. Lakshmi Narayana,
Working as Joint Sub-Registrar -1, Gudur... Accused
District Registration office, Gudur Town, SPSRNo.1 to 4 Nellore District. (A4)
5. N.V.Seshaiah S/o. Not known, Branch Case is split up against A5 and Manager, SBH, Nayudupeta, presently workingnumbered as separate CC vide at SBH, Stonehousepeta branch. (A5)CC No.754/2016 pending on the file of AJMFC Court, Gudur
6. Pannavolu Radha Krishna Reddy (Died) S/o. Penchal Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 60Case against A6 was not Years, Managing Director of M/s. NELCASTpressed by the complainant as Ltd., Gudur, Resident of Industrial Estate,he was died Gudur Town. (A6) 2/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
This case is coming before me on 17.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Vanam Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri V.Upendra Rao, Advocate for Accused No.2 and Sri. P.Venkata Subbaiah and Sri. P. Vijaya Kumar Reddy, Advocates for A1, A3 and A4 and upon perusing the evidence and material papers on record and having heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court deliv- ered the following : -
J U D G M E N T
The complainant filed this complaint U/Section.190 of Criminal Procedure Code against the accused No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable U/Sec.406, 409, 468 & 471 r/w 120 (b) and Sec.114 Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of complaint is as follows:
The complainant pleaded that one Ravula Ankaiah Gowd had some ancestral properties namely agricultural lands in Bramhanapalli village of Podalakur.
Subsequently out of the income derived from the said lands, he carried on arrack business and acquired lot of properties in Podalakur, Nellore, Gudur, Chimakurthi,
Chennai etc. The said Ankaiah Gowd had 5 sons namely, Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd/
A2 herein, Narayana Gowd, Srinivasa Gowd, Sudhakar Gowd, and Ravindra Gowd.
During the life time of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd partitioned their joint family properties in the month of October, 1996; In the said partition an extent of 555 Ankanams of vacant site situated to the west of old Madras bus stand, Nellore was jointly allotted to the share of Ravindra Gowd and his brother Srinivasa Rao. Some other properties situated in Podalakur and Gudur were allotted to the share of 2ndaccused/Dasaradha
Ramaiah Gowd, some of the proprieties situated in Gudur and Podalakur were allotted to the share of Narayana Rao, the properties situated in Chennai and Gudur were allotted to Sudhakar Gowd. But the above said partition was a oral partition and in the said partition no immovable properties were fell to the share of Ankaiah Gowd
Fair Judgment 3/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 and he had taken money only towards his share.
3.The complainant further pleaded that, subsequently a shopping complex namely “Ravula Arcade” was constructed in the front portion of the above said 555
Ankanams of site which is abutting GNT Road, in an extent of 145 Ankanams and the same was allotted to the share of Srinivasa Gowd. The remaining extent of 410
Ankanams of site allotted to the share of Ravindra Gowd who is the husband of the complainant herein along with 23 feet width passage and right to use that passage from GNT Road. A deed dated 22.10.1996 was also executed by said Ankaiah Gowd and his sons except the 2nd accused to that effect. The partition of the joint family properties was evidenced by another arrangement deed dated 21.03.2007 executed by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd, Srinivasa Rao / Srinivasa Gowd and the 2nd accused.
4.The complainant further pleaded that her husband Ravindra Gowd is not a wordy wise, as such, the properties allotted to his share i.e. 410 Ankanams of site managed by Ankaiah Gowd as a trustee. The said Ankaiah Gowd sold the above said 410 Ankanams of site to DR Hotels and Resorts under a registered sale deed dated 16.04.2008, for a sum of Rs.7,55,00,000/- and sale proceeds were utilized for purchase of properties at Gudur, Podalakur including Goginenipuram. Though the said deeds in respect of above properties were obtained in the name of Ankaiah
Gowd but the said properties were actually belongs to the husband of the complainant. The property in relation to which the accused committed illegal deeds is also one of the such property.
5.The complainant further pleaded that the said Ankaiah Gowd while in sound and disposing state of mind executed a registered WILL Dated 30.05.2008 bequeathing
Fair Judgment 4/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 the properties belongs to the husband of the complainant, for which he obtained registered sale deed in his favour, executed WILL in favour of two sons of the complainant who are minors, keeping the 2ndaccused Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd as guardian for them in relation to the said properties. The property in respect of which the accused committed illegal acts, is shown in Item No.9 of the said WILL. The said
WILL and the title deeds of the properties shown in the said WILL are in the custody of the 2ndaccused, in pursuance of the contents of the WILL. The said Ankaiah Gowd died on 30.07.2010 in Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore and the said WILL is the last WILL of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd.
6.The complainant further pleaded that Ravula Ankaiah Gowd had savings bank account in Indian Bank, Nellore, and in the said account the residence of the Ankaiah
Gowd shown at Nellore in the residence of Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd in Prasanthi
Nagar, Nellore. There was no necessity to the Ravula Ankaiah Gowd to open a new account at any place that to at Naidupeta in his name.
7.The complainant further pleaded that in the last days of said Ankaiah Gowd as he was suffering from severe diabetic, failure of kidneys for better medical treatment he shifted his residence from Bramhanapalli to Nellore in the month of January 2010 and since then he had been staying with his eldest son i.e. Ravula Dasaradha
Ramaiah Gowd/2nd accused herein in Prasanthi Nagar, Podalakur Road, Nellore.
8.The complainant further pleaded that the said Ankaiah Gowd became severely sick due to high diabetes and failure of kidneys totally, his left leg was amputated upto knee level due to formation of gangrene in Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore in January 2010, He was aged about 78 years by then. Two or Three months
Fair Judgment 5/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 thereafter again he became sick and admitted in Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital,
Nellore on 14.07.2010. Dr. Chandrasekhar Reddy attended to him in the said hospital, due to severe diabetes and failure of kidneys the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd went in coma and he kept in CCU from 14.07.2010 30.07.2010 for better treatment and he died on 30.07.2010 in the hospital. The complainant further pleaded that prior to 14.07.2010, the said Ankaiah Gowd seriously fell ill and confined to bed apart from taking treatment weekly twice and for getting treatment he was carried on hands to the hospital and placed on wheel chair to take from house to hospital as his leg was removed upto knee level.
9.The complainant further pleaded that the 2ndaccused being custodian of WILL
dated 30.05.2008 having knowledge of the contents of the WILL including the
properties covered under the WILL, taking advantage of the same and serious ill health of Ankaiah Gowd, who was bed ridden, entertained a evil thought to knock away the part of property which described in Item No.9 of the WILL which is detrimental to the right and interest of the minor sons of the complainant who are the beneficiaries of the WILL, on betraying the trust and confidence reposed in him by
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in appointing him as guardian to the minor sons of the complainant. In pursuance of his evil thought he conspired with the other accused to achieve his object for which the other accused facilitated the commission of illegal acts towards that end. The 4th and 5th accused misusing their official position facilitated
A1, A2 and A3 in commission of the offence to reach the goal of A2.
10.The complainant further pleaded that in pursuance of their conspiracy, A2 with active support of A5 who was the then Branch Manager of S.B.H, Naidupeta opened
Fair Judgment 6/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 an account bearing No.62137189444 on 08.07.2010 in his name and in the name of
Ankaiah Gowd. In the said account the residential address of Ankaiah Gowd shown as the residence of 2nd accused, all the bank formalities to that effect were completed by
A1, A2, A3 and A5 by means of acts of forgery. There was no necessity for Ankaiah
Gowd to open new account at Naidupeta and Ankaiah Gowd was not in a position to move from bed to go all the way to Naidupeta for the purpose of opening the said account. The said Ankaiah Gowd did not subscribe his signature, on various forms of the bank for opening the account; but the accused 1 to 3 committed forgery of signatures of Ankaiah Gowd. The 5thaccused violated all the norms and procedure of the bank for opening the account in the name of the Ankaiah Gowd knowing the acts of forgery by the accused 1 to 3 with sole object to facilitate accused 1 to 3, to swallow the property of minor sons of complainant, for which the 2ndaccused was a trustee. The 5thaccused in such a way facilitated the commission of offence and thereby committed the offence due to his friendship with A2 which is punishable
U/Sec.114 Indian Penal Code.
11.The complainant further pleaded that in pursuance of conspiracy of the accused and to reach their goal, though the Ankaiah Gowd is in coma and in CCU since 14.07.2010 till 24.07.2010 at Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore, A1 to A3 created a sale deed dated 22.07.2010 in favour of Nelcast, Gudur represented by 1st accused in his capacity as a representative of Nelcast company as if the said sale deed dated 22.07.2010 was executed by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd for which the 2nd and 3rdaccused stood as attestors; In the said sale deed it was mentioned that the total sale consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore only) and out of it
Fair Judgment 7/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Rs.15,00,000/- was paid by way of cheque vide cheque bearing No.964308 of State
Bank of India, Gudur dated 03.07.2010, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by way of cheque bearing No.964402 dated 19.07.2010 and remaining amount of
Rs.84,96,403/- was also paid through a cheque bearing No.964403 of S.B.I, Gudur in to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd himself, but the above recitals were false. To the knowledge of the accused 1 to 4, Ankaiah Gowd was a signatory but not a marks person. In fact,
Ankaiah Gowd was in CCU by that time and he is not in a position to received cheques and subscribed his signatures to the sale deed; the signature appears on sale deed, dated 22.07.2010 is out come of forgery committed by A1 to A3 for wrongful gain and detrimental to the right and interest of the beneficiaries of the WILL, the thumb impressions on the sale deed also dabbed, in such, a way to make them its comparison impossible.
12.The complainant further pleaded that in getting the said sale deed dated 22.07.2010 got registered at registrar’s office Gudur. Along with A1 to A3, A4 also committed offence by accepting the said sale deed for registration by means of impersonation of Ankaiah Gowd by means of forgery of the signatures of Ankaiah Gowd.
13.The complainant further pleaded that though the Ankaiah Gowd was in CCU of
Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore in coma on 22.07.2010 the sale deed reveals that as if the Ankaiah Gowd was in a house at Nagasingaraopeta, West Gudur where the sale deed was accepted for registration by A4 though the Ankaiah Gowd neither stayed nor resided at D.No.2-257 at any point of time and as if the Ankaiah
Gowd subscribed his left thumb impression by admitting the execution of sale deed
dated 22.07.2010. The 2ndand 3rd accused subscribed their signatures signifying their
Fair Judgment 8/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 identification of L.T.I.s and also the person who put the L.T.I in the reverse of 1st page of sale deed as that of Ankaiah Gowd. Though A1 to A4 know very well that the L.T.I on the said sale deed was not that of the Ankaiah Gowd and the said Ankaiah Gowd was in CCU in Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore, all the left thumb impressions appears on the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 were out come of forgery and impersonation committed by A1 to A4. Even in taking the L.T.I, the 4th accused intentionally allowed to place the half of the L.T.I impression alone and that to dabbed in such a way to avoid visibility of lines and ridges of thumb impression for comparison in violation of rules concerned. The above acts and omissions on the part of A1 to A4 were out come of their conspiracy for wrongful gain which was detrimental to the right and interest of the minor sons of the complainant who are beneficiaries of the WILL.
The said acts and omissions attracts an offence U/Sec.406, 468, 420, r/w 114 and
Sec.120 (b) Indian Penal Code, the above stated illegal acts are clear from the case sheet maintained by Bollineni Super Specialty Hospital, Nellore. Accordingly in pursuance of their conspiracy, the 4thaccused on violating all the norms and procedure registered the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 as document No.4473/2010 dated 22.07.2010.
14.The complainant further pleaded that in continuation of conspiracy of A1 to A4 to swallow the sale consideration, A1 and A2 deposited the cheques drawn on State
Bank of India, Gudur given by A1, to A2 towards alleged sale consideration in the alleged joint account on different dates. Thereafter, A1 to A6 withdraw the entire amount on various dates from the alleged joint account at S.B.H, Naidupeta and engulfed the entire amount which is detrimental to the estate of minors who are the beneficiaries of the WILL but in fact, issuance of cheques by A1 and A6 and
Fair Judgment 9/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 depositing the same in the S.B.H, Naidupeta was a stage managed drama only out come of the conspiracy, hatched up by the accused to swallow that amount.
Accordingly, the entire amount was withdrawn and swallowed by all the accused. The illegal acts which mentioned above were possible only because of active assistance of
A4 and A5, otherwise A1 to A3 could not completed the offence. Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd died on 30.07.2010 even thereafter also accused were able to withdraw the large amounts with the active assistance of A5 who was the then bank manager of
S.B.H, Naidupeta without keeping on record the fact of death of Ankaiah Gowd which was also possible because of active participation of 5thaccused in total dereliction of duty.
15.The complainant further pleaded that after coming to know about the said acts of forgery, cheating, criminal breach of trust committed by the accused, she issued a legal notice dated 03.06.2010 and thereafter she filed a suit in OS 242/2010 on the file of Hon’ble District Court, Nellore for declaration of title over that property in favour of the minors being next friend, covered by sale deed dated 22.07.2010 apart from filing
GOP 43/2011 on the file of Hon’ble District Court, Nellore for removal of 2nd accused as guardian to the minor sons. Both the cases were pending for disposal. In the above stated manner all the accused with common object to swallow the sale proceeds of the land covered under sale deed dated 22.07.2010, which is detrimental to the right and interest of the minor sons of the complainant and the accused committed the act of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust out of criminal conspiracy which are punishable as per law. Hence, the complaint against A1 to A6.
16.As this is a complaint filed by the complainant against the accused before
AJMFC, Court, Gudur vide CF No.2464/2012, examined the complainant and three
Fair Judgment 10/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 witnesses as Pw1 to Pw4 and documents marked on her behalf.
17.On perusal of the entire material available on record including the sworn statements of witnesses 1 to 4 and documents for the complainant, a primafacie acquisition found by AJMFC Court, Gudur against A1 to A6 for the offence punishable
U/Sec.406, 468, 420, 120 (b) r/w 114 Indian Penal Code and taken cognizance of the offence against A1 to A6 and and numbered the CF No.2464/2012 as CC 563 /2015 and issued summons to A1 to A6.
18.At the stage of summons as it came to the notice of the complainant that A6 was died, the complainant not pressed the complaint against A6, as a result, the complaint against A6 is dismissed.
19.On appearance of A1 to A5, in the presence of A1 to A5 pre-charge enquiry was conducted, Pw1 to Pw5 examined and documents marked through Pw5.
20.At the stage of hearing on pre-charge enquiry a memo was filed along with copy of orders of the Hon’ble High court of AP in Crl.M.P No.14663/2016 dated 30.11.2016 wherein the Hon’ble High court while granting interim stay of all further proceedings against A5, directed the court to separate the case against A5 and further directed to proceed against the remaining accused.
21.In view of said orders of the Hon’ble High court of AP, the case against A5 was split up and numbered as CC 754/2016 and the complainant is directed to file certified copies of all documents in the split up case and on hearing both sides on charge, the matter was posted for consideration to proceed against A1 to A4.
22.Basing on the statements recorded by the court, on appearance of the accused and the incriminating material appeared in the statements of the complainant and her
Fair Judgment 11/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 witnesses, the accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.239 Criminal Procedure
Code and the substance of allegations in the complaint and the chief examination of the witnesses of the complainant was read over and explained to the accused No.1 to 4 in their vernacular language i.e. in Telugu for which the accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, a charge for the offence punishable
U/Sec.406, 468 and 114 Indian Penal Code against A1 to A3 , and a charge for the offence punishable U/Sec.420, 120 (b) r/w 114 Indian Penal Code against A4, is framed and matter kept for trial.
23.During the course of trial, Pw1 and Pw2 examined for the complainant and documents were marked through Pw1 and the evidence of complainant is closed and accused were examined U/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code and explained the evidence in Telugu for which they denied and requested time for defence evidence.
24.While the mater coming for defence evidence on 20.01.2020, the complainant filed Two Crl.M.P.s U/Sec.311 Criminal Procedure Code and 91 Criminal Procedure
Code to summon Pw3 and Pw4.
25.Subsequently, the entire record was received in this court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nellore in Dis No.663/
dated 19.02.2022 the case is withdrawn from the file of AJMFC Court, Gudur and
transferred the same to PJCJ Court, Gudur for disposal, according to law and it was renumbered as CC 3/2023 and taken up for further evidence of the complainant.
26.During the course of further evidence of the complainant Pw3 and Pw4 examined on behalf of the complainant before this court, and documents were marked through Pw3 and Pw4.
Fair Judgment 12/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 27. After closure of evidence of the complainant, accused No.1 to 4 examined
U/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code on 31.01.2025 and the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4, is read over and explained to accused No.1 to 4 in their vernacular language i.e. in Telugu for which the accused No.1 to 4 claimed it as false and requested time for defence evidence. Hence, matter is posted for defence evidence.
28.At that stage of defence evidence, the counsel for A4 filed Crl.M.P No.5/2025
U/Sec.41 r/w 243 Criminal Procedure Code to summon the present registrar to give evidence but the same was dismissed by this court. Later, the accused did not choose to produce any evidence on their behalf in spite of several adjournments and conditional orders and after passing of conditional orders the accused reported no defence evidence. As such, the defence evidence is closed.
29.After closure of evidence on both sides, heard arguments for both. Besides oral arguments, the counsel for complainant filed written arguments on behalf of the complainant.
30.After hearing arguments for the accused the matter kept for judgment. While preparing for judgment in this matter, this court found some irregularities which occurred in the record those are (i) double entries of the documents while marking the same at pre-cognizance stage, pre-charge enquiry stage, and trial stage, over lapping of serial numbers of the documents which marked on behalf of the complainant so also serial number of the witnesses. (ii) The documents which marked through Pw1 and which numbered as Ex.P9 and P10 on 10.01.2019 i.e. certified copy of of plaint and certified copy of written statement pertaining to OS 117/2014 is not found in the record, (iii) Pre-charge stage the witnesses Pw2 to Pw5 cross examination was
Fair Judgment 13/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 deferred and that step was not closed, further, the serial number of witnesses is mis- match. (iv) with respect to evidence of Pw1 for the deposition of Pw1 in chief recorded at pre-charge enquiry stage has continued for further chief and cross examination during trial. Hence, for hearing on those aspects for both sides matter is suomoto re- opened by the court on 26.07.2025 and posted to 01.08.2025. Later on heard the counsel for complainant and counsels for A1 to A4. Counsel for A1, A3, A4 filed a memo reporting no objection to rectify the technical issues arisen which noticed by this court under Point No.1, 3 and 4 and with respect to Point No.2 they have no objection to receive certified copies of documents through the complainant and to mark the same. The counsel for A2 also reported the same orally.
31.In view of said irregularities found by this court and this court addressed a letter to the Hon’ble District Judge, Nellore by explaining the circumstances occurred in this case and the mistakes taken place while recording the evidence of witnesses and marking of documents at difference stages in the case and sought for certain instructions in Dis No.223/2025 dated 25.08.2025. The Hon'ble Principal District
Judge, Nellore issued orders dated 28.08.2025 in Dis No.4687 dated 29.08.2025 by
permitting this court to reconstruct the material documents i.e. certified copy of plaint and certified copy of written statement pertaining to OS 117/2014 and directed to take proper steps and to follow existing rules as per law and to proceed further with the case. In view of directions of the Hon'ble District Judge, Nellore and as accused reported no objection to correct the serial numbers of exhibits and witnesses so also, they reported no cross for the prosecution witnesses at pre-charge enquiry stage, all the steps were closed and by receiving the certified copies for re construction of
Fair Judgment 14/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 missing documents the certified copies of plaint and written statement pertaining to
OS 117/2014 has taken up from the complainant under a memo on notifying the same
to the accused.
32.In the meanwhile, the counsel for complainant filed Crl.M.P No.17/2025
U/Sec.311 Criminal Procedure Code to summon the bank manager, State Bank of
India, Naidupeta for re-examination. The same was allowed and on appearance of
Pw3 Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Naidupeta branch he was examined further in chief. Through Pw3, further documents were marked and he is cross examined by the accused.
33.Again the counsel for complainant filed Crl.M.P No.19/2025 U/Sec.294 Criminal
Procedure Code and Crl.M.P. No.23/2025 U/Sec.311 Criminal Procedure Code to summon Pw1 for further evidence of Pw1 as there is no deposition of Pw1 separately at trial stage in view of earlier irregularity occurred while recording evidence of Pw1, at pre-charge enquiry stage, the same was allowed. Again Pw1 appeared before this court she is sworn in and examined in chief and Ex.P1 to P14 marked for the complainant and she was cross examined on behalf of A1 to A4.
34.After completion of cross examination of Pw1 by the accused, again the evidence of prosecution/complainant is closed and kept the matter for U/Sec.313
Criminal Procedure Code examination of the accused. Again the accused No.1 to 4 were examined U/Sec.313 Criminal Procedure Code, the incriminating material appeared in the evidence of prosecution witnesses is read over and explained to them in Telugu for which the accused No.1 to 4 claimed it as false and reported no defence.
Hence, the defence evidence is closed and posted for arguments.
Fair Judgment 15/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 35.Again the counsel for complainant filed written arguments besides oral arguments and the counsel for A1, A3 and A4 filed written arguments along with citations besides oral arguments and heard A2 and again heard the complainant in reply.
36. Now the point arose for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant could able to bring home the guilt of the
accused No.1 to 4, for the offence punishable Under Sec.406, 468
and 114 Indian Penal Code against A1 to A3, and a charge for the
offence punishable U/Sec.420, 120(b) r/w 114 Indian Penal Code
against A4, beyond reasonable doubt? POINT:
37.As per the complainant case, one Ravula Ankaiah Gowd acquired several properties out of the income derived from his ancestral properties and arrack business; he had 5 sons including A2 herein and husband of the complainant
Ravindra Gowd besides other 3 sons and he has no daughters. In the year 1996 itself he has partitioned all the joint family properties among himself and his 5 sons and given the shares of all the sons except the husband of the complainant since the husband of the complainant is not wordy wise and he is not mentally stable and keep the share of husband of the complainant by name Ravindra Gowd with Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd and he managed all the properties pertaining to the share of Ravindra
Gowd upto 2008. In the year 2008, the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in view of his ill health i.e. diabetes and other health issues i.e. kidney problems and old age, he executed a registered WILL in respect of share of the Ravindra Gowd in favour of the minor sons of the complainant by name Ajay Gowd and Arjun Gowd, by keeping A2 as trustee to the said properties, until attaining majority by the minors. In the meanwhile,
Ankaiah Gowd effected with serious illness with severe diabetes and failure of kidneys he reached the house of A2 in the month of January 2010 for his treatment and during
Fair Judgment 16/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 the course of treatment, one of his leg was amputated due to diabetes and frequently he was taking treatment in Bollineni super specialty hospital, Nellore for his ailments and finally on 14.07.2010 he admitted as inpatient in hospital in CCU and while undergoing treatment in the hospital, on 30.07.2010 he was died.
38. By taking advantage of serious illness and all the documents is in the possession of A2, with a view to knock away the properties of minors who are the sons of the complainant herein, A2 hatched up a plan in collusion with A1, A3 to A6 and by impersonation they have created a false registered sale deed in respect of one of item of the WILL property in favour of Nelcast for a sale consideration of Rs.1 Crore as if the said sale deed was executed by Ankaiah Gowd on 22.07.2010, got registered the same with the aid of A4 and sale consideration was withdrawn from S.B.H,
Naidupeta with the aid of A5 who is the then Manager, S.B.H, Naidupeta, by opening an account in the name of Ankaiah Gowd and A2 with the forged thumb marks, by creating as if they were affixed by Ankaiah Gowd and the entire sale consideration of
Rs.1 Crore obtained from A1 in the form of cheques, the cheques were credited in
S.B.H, Naidupeta while Ankaiah Gowd was in hospital in CCU and the said amount was withdrawn by A2 during the life time of Ankaiah Gowd to a tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and even subsequent to death of Ankaiah Gowd to a tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. Thus, all the accused swallowed the sale consideration cheated the minors and conspired together to knock away the properties of minors by A2, A1, A3 to A6 with the active assistance of A1, A3 to A6 and thereby they have committed criminal breach of trust, misappropriation, forgery, criminal conspiracy and abetment.
Fair Judgment 17/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 39.In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complaint examined as Pw1,
Ex.P1 to P14 marked on her behalf. The brother of the complainant examined as
Pw2, the doctor who treated Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in Bollineni hospital by name Dr.
Chadnrasekhar Reddy examined as Pw3 and the branch Manager, S.B.H, Naidupeta who is working at present examined as Pw4. Through the doctor/Pw3 the case sheet of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd marked on behalf of complainant, so also the application form for opening the bank account in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and A2, account statement of said account marked through the Branch Manager, S.B.H,
Naidupeta.
40.With the the corrected serial numbers of the exhibits will be refereed herein after in the judgment.
41.As seen from Exhibits P1 to P14, Exhibit P1is complaint/CFR 2464/2012 filed by the complainant. As seen from the recitals of Ex.P1 it clearly explains the case of the complainant and it is the primary document to initiate proceedings under this case which brought by the complainant to the notice of the court in writing. Exhibit P2 is the registrar’s certified copy of registered WILL dated 30.05.2008 executed by Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd by bequeathing the properties which are retained with him, which is 1/5th share belongs to Ravula Ravindra, in favour of sons of Ravula Ravindra by name Ravula Ajay and Ravula Arjun, by appointing A2 as guardian to the minors till they attained majority. In the said WILL Ravula Ankaiah Gowd mentioned 11 items of properties. Among them 2ndpart of 9thitem of the WILL is the subject matter of the present case.
Fair Judgment 18/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
42. Exhibit P3 is the registrar’s certified copy of registered sale deed dated 22.07.2010 allegedly executed by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in favour of Nelcast Limited,
Gudur represented by A1 in respect of part of 9th item of Ex.P2 property. Exhibit P4 is certified copy of GOP petition and its annexures filed by the complainant herein on the file of District Court, Nellore with a request, to declare herself as guardian for the minors and to their share, in the place of A2 herein as A2 committed the present offence with a malafide intention to swallow the properties of the minor sons of the complainant. Exhibit P5is the death certificate of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd which clearly discloses that on 30.07.2010 the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd died in Bollineni super specialty hospital, Nellore.
43. Exhibit P6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS 242/2010 which is renumbered as OS 117/2014 on the file of Hon’ble VII ADJ Court, Gudur, filed by Ravula Ravinda and Ravula Ajay, Ravula Arjun who are the sons of Ravindra, they are represented by the complainant herein, against Nelcaste, Gudur and Ravula Dasaradha Ramaiah
Gowd/A2 herein, for cancellation of Ex.P3 sale deed herein and for declaration of the right and title of the plaintiffs therein over the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiffs.
44. Exhibit P7 is the certified copy of entire case sheet pertaining to Bollineni super specialty hospitals, Nellore with regard to treatment of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd as in patient with ID No.33434 from 14.07.2010 to 30.07.2010.Exhibit P8is the statement of account pertaining account No.62137189444 of S.B.H, Naidupeta Branch for the period from 07.07.2010 to 06.11.2010 stands in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd.Exhibit P9 is the application form pertaining to
Fair Judgment 19/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
S.B.H, Naidupeta branch dated 07.07.2010 for opening an account in the name of
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and Ravula Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd along with customer profile information sheet.
45. Exhibit P10 is the certified copy of counter filed in GOP 43/2011 by A2 herein.
Exhibit P11 is the certified copy of medical certificate pertaining to Ravula Ravindra
Gowd about his mental status issued by Superintendent, SVRR Government hospital,
Tirupati as per the orders of Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Nellore. Exhibit P12 is the certified neat copy of plaint in OS 117/2014 on the file of Hon’ble VII Additional
District Judge, Gudur. Exhibit P13 is the certified copy of written statement in OS
117/2014 filed by A2 herein. Exhibit P14 is the certified copy of additional written statement in OS 117/2014 filed by A2.
46. Exhibit P15 is the original case sheet of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd belongs to
Bollineni Super Specialty hospital, Nellore including all annexures i.e. admission slip, in patient final bill etc.
47.In fact, the original case sheet was marked through Pw3 on 05.07.2024 as
Ex.P6. But in view of subsequent examination of Pw1 and marking of Ex.P1 to P14 through Pw1, the original case sheet which marked through Pw3 as Ex.P6 is renumbered as Ex.P15 to avoid further over lapping of numbers for the documents marked on behalf of the prosecution/ complainant. Moreover, Ex.P15 is the original and the certified copy of Ex.P15 also marked as Ex.P7 through Pw1.
48.Through Pw4, statement of account pertaining to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in connection with account No.62137189444 for the period 07.07.2010 and 06.11.2010 so also the application form permitting to S.B.H, Naidupeta dated 07.07.2010 for
Fair Judgment 20/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 opening an account in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and Ravula Dasaradha
Ramaiah Gowd is marked as Ex.P7 and P8 during evidence of Pw4. But the same documents were marked in the evidence of Pw1 as Ex.P8 and P9 respectively. In view of double entry of the said two documents in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw4, the exhibit numbers assigned in the evidence of Pw4 for those two documents is kept aside, to avoid further ambiguity in reference of exhibits in the judgment for brevity and better appreciation of the judgment and those two referred with exhibit numbers assigned while marking them in the evidence of Pw1.
49.When it comes to the oral testimony of Pw1 to Pw4 who are examined as witnesses on behalf of the complainant to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against them and basing on the charges framed against the accused the complainant is required to prove the following essentials.
50.For the charge Under Section 406 Indian Penal Code against A1 to A3 that the property covered under registered WILL dated 30.05.2008/Ex.P2 is belongs to the minor sons of the complainant and it is intended for the benefit of the minors, accused
No.2 entrusted with the said property under the WILL and was acting in the capacity of guardian or trustee for the minor beneficiaries thereby having dominion over the property. That their existed legal obligation on the part of A2 to deal with property only for the benefit of minors but A2 in collusion with A1 and A3 dishonestly converted the said property or its sale proceeds to his own use and that such misappropriation was in violation of the trust reposed in A2 by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd while appointing A2 as trustee or guardian for the minors as per Ex.P2/WILL and resulted into wrongful loss to the interest of the minors.
Fair Judgment 21/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 51.For the charge Under Section 468 Indian Penal Code the complainant must prove that the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 and connected documents are false documents, that the signature and thumb impressions attributed to Ankaiah Gowd on the said documents are not genuine. That at the relevant time, Ankaiah Gowd was in a critical condition and incapable of executing any document, more particularly at
Gudur; A1 to A3 in collusion out of their conspiracy created such false documents by forging the signatures or thumb impressions of said Anakaiah Gowd. Such forgery was committed with an intent that the documents be used for the purpose of cheating.
52.To prove the charge Under Section 114 Indian Penal Code that the accused were present at the time of commission of the offence that they intentionally aided facilitated or participated in the commission of the offence and that by virtue of such presence and participation they are liable as par with the principal offenders who committed the other offence.
53.For the charge Under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must establish that in furtherance of transaction the accused deceived the complainant and the minor beneficiaries, by such deception facilitated execution and registration of a false sale deed. That there was a dishonest intention on the part of A4 at the inception of the transaction that such act resulted in wrongful loss to the minor beneficiaries and wrongful gain to the accused.
54.To prove the offence of criminal conspiracy Under Section 120 (b) Indian
Penal Code, the complainant must establish that there was an agreement between
A1 to A4 to commit illegal acts namely forgery, cheating and misappropriation that such agreement/meeting of minds existed prior to or during the commission of the
Fair Judgment 22/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 acts. That in pursuance that conspiracy the overt acts are committed by accused, such as opening of fraudulent bank account, creation of forged sale deed, deposit and withdrawal of sale consideration.
55.The charge Under Section 114 Indian Penal Code against A4, the complainant must prove that A4 was present and actively facilitated the commission of the offence particularly registration of the sale deed despite knowledge of fraud and
A4 intentionally aided the other accused in obtaining a fraudulent registered sale deed thereby she was an abettor by giving aid in commission of the offence by the other accused.
56.Before going to the facts and circumstance of the case, it is to be noted that the complainant herein is the mother of the minor beneficiaries under Ex.P2/WILL, she is a housewife, low educated person, village background woman and in her cross examination she clearly stated that she studied upto 7th class only.
57.Further it is noticeable fact that she being the wife of a person who is stated to be mentally sick; whereas the accused persons are placed in comparatively advantageous position being well acquainted with the affairs of property and transactions. A2 being a family member and eldest son of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd entrusted with management of the property of the minors by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd by virtue of Ex.P2 registered WILL and A4 being public servant working as Sub Registrar, she must have knowledge about the rules and regulations while accepting a document for registration in her official capacity and A5 being a bank manager in his official capacity he facilitated in opening a fraudulent account and further he facilitated to deposit and withdraw the said Rs.1 Crore as sale consideration towards fraudulent
Ex.P3 sale deed. The other accused i.e. A3 having knowledge about the fraud going
Fair Judgment 23/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 to be committed by all the other accused, in order to facilitate them having knowledge he stood as attestor for Ex.P3 sale deed. This relative position of the parties assumes significance while considering the pleas raised by the accused during cross examination of Pw1 to Pw4.
58.Now going through the evidence of complainant placed before this court, the complaint herself examined as Pw1. Her evidence in chief that she is the daughter-in- law of late Ravula Ankaiah Gowd. She deposed that her husband is mentally unsound, she has two sons who are minors at the time of Ex.P3 sale deed, her evidence establishes the family relationship and vulnerable position of herself, her husband and her minor children who are the beneficiaries under the registered WILL/
Ex.P2 dated 30.05.2008.
59.Pw1 categorically stated that Ravula Ankaiah Gowd/her father-in-law had some ancestral properties i.e. Agricultural lands in Bramhanapalli village, and he did arrack business, out of the income from ancestral property and his earnings from arrack business, he purchased several properties at several places like Podalakur, Nellore,
Gudur, Cheemakurthi and Chennai. Further she deposed that her father-in-law partitioned their joint family properties in October 1996 and in the said partition 555
Ankanams of site situated at old bus stand Nellore was jointly allotted to the share of her husband/ Ravindra Gowd and to her brother-in-law by name Srinivasa Rao. Out of said 555 Ankanams of site, on the western side 410 Ankanams of site allotted to
Ravindra Gowd and remaining 145 Ankanams of site allotted to her brother-in-law
Srinivasa Rao. The share of her husband i.e. the above 410 Ankanams of site sold away by her father-in-law in the year 2010 to D.R Utham Hotels, out of sale
Fair Judgment 24/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 consideration received from D.R Utham Hotels, her father-in-law has purchased properties namely Vanajakrishna Kalyanamandapam situated near Gudala kaluva,
Gudur, a shop room purchased in Gowda complex, landed property for an extent of
Ac.4.77 cents in Chennur and a house property in Podalakur, another extent off 40
Acres of land in Devaravemuru village in the name of her father-in-law i.e. Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd. Subsequently on 30.05.2008, her father-in-law executed Ex.P2 registered WILL in the name of her children bequeathing all the above said properties in favour of her children and as her husband is mentally ill health person, her father-in- law appointed A2 as a guardian to her children as they were minors by that time for the properties covered under the Ex.P2/WILL.
60.As seen from the above mentioned evidence of Pw1, it is very much clear that the share of her husband only, sold by her father-in-law and from the said sale proceeds several other properties were purchased including the property covered under Ex.P2 WILL. In the present case in hand, the accused are not disputing about the said partition among Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and his 5 sons in the year 1996. In such a case, when in the undisputed partition 410 Ankanams of site at old bus stand,
Nellore was allotted to Ravindra Gowd i.e. the husband of the complainant is the absolute property of Ravindra Gowd. Subsequently the same property sold away by
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd to D.R Utham hotels. During cross examination of Pw1, it was elicited from Pw1 which is not undisputed that the father-in-law of Pw1 Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd sold that property to D.R. Utham Hotels for more than Rs.7 Crores.
Out of said sale proceeds only he has purchased several properties including the properties covered under Ex.P2/WILL.
Fair Judgment 25/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 61.Another significant fact in this case is, the accused are not disputing about execution of Ex.P2/WILL also. In such a case, the evidence of Pw1 clearly establishes that late Ravula Ankaiah Gowd executed a registered WILL/Ex.P2 dated 30.05.2008 bequeathing the properties in favour of minor sons of the complainant by keeping A2 as guardian for the property of the minors due to mental incapacity of their father by name Ravindra Gowd, innocence and illiteracy of the complainant, thereby entrusting the dominion and control over the properties under Ex.P2/WILL to the 2nd accused is established.
62.As seen from the contents of Ex.P2/WILL తే 30-5-2008 ది రెం�డు వేల ఎనిమిదవ సం�వత్స�రము మే నెల ముఫ్పై�� వ తేది. నెల��రు జిల్లా� , పొదలకూరు మం�డల�, బిరదవోలు పోస్టు% , బ్ర'హ్మ)ణపల్లి� గ్రా.మం� కాపురస్టు1 డు అయిన లేట్ ముత్స1య్య8 గ్రారి కుమారుడు రావుల అ�కయ్య8 గౌడ్ అను నేను మం�చి తెల్లివితోనున�G, సంHబుదిJతోనున�G త్రి'కరణ శుదిJగ్రానున�G నా మంనNసం�Oరి1గ్రా వ్రా.యి�చి వు�చిన వీలునామా.
నాకు ఇపOటికి స్టుమారు 75 సం�వత్స�రములు వయ్యస్టు� కల్లిగి నేను వVద్ధాJ ప8 దశలో యునాGను. నా భార8 అయిన రావుల అ�కమం) తే 9-12-2004 దిన మంరణిం�చినారు. నాకు 1) రావుల దశరధరామంయ్య8 గౌడ్ 2) రావుల నారాయ్యణరావు 3) రావుల శ్రీనివ్రాస్టులు 4) రావుల రవీ�ద' శ్రీ) రావుల స్టుధాకర్ గౌడ్ అను అయిదు మం�ది పుత్సb సం�త్సత్రి కల్లిగి వునాGరు.
గత్స�లో నా తాల�కు ఆస్టుf లలో స్టుమారు 4/5 వ�తు నా కుమారులు అయిన1) రావుల దశరధరామంయ్య8 గౌడ్ 2) రావుల నారాయ్యణరావు 3) రావుల శ్రీనివ్రాస్టులు 5) రావుల స్టుధాకర్ గౌడ్ వ్రార�కు సంమానముగ్రా ప�చి ఇచిh వ్రారిని వేరు వేరు సం�సారములు చేయుటకు సందుపాయ్యములు కలుగచేసి వునాGను.
వ్రారికి నాకు వునG మిగులు అసిfలో ఎల్లా�టి వ్రాటా గ్రాని హ్మకుp గ్రాని లేదు. నాకు మిగిల్లి వునG ఆసి1 నా నాలుగవ కుమారుడు అయిన రావుల రవీ�ద'కు మికిpల్లిగ్రా చెం�దవలసి వునGది. అట్లు�వు�డుటలో సందరు రవీ�ద' మానసిక�గ్రా ఎదగని వ్రాడై� లోకజ్ఞాuనము విహీనుడై� వు�డుట వలన అత్సనికి రావలసిన ఆసిf వ్రాటా హ్మకుpలను అత్సని పరముగ్రా ఇవHబ్రడి వు�డలేదు
Fair Judgment 26/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 పbస్టు1 త్స� వVద్ధాJ ప8దశలో వునG నేను, ఏ దినమునకు ఏమి జరుగునో అని మానవ జీవిత్సము శాశHత్సము కాదని త్సల�చి నాకు వు�డు యీ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆస్టుf లను గురి�చి నా జీవిత్స త్సదన�త్సర� నెల��రు జిల్లా�పొదలకూరు మం�డల�, బ్ర'హ్మ)ణపల్లి� కాపురస్టుf డు అయిన నాకు నాలుగవ కుమారుడు అయిన రావుల రవీ�ద' మానసిక�గ్రా ఎదుగుదల లేక లోకజ్ఞాuన విహీనుడై� వు�డుట వలన, సందరు రావుల రవీ�ద' గ్రారి కుమారులున�G మంరియు నాకు మంనుమంళ్ళు‚న�G య్యగు 1) రావుల అజయ్ 2) రావుల అరు„ నరావు పbస్టు1 త్స� మై�నరు� అయిన�దున, నా జీవిత్స త్సదన�త్సర� సందరు మై�నరు� మేజరు� కాకము�దే నేను గత్రి�చిన యెడల, సందరు మై�నర�కు నా త్సదన�త్సర� నా పెద‰ కుమారుడు గ్రారిŠయ్యన్ గ్రా వు�డుటకు, నా పెద‰ కుమారుడున�G, సందరు రావుల అజయ్, రావుల ఆరు„ నరావు గ్రార�కు పెద త్స�డి' అగు రావుల దశరధరామంయ్య8 గౌడ్ అను వ్రారిని గ్రారిŠయ్యన్ గ్రా నిరŒయి�చి వు�చడమై�నది. నా జీవిత్స త్సదన�త్సర� నామంనుమంళ్ళు‚ ఇరువురు మై�నరు� గ్రా వునGయెడల నేను కనపరిచియు�డు ఈ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆస్టుf లను సందరు గ్రారిŠయ్యన్ గ్రా వునG రావుల దశరధరామంయ్య8 గౌడ్ అను వ్రారు సాHధీనము చేస్టుకొని ద్ధాన వినిమంయ్య వికాb యాధికారములు లేకు�డా సందరు ఆస్టుf లను రక్షణ కల్లిOసం�1 అభివVదిJ పరుచుచ� సందరు నా మంనుమంళ్ళు‚ 1) రావుల అజయ్ 2) రావుల అరు„ నరావు మేజరు� అయిన పిమం)ట వ్రారికి నేను కనపరిచియు�డు ఈ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆస్టుf లను సాHధీనము చేయ్యవలసినది. నా మంనుమంళ్ళు‚ ఇరువురు మేజరు�అయిన పిమం)ట నేను కనపరిచియు�డు ఈ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆస్టుf లను సంమిష్టి%న సంమాన భాగములుగ్రా అనుభవి�చుకు�ట� ద్ధాన వినిమంయ్య వికbయాధి, సంరాHధికారములతో శాశHత్సముగ్రా అనుభవి�చుకోవలసినది. నేను కనపరిచియు�డు ఈ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆస్టుf లను నా నాలుగవ కుమారుడు అయిన రావుల రవీ�ద' గ్రాని సందరు రవీ�ద' భార8 గ్రాని మై�నరు� త్సరపున ఎల్లా�టి అనా8కాb �త్సములు చేయుటకు ఎల్లా�టి హ్మకుp భాధ8త్సలు లేవు.
నా సిfరచారస్టు1 ల గురి�చి నా జీవిత్సము వు�డగనే త్సగువై�న నిరŒయ్యము తీస్టుకొనుట ఉచిత్సము అని త్సల�చి ఈ రోజున యీ వీలునామాను నా మంనNసం�Oరి1గ్రా వ్రా.యి�చి ఉ�చడమై�నది. గ్రానీ నా జీవిత్స త్సదన�త్సర� ఈ వీలునామాలోని అ�శములను గురి�చి నా అయిదు మం�ది కుమారులు గ్రాని ఇక ఎవరు గ్రాని ఏ విధమై�న త్సగ్రాద్ధాలు, ఆక్షేపణలు చేయ్యరాదు. అట్లు�చేసినన�G అవి ఎ�త్స మాత్సbము చెంల�నేరవు. ఈ వీలునామాలోని అ�శములు నా జీవిత్సకాల త్సదన�త్సర� అమంలులోనికి రావలసినది. ఈ వీలునామాలోని అ�శములను నా
Fair Judgment 27/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 జీవిత్సకాలములోగ్రా మారుO చేయుటకున�G, రదు‰ చేయుటకున�G, నాకు సం�పూరŒ అధికారములు కలవు. ఇది నేను మం�చి తెల్లివితేటలతోనున�G, సంHఙది‰తోనున�G, త్రి'కరణ శుది‰గ్రానున�G, బుదిJ పూరHక�గ్రా గ�డ్యూరు లో వ్రా.యి�చి వు�చిన వీలునామా.
63.As seen from the above text, it can be observed that prior to Ex.P2/WILL there was a partition among Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and his sons. Further, it was clearly mentioned in Ex.P2 that the other 4 sons of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd had given properties equally towards their shares in the joint family properties and facilitated them to enjoy their properties separately with their respective families and in the remaining property which is with Ravula Ankaiah Gowd the other 4 sons, except
Ravindra Gowd, has no right or share. Further it was mentioned by Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd that in the remaining property which was with him is belongs to Ravula
Ravindra Gowd.
64.Another significant and noticeable fact mentioned by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in
Ex.P2 WILL that his 4th son who is the husband of the complainant herein and father of minors, Ravindra is mentally ill health and he is having downs syndrome and he has suffering due to lack of knowledge about state of affairs and analyze the things good or bad and dispossession etc. the property of Ravindra Gowd which fell to his share in the said partition was not given to said Ravindra and the same was retained with Ankaiah Gowd.
65.Further it can be observed from Ex.P2/WILL that by the time of execution of
Ex.P2/WILL as Ankaiah Gowd aged about 75 years and he intend to settle the property of Ravindra Gowd in the name of sons of said Ravindra Gowd who are the minors by that time and Ankaiah Gowd executed Ex.P2/WILL by mentioning several
Fair Judgment 28/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 conditions therein. Those are that if Ankaiah Gowd died prior to attaining majority by the minors subsequent to Ankaiah Gowd, A2 herein who is the eldest son of Ankaiah
Gowd by name Dasaradha Ramiah Gowd has to act as guardian and if Ankaiah Gowd died before attaining majority by both the minors Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd has to take over possession of the Ex.P2/WILL property, he has to protect the same and develop the same without any alienable rights over that property and after attaining majority by the minors that property has to handed over to the sons of the complainant by name Arjun Gowd and Ajay Gowd. Subsequent to attainment of majority by both beneficiaries under Ex.P2 i.e. Ajay Gowd and Arjun Gowd, have to enjoy the said property equally and jointly with absolute rights.
66.Further it was clearly mentioned in Ex.P2/WILL either the Ravula Ravindra
Gowd i.e. the father of minors or the wife of Ravindra Gowd i.e. the complainant herein has no right to alienate Ex.P2/WILL properties in any manner in favour of anybody. Thus, Ravula Ankaiah Gowd executed Ex.P2/WILL by bequeathing all the properties under E.xP2/WILL by providing absolute rights to the minors for their benefit and for their enjoyment, after attaining their majority only, except the minors no others having any kind of right over that property except responsibility to A2 to protect and develop said property until attaining majority by the minors.
67.On the comprehensive reading of Ex.P2/WILL it is very much clear that the property under Ex.P2/WILL is belongs to Ravindra Gowd as the said property fell to the share of Ravindra Gowd in their partition. But in view of vulnerable condition of
Ravindra Gowd and innocence and uneducated wife of Ravindra Gowd and the beneficiaries under the WILL being minors by the time of Ex.P2/WILL to protect their
Fair Judgment 29/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 right over the property and to keep the property intact until the minor beneficiaries attaining majority, Ravula Ankaiah Gowd appointed A2 as guardian to the minor beneficiaries in respect of properties under Ex.P2/WILL by reposing confidence in A2 and thereby under Ex.P2 document the entire property was entrusted to the 2nd accused. Thus, the aspect of entrustment and fiduciary capacity of A2 stands firmly established through the testimony of Pw1 and the contents of Ex.P2/WILL. The accused are not denying either the relationship among the parties or keeping A2 as guardian for the said property or entrustment of property under Ex.P2 to the 2nd accused, by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd by virtue of Ex.P2/WILL.
68.Moreover, from the evidence of Pw1 it is noticeable fact that out of the income derived from ancestral property at Bramhanapalli and out of the income derived from arrack business her father-in-law Ankaiah Gowd has purchased property, as such, the entire properties of their family is not the absolute properties of Ravula Anakaiah
Gowd and it is the joint properties Ankaiah Gowd and his 5 sons. In view of the same, all the properties of their joint family have partitioned among Ankaiah Gowd and his sons in the year 1996 and out of the share of Ravindra Gowd the properties sold to
Uthham Hotels and purchased Ex.P2 properties out of the sale proceeds paid by D.R
Utham hotels. As such, the property covered under Ex.P2 is only the property pertaining to the share of Ravindra Gowd and it is not the absolute property of Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd even as per Ex.P2/WILL Ankaiah Gowd categorically mentioned that the properties under Ex.P2/WILL belongs to Ravindra Gowd. In view of the same, the argument taken by 2ndaccused that as property covered under Ex.P3 disputed sale deed is the absolute property of Ankaiah Gowd though he executed a WILL/Ex.P2 in
Fair Judgment 30/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 favour of minor sons of the complainant, even prior to the WILL came into force which means prior to the death of Ankaiah Gowd as he sold away that property under Ex.P2 for his necessities, no offence is made out, is not tenable and acceptable since the said version of A2 is contra to the contents of Ex.P2/WILL.
69.Moreover, from the contents of Ex.P2/WILL the intention of Ankaiah Gowd reflects that he is having intention only to protect, develop that property and hand over the same with absolute rights to the minor beneficiaries after they attaining majority. In such a case, beyond the said intention of Ankaiah Gowd stating that he has sold away one of the piece of land covered by Ex.P2/WILL in Item No.9, for his necessities is not tenable and acceptable and it is against the WILL, wish and intention of Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd as per the contents of Ex.P2.
70.Pw1 further deposed that the health condition of her father-in-law was deteriorated due to chronic diabetes and kidneys failure further he underwent amputation of his left leg upto knee joint and he was continuous treatment from
January, 2010 onwards. Due to said ill health of her father-in-law Ankaiah Gowd, he shifted his residence to Prasanthi Nagar, Nellore to the residence of A2. Prior to that he resided in Podalakur. It indicates clearly that from January, 2010 onwards the father-in-law of the complainant is residing in Nellore along with A2 by taking treatment in Bollineni super specialty hospital, the accused are not disputing about amputation of left leg of Ankaiah Gowd upto knee joint in the year 2010 or his stay in
Nellore in the house of A2 from 2010 onwards. Which clearly indicates the knowledge of A2 about the entire state of things and the health condition of Ankaiah Gowd.
Fair Judgment 31/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 71.Moreover, when admittedly leg of Ankaiah Gowd was amputated in the year 2010 itself there is no scope to Ankaiah Gowd to move on his own without help of some others. Pw1 clearly deposed in her evidence and in her complaint that her father-in-law is not in a state to move on his own after amputation of his leg, except with the help of wheel chair and some others have to lifted the body of Ankaiah Gowd from the bed on the arms of the others and made him to sit in a wheel chair, thereafter, made him to move some other place. In such a condition, when Ankaiah
Gowd was from January 2010 onwards, there is no possibility to him to go on his own to Naidupeta to get open the alleged disputed account at S.B.H, Naidupeta under Ex.P9 or
Gudur to execute Ex.P3 sale deed.
72.Further, Pw1 clearly stated that on 14.07.2010 her father-in-law was admitted in critical care unit in Bollineni super specialty hospital and during the time his condition was very serious and he was in unconscious state and ultimately while undergoing treatment he was died on 30.07.2010. The said version of Pw1 is corroborated by
Ex.P7 and P15 medical report and it was clearly supports.
73.As seen from Ex.P7 and P15 medical record of the deceased Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd which clearly shows that he was admitted in Bollineni super specialty hospital on 14.07.2010 at about 1.00 PM and he was in hospital till his death on 30.07.2010 at about 10.00 PM and he was under continuous treatment. The records further reveals that he was treated for serious ailment including kidney failure and connected complications and he was under the care of a physician throughout that period. The case sheet notes of the doctor and nurse charts indicates that he was under constant medical supervision requiring regular administration of medicines, injections and IV
Fair Judgment 32/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 fluids. Further the record discloses that the patient/Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was on ventilator from 14.07.2010 onwards. It can be observed from the case notes dated 14.07.2010 it was complaining of fever and vomiting and on the same day he was on ventilator.
74.Further it can be noticed from the doctors orders and progress notes dated 14.07.2010, it was recorded that recently admitted with hypo glycomia now complaining of unconsciousness, from history of fever since one day, known diabetic and findings is unconsciousness intobated connected to ventilator. The doctor notes that itself indicates from 14.07.2010 onwards said Ankaiah Gowd was on ventilator in the hospital intermittently and later he was died on 30.07.2010. Death of Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd on 30.07.2010 is not disputing by the accused. Moreover, the death certificate/Ex.P4 clearly indicates that the said Ankaiah Gowd died on 30.07.2010.
Further it can be noticed from doctors orders and progress notes dated 18.07.2010 patient is in conscious on ventilator and moving all four limbs. Further diagnosis can be observed in the doctors notes on 18.07.2010 that respiratory failure to the said
Ankaiah Gowd and he is responding and moving his limbs on ventilator.
75.As seen from the investigation and procedure followed for the treatment, he was under went for several medical tests on daily wise and every day he was kept under hemodialysis. Further as seen from the pharmacy billing chart, he was on ventilation on 14.07.2010 and N.I.B.P monitor connected to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd on that day and alphabed was connected on 17.07.2010 and said ventilator was disconnected at 9.00 AM on 19.07.2010, again oxygen was connected to him on 19.07.2010 at 6.00
PM and the same was stopped at 6.00 PM on 20.07.2010. On 22.07.2010 alphabed
Fair Judgment 33/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 was disconnected at 10.00 AM which indicates that the alpha bed which connected to
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd on 17.07.2010 at 9.00 AM is continued till 10.00 AM on 22.07.2010. In such a case, moving said Ankaiah Gowd from the hospital to Gudur to execute disputed Ex.P3 sale deed on 22.07.2010 is not at all possible.
76.Further it can be noticed from pharmacy billing chart again on 23.07.2010, oxygen was started at 8.30 AM, on 24.07.2010 oxygen was disconnected at 12.00 noon. Thus, the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was on ventilator and oxygen from 14.07.2010 to 28.07.2010. As per physiotherapy report also the said Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd was in hospital continuously from 19.07.2010 to 30.07.2010. The inpatient billing estimation statement also indicates he was in hospital continuously from 14.07.2010 to 30.07.2010 and on 22.07.2010 also he underwent treatment for an amount of Rs.72,512/- and while recording the pulse rate, respiration, blood pressure on daily basis with different intervals for the inpatient of the hospital, a record was maintained for Ravula Ankaiah Gowd which clearly indicates that on 22.07.2010 also at 6.00 AM, 10.00 AM, 6.00 PM and 10.00 PM he was checked by the duty staff and his pulse rate, respiration and blood pressure etc were noted down in Ex.P7 which clearly indicates that on 22.07.2010 at 6.00 AM and PM also Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was underwent several regular medical tests as inpatient in the hospital.
77.The sugar insulin chart which attach to the case sheet pertaining to Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd is also indicates that he underwent insulin test on 22.07.2010 at 7.00
AM and the computer generated admission slip clearly indicates that on 14.07.2010
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd admitted as inpatient with patient ID No.33434 on 14.07.2010 in AC Deluxe ward. Thus, the entire medical record clearly indicates that Ravula
Fair Judgment 34/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Ankaiah Gowd was admitted in Bollineni super specialty hospital in unconscious state and he was a known diabetic, he underwent several medical tests and ventilator was fixed to him and he was on oxygen and he underwent regularly Hemo dialysis,
Nebulization and on alphabed, echo monitor and N.I.B.P monitor connected to him and he was suffered during that period with respiratory failure etc. There is no indication that the patient was discharged or permitted even temporarily to leave the hospital during that period in between 14.07.2010 to 30.07.2010 and the entire medical record constantly shows that he remained hospital under active treatment till his death.
78.In the light of above medical record which is not even disputed by the accused clarifies that it is highly improbable and cannot be believed that a patient who was continuously in critical care unit during that patient would have travel to Gudur and executed sale deed on 22.07.2010. Surprisingly it is not the case of the accused that said Ankaiah Gowd having a residential house on his own or on rental basis in any area in the Gudur. During cross examination of Pw1 it was suggested to Pw1 that one
Nasina Nagulu Gowd who is a municipal counselor, Gudur and he is the relative of
Ankaiah Gowd and residing in D.No.2-257 of Narasingarao peta, Gudur and in the house of said Nasina Nagulu Gowd Ex.P3 sale deed was taken place on 22.07.2010. For which Pw1 pleaded ignorance about execution of Ex.P3 sale deed in the house of Nasina Nagulu Gowd.
79.When there availability of registrar office in Nellore, admittedly and undisputedly
Ankaiah Gowd in the house of A2 in Prsanthi Nagar, Nellore from January, 2010, more particularly that while he was in hospital, in critical care unit what is the necessity to the said Ankaiah Gowd to travel upto Gudur and taking shelter in the house of Nasina
Fair Judgment 35/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Nagulu Gowd at Narasingaraopeta at Gudur in between 5.00 AM to 6.00 AM as mentioned in Ex.P3 is not explained by the accused. When the entire medical record/
Ex.P6 and P15 clearly indicates that said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was in hospital on that day at 6.00 AM, 6.00 PM and underwent several tests at 7.00 AM, throughout the day. When he came out from the hospital, at whose permission, under which precautions he travelled upto Gudur is not explained by the accused. As per the complainant case Ankaiah Gowd never executed said sale deed and it was created document with the active connivance of A1, A3, A4, all the accused i.e. A1 to A4 colluded together and created Ex.P3 sale deed by impersonation. The entire medical record and the health condition of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd at that period clinchingly establishing the impossibility of his execution of sale deed at Gudur in the house of said Nagulu Gowd. Hence, the version of A2 that Ravula Ankaiah Gowd executed
Ex.P3 sale deed in the house of Nasina Nagulu Gowd at Narasingarao peta, Gudur on 22.07.2010 is not tenable and acceptable.
80.Pw1 further deposed that in the said back drop of critical ill health condition of
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd taking advantage by A2 in collusion with A1, A3, A4 created
Ex.P3 false sale deed in respect of property covered under the WILL i.e. part of Item
No.9 of the said WILL. She further averred in her complaint and she deposed evidence clearly before the court that her father-in-law never affixed thumb impressions during his life time and always used to subscribe signatures but whereas
Ex.P3 sale deed contains thumb impressions said to have belongs to Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd which indicating fabrication of said document. As seen from Ex.P2/WILL it was very much clear that Ankaiah Gowd is a signatory. The said WILL is two years prior to
Fair Judgment 36/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 date of his death and by that time also he subscribing signatures. But surprisingly in
Ex.P9 application which is under dispute and Ex.P3 sale deed only the thumb marks said to have been affixed by Ankaiah Gowd can observe. It is also another strong suspicious circumstance to say about fabrication of said account at S.B.H, Naidupeta and execution of Ex.P3 sale deed in favour of Nelcast company through A1.
81.As per the case of the complainant, the sale consideration of Rs.1 Crore was deposited into the account which fraudulently opened in the name of her father-in-law and A2 at S.B.H Naidupeta. She further deposed that A2 has withdrawn the entire
Rs.1 Crore from the said account and the account statement clearly discloses that prior to death of Anklaiah Gowd in between 22.07.2010 and 28.07.2010, the accused has withdrawn Rs.60,00,000/- from the said disputed account and even after death of
Ankaiah Gowd the remaining Rs.40,00,000/- has withdrawn from the said account, thereafter, in the month of August 2010 itself that account was closed. The opening of said account a week prior to admission of Ankaiah Gowd in hospital as inpatient and closure of account within few days from the date of death of said Ankaiah Gowd indicates that it was opened for only the purpose depositing of said sale consideration into the said account. If really Anakaih Gowd was sold out the property under Ex.P3 sale deed when he has account in Nellore, in Indian Bank, for depositing of sale consideration only there is no need to open another account specially and after withdrawal of all the amount no need to close the same. As per the case of A2, the said account is a joint account and there was either or survival clause, so that, after death of Ankaiah Gowd, A2 has operated the said account and withdraw the amounts for the medical expenses of Ankaiah Gowd and obsequies of Ankaiah Gowd etc.
Fair Judgment 37/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 82.During cross examination of Pw1 it was elicited by A2 that on 07.07.2010 i.e.
prior to admission of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in hospital for treatment, the account in
S.B.H, Naidupeta was opened it is not at all disputed fact. It is not the case of A2, he never withdrawn the amounts from the bank. Further elicited from Pw1 that as per the recitals of Ex.P3, the entire sale consideration was credited in the account of S.B.H,
Naidupeta stands in the name of her father-in-law in the form of cheque. In fact, it is not a single cheque several parts of amount was paid in the form of cheques and the same was credited to the said account. Further it was questioned and elicited from
Pw1 that to her knowledge the account maintained in S.B.H, Naidupeta is a joint account, after death of father-in-law of Pw1 all the last rights were performed by A2 in a grand manner after death of father-in-law of Pw1, A2 made a big tomb in the name of her father-in-law by the side of the road which leads from Podalakur to Gudur and till now the annual death ceremony of her father-in-law is being performing in a great manner. Mere performing last rites of Ankaiah Gowd by A2 or construction of a big tomb and performing annual death ceremony in a grand manner itself does not absolves the criminal liability of A2 under this complaint since as per the Hindu rites and custom the eldest son has to perform the last rites of his father in general.
83.Further it was suggested to Pw1 that the account under Ex.P8 was opened by
Ankaiah Gowd during his life time with fore sight and the amount drawn by A2 from the said account used for Ankaiah Gowd only, the said suggestion was denied by
Pw1. However the said suggestion of A2 itself indicates that amount was drawn by A2 from the said account. In such a case, if really A2 was utilized the said amount for
Ankaiah Gowd only he has to produce evidence in support of said contention, if he
Fair Judgment 38/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 really did not swallow any amounts from the said account. Moreover, A2 has withdrawn Rs.40,00,000/- out of Rs.1 Crore even after death of Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd. In such a case, how the 2nd accused was utilized the said amounts for Ankaiah
Gowd only and when did he was utilized amount for Ankaiah Gowd is not explained.
Thus, it was clearly established from the cross examination of Pw1 by A2 that the amounts drawn, from the fraudulent account opened at S.B.H, Naidupeta, by A2 and utilized the said amount for his own purpose. When entrustment of property was proved from Ex.P2 WILL and evidence of Pw1 and withdrawal of the amount and spending of that amount when admitted by A2, itself is sufficient to say that A2 was misappropriated the amounts which belongs to the minor beneficiaries in the form of sale consideration in respect of their properties under Ex.P2.
84.It is another significant fact in this case is, the manager of the bank by name
Naveen kumar examined as Pw4. Through Pw4, the statement of account pertaining to disputed account and the application form pertaining to the disputed account dated 07.10.2010 was actually marked prior to mark them as Exhibits P8 and P9 through
Pw1 as Exhibits P7 and P8. But as the same documents were marked in the evidence of Pw1 subsequently as Ex.P8 and P9. The number assigned to the said documents in the evidence of Pw4 was kept aside but the said documents were confronted to Pw4 and basing on the contents of said document he deposed evidence in chief and cross.
85.Pw4 during his cross examination dated 06.12.2024 for A2 clearly stated that he cannot say the nature of the account whether there was any clause of operation of said account through either or survival, as he did not verify the application form, which submitted at the time of opening the account in the bank. As per the summons, he
Fair Judgment 39/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 produced computer generated copy of account statement only before the court. If the application is verified or system verified basing on the uploaded information then only it is possible to say the nature of the account whether there was any clause of either or survival. And the statement of account did not disclose any such details. He stated that when there are two applicants have opened a joint account with either or survival clause if any one of them was died, the account will alive and it will be continued with the survival and the disputed account is a joint account as there are two applicants i.e.
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and his son Dasaradha Ramaih Gowd.
86.During further evidence of Pw4 dated 03.10.2025 when he was recalled by the complainant, Pw4 deposed on confrontation of application dated 07.07.2010 stands in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd and he identified the said application as belongs to their bank and further deposed that in the said application form the operation to mention the mode of operation either joint or single or either or survival clause are left without filling. Thus, the mode of operation was not filled in Ex.P9 application form and there is nothing on record to say that it is a joint account. But Pw4 stated that according to him, it is a joint account as two names were mentioned and two photographs were affixed in the application form. Further he admitted that in each page of application form there is a question mark and some columns was left blank without filling.
87.During cross examination of Pw4 by A1, A3 and A4, Pw4 clearly stated that he has no personal knowledge over application/ Ex.P9 and for the said application, the applicants were introduced by and purpose ascertained by one N.V. Seshaiah at the branch. The proof of identity and current address of applicants also verified by
Fair Judgment 40/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
N.V.Seshaiah. Opening of account authorized by the then officer N.V.Seshaiah and to his knowledge he might be the then branch manager of S.B.H, Naidupeta. Thus clearly Pw4 stated that the then branch manager is the person back behind in opening such a suspicious account without proper information and without filling the mode of operation at the time of opening of the account or subsequent to continuity of mode of operation of said account in case of any contingency etc that itself indicates it is an account created fraudulently.
88.As per the complainant, the thumb marks on the said application is not at all belongs to her father-in-law Ankaiah Gowd. It can be seen from Ex.P9 application form in the place of 1st applicant there is a smudged black thumb impression, there is no endorsement beneath the said thumb impression that it is the thumb impression belongs to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd. Mere affixing a photograph in the said application belongs to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd that itself is not sufficient to say that the thumb mark in the said application belongs to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd.
89.Further it can be observed that the current address of communication for
Ankaiah Gowd was shown in the said application as plot No.10, Prasanthi Nagar, near
Nellore club, Dargamitta, Nellore which is the residential address of A2. Moreover, in the said application in total there were 4 thumb impressions and all those thumb impressions appears to the naked eye with a great variation and at any of the said thumb marks it was not mentioned that it is the L.T.I of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd. Further, it can be seen from at page No.5 of said application the age of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd shown as 71 years. As per medical record, said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is aged about 78 years and as per Ex.P2/WILL the said Ankaiah Gowd is aged about 75 years,
Fair Judgment 41/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 which taken place in the year 2008. Thus, said Ex.P8 is full of incomplete information, false information besides the unknown thumb marks and nothing appears from the
Ex.P9 application that the said thumb marks in the said application is belongs to
Ankaiah Gowd.
90.Even as per the household card xerox copy which attached to the said application it clearly discloses that said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is a signatory and he is native of Biradavolu of Podalakur Mandal and by 2006 itself he is aged about 71 years and the identity particulars mentioned in the application in respect of Ankaiah Gowd is not tallied with his age, address particulars and more particularly when he is a signatory there is no need to affix thumb marks to Ankaiah Gowd. Moreover, in the said account form there was another significant fact that two passport size photograph of Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd was affixed in the space provided to affix signatures of the applicant but whereas when it comes to photograph of Ankaiah Gowd it can be observed only a single photograph in 1stpage of said application. Thus, nothing appeared from Ex.P9 application form it is the application form to open the disputed account made by Ankaiah Gowd. When there is no either or survival clause how the 2nd accused has withdrawn the said amounts from the disputed account even after death of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is not explained by A2. How the bank authorities was allowed Dasaradha Ramaiah Gowd to withdraw all the amounts by single operation when it is a joint account as per the bank authorities is not explained by the accused, facilitating A2 to withdraw all the amounts from the disputed account even after death of Ankaiah Gowd when there is no either or survival clause in the said application, itself indicates that how far the 2ndaccused managed the things and the then bank
Fair Judgment 42/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 authorities, fraudulently utilized the said account and withdrawn all the amounts from the said bank. The then manager of the bank/A5 co-operated with A2 in withdrawing all the amounts though Ankaiah Gowd was died on 30.07.2010, knowingly and intentionally.
91.Pw1 further deposed about the role of A4 who was the then Sub-Registrar,
Gudur by the date of Ex.P3 stating that A4 facilitated the fraudulent registration of sale deed by impersonation thereby aiding the illegal transaction. In fact, A4 has taken a plea being a public servant she has discharged her duties properly and as per the procedure and when the document was tendered for registration being a public authority, she registered the said document as part of her regular duty except that no offence was committed by her.
92.As seen from Ex.P3 sale deed, it was mentioned in Ex.P3 sale deed that " నాకు సం�పూరŒ హ్మకుp అనుభవ� గల ఈ కిb�ది షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆసిfని కా�టినె�టల్ టెకో��ర్%§ & ఇ�పోర్%§ క�పెనీ గ�డ్యూరు త్సరపున మేనేజి�గ్ పార%నర్ పొనGల�రు విమంలమం) గ్రారి వద‰ కొనుగోలు చేసి గ�డ్యూరు సం.రి.ఆ.లో డాకు8మై�ట్లు నె� 1208/2008 రు రిజిష్ట%రు పత్సbము నాకు చెం�దియునG షెడ్యూ8లు ద్ధాఖల్లా ఆసిfని ఈ దిన� నా మంనసం�«రి1గ్రా మీ సం�సంfకు వికbయి�చి వీకbయ్య పbత్రిఫల� ర�.1,00,00,000/- అక్షరముల్లా ఒకp కోటి ర�పాయ్యలు గ్రాను చెంక్ నె� 964308 రు గ�డ్యూరు స్టే%ట్ బ్యాం8�కు బ్యాం.�చి ద్ధాHరా తే 03-07-2010 దీన ర�. 15,00,000/- లు మంరియు గ�డ్యూరు స్టే%ట్ బ్యాం8�కు బ్యాం.�చి ద్ధాHరా చెంక్ నె� 964402 రు ద్ధాHరా తే 19-07-2010 దీన ర�.1,00,000/-లు మంరియు గ�డ్యూరు స్టే%ట్ బ్యాం8�కు బ్యాం.�చి ద్ధాHరా చెంక్ నె� 964403 రు 19-07-2010 దీన ర�.84,00,000/- లు పె� వ్రాటి ద్ధాHరా వైరసి ర�.1,00,00,000/- అక్షరముల్లా ఒకp కోటి ర�పాయ్యలు నీవు ఇవHగ్రా నాకు పూరి1గ్రా ముటి%నది. సందరు ఆసిfని ఈ దినమే మీ సం�సంfకు సాHధీన� చేయ్యడమై�నది. ఇది మొదలు సందరు ఆసిfని మీ సం�సంf ద్ధాన వికbయ్య, వినిమంయాది సంరHహ్మకుpలతో య్యదేచhగ్రా అనుభవి�చుకొనేది. సందరు ఆసిfని గురి�చి నాకు గ్రాని సీ వ్రారస్టులకు ఎల్లా�టి హ్మకుpలు లేవు. ఉత్స1రోత్స1ర సందరు ఆసిfని గురి�చి ఎల్లా�టి త్సగ్రాద్ధాలు
Fair Judgment 43/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 ఏరOడినను అటి% త్సగ్రాద్ధాలను నా సంH�త్స ఖరుhలతో నివVత్రి1 చేసి, సందరు ఆసిfని నేను మీ సం�సంfకు సిfర పరచగలవ్రాడను. సందరు ఆసిfని మీ సం�సంfకు వికbయి�చుట త్సపO ఇది వరలో ఎవHరికి ఎల్లా�టి త్సనఖాలు గ్రాని అగిbమై�ట్లులు గ్రాని లీజు పత్సbములు గ్రాని చేసియు�డలేదని, సందరు ఆసిfపె� వీల్లా�టి బ్యాంకీలు లేవని సందరు ఆసిf నిరిHవ్రాదనిష్ఛే¹చి ఆసిf అని నినుG నమి)�చి ఈ వికbయ్య పత్సb� వ్రా.సి యివHడమై�నది. ఇది నామంనసం�«రి1గ్రా వ్రా.యి�చి యిచిhన సిfరాసిf వికbయ్య పత్సb�.
93.As seen form the above text, it was mentioned that the said property was purchased by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd from one Ponnaluru Vimalamma and it is his absolute property, he sold that property to Nelcast limited Gudur represented by
Duvvuru Ravindranadh Reddy who is the General Manager of Finance and account of the said company/A1. In the second page of said document, it was mentioned that 22ndJuly 2010 in between 5.00 AM to 6.00 AM in Narasingaraopeta, West Gudur in the residential house of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd the said document was executed and thereafter it was registered. From the cross examination of Pw1, it is very much clear that the door number mentioned in Ex.P3 sale deed i.e. D.No.2-257 Narasingaraopet,
West Gudur is belongs to one Nasina Nagulu Gowd. But whereas Ex.P3 discloses that it is the residential house of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in Gudur. It is not the case of accused that the said house is belongs to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd. The nature of acquisition and enjoyment mentioned in Ex.P3 is also inconsistent when compare with the contents mentioned by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd under Ex.P2/WILL which is not under dispute. As per Ex.P2/WILL the property mentioned under Ex.P2 is the property belongs to Ravindra Gowd. But whereas in the document/ Ex.P3 it was mentioned that it is the property of Ankaiah Gowd.
Fair Judgment 44/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 94.Though the law permits to get registration of document by the registrar at the residential house of the executant of a document, certain procedure was prescribed under Registration Act and its rules. If anybody wants to execute registered document at his residence, the executant must made representation to the District Registrar, for appointment of a Sub registrar of the local registration district to go and got obtain the signatures and thumb impressions of the executant and register the said document.
Then with the authorization of the District Registrar, only sub-registrar has to attend
before the executant to get register a document. Sub Registrar has no authority to
attend at the residential house of the executant on his or her own without prior approval of District Registrar to get register a document at the private residence of the applicant. But in the present case in hand, except mentioning in Ex.P3 that it was executed at the private residence of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in Narasingaraopeta,
Gudur nothing was disclosed that when did he made such an application, whether the said Ankaiah Gowd made any such application to the registering authority and whether there any prior approval from the District Registrar to A4, to get registered the document from the private residence of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd allegedly at West
Gudur etc.
95.Moreover as seen from Rule 32 (a) statement annexed to Ex.P3 simply there was a thumb mark against the photograph and name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd.
Nothing appears under the said thumb mark as it is the thumb mark belongs to Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd. Moreover, Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is a signatory even as per Ex.P2/
WILL and the household card which attached to the said sale deed as identity proof is also discloses that the said Ankaiah Gowd is a signatory. But surprisingly these
Fair Judgment 45/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 disputing documents i.e. application form to open the bank account at Naidupeta and
Ex.P3 sale deed is only contains thumb marks said to have been affixed by Ankaiah
Gowd which is highly not reliable and not trustworthy and it clearly indicates that A4 having knowledge about the fraudulent transaction in between A2 and A1 in the capacity of representative for Nelcast company, she clearly aided A2 and A4 and facilitated them to get a fraudulent registered sale deed and thereby she gave aid for the illegal transaction.
96.During the course of arguments, the counsel for A4 vehemently argued that as
A4 while discharging her official duties she registered the said document if anything falsely done by A4, to prosecute her, prior sanction from the government is necessary but as the complainant herein has prosecuted A4 without obtaining any such sanction admittedly, as such, proceeding the case against A4 without such sanction will be vitiated the entire trial against A4.
97.As per Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Codewhen a person who is or was a judge or
magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office or with the sanction of the government is
accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty and court shall take cognizance of such an offence except with the previous sanction.
But in fact the protection given U/Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Code is to protect responsible public servant against institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceeding for offence alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants.
98.In Ronald wood mathems Vs State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 455 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the question whether sanction U/Sec.197
Criminal Procedure Code was necessary for instituting proceeding against the appellant on the charges of conspiracy and bribery is now concluded by the decisions of the judicial committee in HHB
Fair Judgment 46/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Gill Vs. the King and Phanindra chandra Neogo Vs. the King and must be answered in negative”.
99.Further in Amrik singh Vs the State of Pepsu AIR 1955 SC 309 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India examined the scope and purport of Sec.197 Criminal
Procedure Code the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “it is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution U/Sec.197 Criminal Procedure
Code nor even every act done by him while he is actually engage in performance of his official duty.
But if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duty so that if questioned it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, the sanction would be necessary. And that would be so irrespective whether it was, in fact, a proper discharge of his duties, because that would really be a matter of defence on the merits. Which would have to be invested at the trial and could not arise at the stage of granting sanction which much precede the institution of the prosecution”.
100. In K.Satwant singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 266, the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India held that “a public servant committing cheating cannot be construed as an act purporting to act in discharge of his official duty. In the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that Hender son’s actions did not fall under offences committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty therefore the necessity for sanction u/Sec.197
Criminal Procedure Code was not met, rendering its non compliance non voidable”.
101. In P.Govinda bhat Vs State of Karnatka 1992 part (2) ALT Criminal 309
Karnataka it was held by the Hon’ble High court of Karnataka that “fabrication of record or misappropriation of public funds was not done in the discharge of his official duties. Public duty provides him an opportunity to commit the crime no need for sanction”.
102. Moreover, As per Section 31 of Registration Act 1908, “the registration or acceptance for deposit documents at private residence is permitted. As per the text mentioned therein “in ordinary cases the registration or deposit of documents shall be made only at the office of the registrar who authorized to accept the same for registration of documents or deposit of documents.
But whereas according to proviso of Sec.31 of Registration Act the officer who authorized for
Fair Judgment 47/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 registration and deposit of documents may on special cause being shown attended at the residence of any person desiring to present a document for registration or to deposit a WILL and accept for registration or deposit such document or WILL”.
103. As per the rules framed under registration Act by Government of AP when a document has presented for registration at a private residence according to Rule 41 an application shall be made for attendance of registering authority at a private residence in writing and shall in all possible cases be signed by the person on whose behalf the attendance is required and as per Rule 43, All cases of office partially or wholly on a working day in consequence of private attendance, shall be reported to the registrar with full statement of facts necessitating such a course. A District registrar may attend at a private residence situated within the limits of his district even though it may not lying within the sub district under an immediate charge but a sub registrar shall not proceed out of his sub district for that purpose. Thus, there was a special procedure contemplated for registering the documents at private residences of the individual and a separate register shall maintain for the thumb impression obtained in connection with the registration of the document at private residences.
Neither this register not the ordinary register of thumb impression shall be taken by a registering officer when attending at a private residence but thumb impression at such residences shall be obtained on separate slips of paper and the slips shall be pasted with the initials and date of the registering officer added to them in the appropriate page in the separate impression register.
Besides that slip shall contain a certificate in the following form that “the impression on the slip or each impression on this slip was affixed in my presence under my personal supervision by the person whose name is entered next to it”.
In the present case in hand nothing appears to say that A4 after following the entire due procedure only registered of Ex.P3 sale deed dated 22.07.2010 which is a work day. In such a case, it shall be reported to the District Registrar with full details and must obtain permission and approval before proceed to a private residence for registration.
Fair Judgment 48/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 104. Moreover, as per Rule 3 and 4 of A.P Rules under Registration Act, the office hours of registration office is only 10.00 A.M to 5.00 P.M. But surprisingly Ex.P3 sale deed has registered in between 5.00 AM to 6.00 AM i.e. beyond office hours. Which clearly indicates that though A4 is a public servant she did not register Ex.P3 sale deed as per the rules and regulations enumerated under registration Act 1908 and AP
Rules and beyond the rules she has exercised the powers in registering Ex.P3 sale deed that itself indicates that how much interest and active part taken by A4 in registering the said fraudulent document.
105. It was already mentioned above, that as per Ex.P6 and P15 at that particular point of time the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is in Bollineni Super specially hospital, in critical care unit and undergoing treatment. In such a case, stating that on 22.07.2010 as Ankaiah Gowd executed Ex.P3 sale deed and A4 registered the said document in between 5.00 A.M and 6.00 A.M at Narasingaraopeta, West Gudur in a private residence vide D.No.2-257 is not reliable and trustworthy. That itself indicates that the alleged act and the offence committed by A4 is not part of her official duty or the act committed by A4 is purported to be her official duty. In such a case, the prior sanction is not necessary.
106. In Shambhoo nath mishra Vs State of UP 1997 (5) SCC 326 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India examined the concept of Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Code and a question as to whether a public servant who allegedly commits the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public funds can be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties and observed that it is not the official duty to fabricated records or misappropriated public funds and held that “the question is when the public
Fair Judgment 49/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 servant is alleged to have committed the offence of fabrication of record or misappropriation of public fund etc can he be said to have acted in discharge of his official duties. It is not the official duty of public servant to fabricate the false record and misappropriated the public funds etc. In furtherance of or in the discharge of his official duties. The official capacity only enables him to fabricate the record or misappropriated the public fund etc it does not mean that it is integrally connected or inseparably inter linked with the crime committed in the course of the same transaction as was believed by the learned judge under these circumstance we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the High court as well as the trial court on the question of sanction is clearly illegal and cannot be sustained”.
107. In State of Orissa Vs Ganesh chandra jew, 2004 (8) SCC 40 and the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India interpreted the term ‘official duty’ as “that the act or
omission must have been done by the public servant in course of his service and that it should have been in discharge of his duty. Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Code does not extend its protective cover to every act or omission done by a public servant while in service. The scope of operation is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by a public servant in discharging of official duty”.
108. In Shadakshari Vs State of Karnataka and another 2024 INSC 42 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “certainly a view can be taken the manufacturing
of such documents or fabrication of records cannot be a part of official duty of a public servant”.By holding that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside the order of the Hon’ble
High court quashing the complaint on the ground that no sanction is obtained for prosecuting respondent No.2 in the said case.
109. In view of said settled principles of law it is very much clear if the act attributed against the accused allegedly committed is integral part of official duty of a public servant or not have to be examine by the court while deciding whether sanction is necessary to prosecute such a public servant or not.
Fair Judgment 50/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
In the present case in hand, the allegation against A4 is she has take part in creating Ex.P3 sale deed by impersonation and forgery it is not part of her official duty being a registering authority.
110.Further, A4 facilitated the accused A2 and A1 to enter into a fraudulent document by affixing forged thumb marks of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd who was not present at that time within the sub registration district, Gudur and creation of fraudulent sale deed is not comes under the purview of official duties of A4. Hence, the protection provided U/Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Code is not available to A4 herein and for the acts committed by A4; to prosecute A4 the sanction contemplated
U/Sec.197 Criminal Procedure Code is not necessary in this case. Hence, the plea taken by the accused that as A4 prosecuted by the complainant without sanction vitiate the proceedings against A4 is not correct.
111.Further, Pw1 asserted that A1 to A3 acted in concert, by participating in execution, attestation and financial transactions relating to fraudulent sale under
Ex.P3 sale deed. Her evidence reveals that upon gaining knowledge of the fraudulent transaction when she questioned A2 he gave evasive reply stating that "మీకు దికుp ఉనGచోట చెంపుOకో�డి. ఎవరికి చెంపుOకు�టారో చెంపుOకో�డి" Though this conduct of A2 reflects the guilty mind and negative attitude of A2. But during cross examination of Pw1 when questioned Pw1 that she did not mention those utterings allegedly hurled A2 against her either in her complaint or in her earlier statements, she admitted the same. For the 1st time during trial she deposed the said words by stating that A2 was uttered the said words against her. Hence, it appears that it is an exaggerative version of Pw1, hence, that part of her statement cannot be taken into consideration.
Fair Judgment 51/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 112.During cross examination of Pw1, it was elicited by the counsel for A1, A3 and
A4 she has no personal acquaintance with them. In a case of criminal conspiracy, it always take place in dark and there is no need to the victim to know each and every participant in the conspiracy and the acts attributed to the said accused is out come of said conspiracy perceived by the complainant only. Mere having no personal knowledge about the role of A1, A3 and A4 and the personal acquaintance with them by the complainant does not dilute the case of the complainant and when the documentary evidence i.e. Ex. P3, P8 and P9 clinchingly discloses the involvement of
A1, A3 and A4. Lack of her prior acquaintance with A1, A3 and A4 indicates that she has no necessity to make false allegations against them and it strengthens her impartiality in filing the case without her personal enimasity with them.
113.During cross examination of Pw1, the accused made an attempt to highlighted the delay of two years occurred in filing complaint from 22.07.2010. It is borne by the record that the complainant filed a complaint with more than 2 years delay from the date of the offence but Pw1 explained the circumstances which leads such a delay, that she initially pursued remedies immediately upon gaining knowledge of fraudulent transaction under Ex.P3 and approached the police, but the police advised her to seek remedy before the court; consequently she filed OS 242/2010 at first instance for cancellation of fraudulent sale deed/Ex.P3 and further she initiated proceedings for removal of A2 herein from the capacity of guardian to the minor beneficiaries under the WILL and to appoint herself as guardian to her children vide GOP 43/2011.
Subsequently upon advise she came with present complaint before the court of law.
As mentioned above, the condition of the complainant, her children and her husband
Fair Judgment 52/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 is in vulnerable position being a lady uneducated and village back ground, her husband is mentally suffering, her children are tender aged by that time. In such a case, she only fighting against the all the misdeeds done by A2. In such circumstances the explanation given by the complainant causing delay in filing present complaint is considered by this court as a reasonably explanation. Moreover, in the facts of this case the property disputes involved and family complexities involved, in such a case, the delay occurred in fling the complaint does not appear to be fatal. It is settled law that if any delay was occurred in complaining the occurrence after coming to know the same and the prosecution or complainant is explained the reasons for such delay with possible and plausible explanation, that delay is not fatal to the prosecution case.
114.Further it is elicited from Pw1 that the sale consideration was credited into the account of her father-in-law. But Pw1 maintained her stand that the account itself was fraudulently created and operated by A2 and that the amounts were withdrawn by him even after the death of testator of the WILL which clearly establishes the misappropriation committed by A2 with the active conveyance of A1 and A5 in misappropriating the amounts credited in the said account.
115.When it comes to the evidence of Pw2 who is the brother of Pw1 and working as a Teacher. He deposed his evidence to the extent of his knowledge about the family and properties of his sister/Pw1 and Ravula Ankaiah Gowd in his chief examination. He deposed that Ankaiah Gowd partitioned properties among his sons, out of the share allotted to Ravindra Gowd, sold by Ankaiah Gowd for Rs.7.5 crores and out of said sale proceeds purchased several properties including the property
Fair Judgment 53/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 covered by Ex.P2/WILL and he executed Ex.P2/WILL in favour of sons of complainant by keeping A2 as guardian to the minor sons of the complainant.
116.Pw2 further deposed that as Ankaiah Gowd was suffering from severe diabetes, resulting into amputation of his left leg later admitted in hospital Nellore where he was in coma taking advantage of such condition A2 hatched up a plan in collusion with other accused and created Ex.P3 sale deed showing that the deceased sold an extent of Ac.2.40 cents of land in S.No.268 and 269/2a to the company of A1 for Rs.1 crore, a bank account also opened in the name of the deceased and A2 fraudulently, the said sale consideration was credited into that account while the deceased was in ICU.
Thereafter, the amount was withdrawn by A2 by cheating the complainant and her children.
117.During cross examination of Pw2 by A1, A3 and A4, he stated that he came to know about the alleged offence on the information by Pw1 but he is not the eye witness to any of the said transactions. He cannot identified the thumb marks of the deceased. In view of said admission, it is very much clear that Pw2 is a hear say witness he learnt about the things from Pw1 he has no direct knowledge about either execution of the WILL or sale transaction. Hence, though his evidence has no much significance independently, since his evidence based on the information received from Pw1, but as it is corroborates the entire case of Pw1, it has to be taken into consideration as one of the corroborating circumstance.
118.During cross examination of Pw2 by A2, he admitted that A2 is neither the purchaser nor the vendor under Ex.P2, the cheque towards consideration was credited into the bank account stands in the name of deceased and A2 and A2 is only one of the attestor for the said document. He further admitted that he has no
Fair Judgment 54/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 documentary proof to show A2 withdrawn amounts as alleged by him and he did not possess any medical records to establish that the deceased was in a critical condition or coma at relevant point of time.
119.As mentioned above, Pw2 is only brother of Pw1, as such, he has information from Pw1 about the things going on in the family of Pw1. Except that he has no documentary proof for all the allegations. But to prove the contentions of Pw1 and
Pw2 that at relevant point of time Ankaiah Gowd in coma in critical care unit in hospital and A2 was withdrawn all the amounts etc, the complainant filed the relevant record
before the court and got marked the same as Ex.P7 to P9 and P15, the relevant
witnesses were also examined by Pw1 as Pw3 and Pw4 to prove the contents of
Ex.P7 to P9 and P15. In such a case, mere stating Pw2 that he has no documentary proof in support of his evidence to show the health condition of the deceased Ankaiah
Gowd or withdrawal of the amounts from the disputed bank account etc is no way come to the way to the accused to help them.
120. Further Pw2 admitted that he had not seen the execution of sale deed. It is not the complainant’s case that Pw2 is the eye witness for creation of Ex.P3 sale deed.
The other suggestion posed to Pw2 was categorically denied by Pw2. When the evidence of Pw2 is read as a whole appears as natural and consistent being a near relative of Pw1, he is familiar with the family affairs and properties, his version regarding background and circumstance which leads to commission of the offence carries its own weight as corroborative one with the evidence of Pw1.
121. Another significant circumstance in this case is, the doctor who examined as
Pw3 clearly stated about the critical condition of deceased Ankaiah Gowd and he was
Fair Judgment 55/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 admitted in the hospital on 14.07.2010 and remained there upto 30.07.2010 underwent serval tests and treatment. While deposing evidence Pw3 stated on 22.07.2010 the patient was conscious and coherent despite treatment the patient condition did not improve and ultimately he was died on 30.07.2010 at 10.00 PM while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The evidence of Pw3 have to read as whole to understand the actual and real health condition of deceased Ravula Ankaiah Gowd from the date of admission in the hospital till the date of his death and it cannot understand on any single sentence in isolation. The doctor deposed that patient condition is not improved despite treatment, besides stating that on 22.07.2010 the patient is conscious and coherent. The sentence patient condition not improved despite treatment have to understand about the condition of the patient from the date of admission to till his death. In such a case, as Ex.P7 and P15 clearly reveals that on 14.07.2010 the patient was in unconscious and fixed ventilator, later there is movement of four limbs on ventilator and on oxygen. But the accused by taking advantage of the sentence deposed by Pw3 that on 22.07.2010 the patient was conscious and coherent, the accused vehemently argued that at the relevant point of time of Ex.P3 Ankaiah Gowd was not in coma and he is capable of execution of
Ex.P3. It is not the case of the accused that in between 14.07.2010 to 30.07.2010 as the health of the Ankaiah Gowd was improved and he was discharged from the hospital in the middle period and he was shifted to Gudur to the residence of said
Nasina Nagulu Gowd. There is no single suggestion to Pw1 to Pw3 that on 22.07.2010 the patient was discharged from the hospital and he went to Gudur, there executed Ex.P3.
Fair Judgment 56/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 122. Moreover the accused did not choose to cross examine Pw3 and they reported no cross. Thus, the entire chief examination of Pw3 and significantly the entire contents of Ex.P7 and P15 remained as unchallenged. In view of said evidence of
Pw3 and contents of Ex.P7 and P15, as the present case relied upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence to prove the guilt of the accused the testimony of the doctor and contents of Ex.P7 and P15 place a vital role in establishing the serious illness of Ankaiah Gowd and his condition in critical care unit, treatment period and death of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd while he was in hospital and there is no scope to him to went to Gudur and to execute Ex.P3 sale deed.
123. The remaining witness i.e. Branch manager of S.B.H, Naidupeta deposed that on receipt of summons from the court, he produced Ex.P8 and P9 documents and basing on the record available in his office he deposed evidence. A1, A3, A4 reported no cross for Pw4 and A2 alone cross examined Pw4.
124. During cross examination of Pw4, it was elicited from Pw4 that he was not the then branch manager at the time of opening the account during the transactions. Such admission does not any way discredit the contents of Ex.P8 and P9. Being successor in office and present custodian of the records, Pw4 is a competent witness to depose evidence regard to the contents of documents maintained in his office in regular course of business, as such, his evidence with respect to contents of Ex.P8 and P9 is relevant and he consistently stated that Ex.P8 statement of account produced, is a computer generated extract from the bank system thereby its accuracy and reinforcing of said document is quite natural.
125. Further, Pw4 clearly stated that the account opening process including verification, identification of applicants and authorization etc was carried out by the
Fair Judgment 57/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 then manager namely N.V.Seshaiah who is the 5th accused in the present complaint which clearly strengthens the version of the complainant and the evidence of Pw1 and
Pw2. Thus, the cross examination of complainant witnesses 1 to 4 instead of weakening the complainant case reliably reflects the transactions carried out and it is out of the premeditated plan of all the accused in collusion with each other and every accused played a vital role in completion of their goal.
126. Besides the above said oral testimony of Pw1 to Pw4 the documents relied by the complainant i.e. Ex.P1 to P15 is clinchingly proves the state of things in a sequence how the accused completed their fraudulent act by playing the role of every accused in a preplanned manner and swallow the amounts deposited in the account by the accused.
127. From Ex.P2/WILL it was established the intention of the testator in settling the properties in favour of minors for the welfare of the minors and reposing confidence in
A2 and entrustment of property to A2.
128. Ex.P7 and Ex.P15 the medical records clearly disclosing that from 14.07.2010 to 30.07.2010 the testator of the WILL/Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was in critical condition in hospital in critical care unit by taking treatment with the help of ventilator and there is no scope to him to move from the bed and to execute Ex.P3 sale deed by travelling throughout from Nellore to Gudur for 40 kilo meters, in such a condition. But without his presence at Gudur, A1 to A4 in collusion and with active aid of A4, Ex.P3 sale deed was created in favour of Nelcast company and A1 had taken part in the said fraudulent transaction in getting sale deed in the name of company and crediting the amounts in the fraudulent account created by A2 with the help of A5 knowingly and
Fair Judgment 58/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 with dishonest intention to cheat the complainant and her children, so also the company in the capacity of representative of Nelcast company. Simply the counsel for
A1 argued that the property sold under Ex.P3 sale deed is in possession and enjoyment of Nelcast company and property was delivered to the company and the entire amount was paid by the company in the form of cheque to the account; Hence, no offence committed by A1.
129. Undoudtedly herein the company purchased that property and as per the procedure the company paid the entire agreed sale consideration by way of cheque, the same is evident from Ex.P8 statement of account and contents of Ex.P3 also. But whereas the entire transaction done by A1 in the capacity of representative of the company, he has personal knowledge about the fraud. However knowingly he had taken part in said fraudulent transaction with his active concert, intelligently A1 to A5 hatched a plan to sell the property of the minors in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd, to the company and after receiving entire sale consideration from the company in the form of cheque the same was credited into the fraudulent account which created by
A2 with the help of A5, thereafter, they have withdrawn the amounts through A2 and in the entire fraudulent transaction all the accused taken an active role. Thus, the property under Ex.P2 belongs to minors, money of One crore rupees belongs to company but the accused No.1 to 5 played a game and sold the property to the company and swallow the amount of the company through bank account in the name of sale consideration. As such though A1 is entered into Ex.P3 sale deed in the capacity of General Manager and representative of Nelcast company. It is noway come to rescue A1 from his criminal liability since he has taken part knowingly,
Fair Judgment 59/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 brought into existence of Ex.P3 fraudulent sale deed as if it was executed by Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd by impersonation and forging the thumb marks of Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd. Hence, A1 is also equally liable for the acts done by A2.
130. Further, when it comes to the role of A3, the counsel for A3 vehemently argued that A3 is only an attestor of the document he has no knowledge of the contents of the document and mere attesting document itself is not an offence hence no criminal liability can be fasten to A3. But in fact at the time of execution of such fraudulent document/ Ex.P3, A3 also present, he has knowledge about the things what are going on, how the said document is executing by impersonation and without the presence of said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and as if it was executed by Ankaiah Gowd, by affixing some thumb marks of 3rd parties as if they were belongs to Ravula Ankaiah Gowd, having that part of knowledge he has take part of commission of said crime in the capacity of attestor of Ex.P3.
131. Further as seen from the 2ndpage of Ex.P3 sale deed, A3 subscribed his signature as he identified the thumb marks of the executant as if they belongs to
Ravula Ankaiah Gowd that itself indicates his knowledge and his active collusion and participation in bringing Ex.P3 into existence fraudulently, as such, he also committed an offence, as such, he is not exempted from criminal liability. Undoubtedly it is settled law attestor need not knowing about the contents of a document and his evidence is pertaining to and limited to execution of document by the executant. But in the present case in hand, even without executing Ex.P3 document by Ravula Ankaiah Gowd as in the presence of A3, as if it was executed by him, A1 to A4 brought into existence of
Ex.P3 sale deed and in the said act A3 participated and attested the said document,
Fair Judgment 60/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 as such, he committed an offence and he cannot be exempted from criminal liability.
132. Further, From Ex.P4 GOP 43/2011 which shows that the complainant approached the court, seeking protection of properties of her minor children and further it discloses that she has taken legal steps and acting in a proper manner being a responsible mother though she is an uneducated and innocent village back ground woman. The contents of GOP petition supports the entire case of complainant and she is trying to safe guard the interest of her children. As mentioned above, Ex.P5 is the death certificate of Ankaiah Gowd who died on 30.07.2010. Either death of
Ankaiah Gowd or date of death of Ankaiah Gowd including place of death of Ankaiah
Gowd while he was undergoing treatment in Bollineni super specially hospital, Nellore, is not under dispute.
133. Ex.P6 is the certified copy of plaint in OS 242/2010 which was subsequently renumbered as OS 117/2014 shows that immediately after coming to know about the fraudulent act committed by A2 with the active assistance of A1, A3 to A5 she take steps and filed the said suit by challenging the validity of said sale deed and seeking cancellation of the same and the entire episode how said sale deed brought into existence by A2 has explained by the complainant in her plaint and the contents of said plaint is in the same lines of the version of the complainant in the present complaint and her evidence in this case.
134. Ex.P10 is the counter filed by A2 in GOP 43/2011, which clearly indicates the inconsistent attempts taken by A2 herein to justify his actions which appears as not believable and trustworthy which supports the case of the complainant. Ex.P11 medical certificate of the husband of Pw1 shows that the vulnerable position of Pw1
Fair Judgment 61/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 and her children and the contents therein supports the version of Pw1 and it explains the reasons behind keeping A2 as guardian to the minor children of Pw1, by Ravula
Ankaiah Gowd while executing Ex.P2/WILL and the reasons behind the responsibility given to A2 and entrustment of property to A2, though the said property belongs to
Ravindra Gowd. Ex.P12 is none other than the certified copy of plaint in OS 117/2014 it is the plaint originally in OS 242/2010 as mentioned above, which clearly supports and consistent with the case of the complainant herein, it strengthens the case of the complainant. Ex.P13 and P14 are nothing but written statement and additional written statement filed by A2 showing the defence taken by A2 in the said suit. The contents of Ex.P13 and P14, the version taken by A2 in volatile manner weakens the defence and supports the entire case of the complainant.
135. On overall perusal of entire evidence available on record and all the documents i.e. Ex.P1 to P15 relied by the complainant when read together clearly depicting the entire conspiracy in brought Ex.P3 sale deed into existence in a fraudulent manner which explaining the entire things had taken place in dark that with a dishonest intention and premeditated plan of A1 and A2, A2 consulted A5 and with the help of A5 they opened an account on 07.07.2010; from Ex.P9 it is very much clear that without no 3rdparty or introducer or approver with regard to identity of the persons or residential proof certification etc all the roles are played by A5 and he has approved the said application and an account was opened in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and A2 as if the said application was made by Ravula Anakaiah Gowd and A2.
Subsequently with the collusion of A1 the property under Ex.P3 sold away to the company and from the company in the capacity of General Manager A1 brought the
Fair Judgment 62/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 money of the company in the form of cheque in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd.
Thus, A1 cheated the company also, here the property belongs to minors it was purchased by the company; company paid entire sale consideration but without the original property holders and without executing the said document the rightful holders of the property, the said Ex.P3 sale deed was brought into light with the help of A1, A3 and A4, but on when 22.07.2010 Ankaiah Gowd is in hospital to whom that cheque was given and who was presented the said cheque in the bank for encashment etc is under dark, the circumstances which appears from the entire evidence on record it clearly indicates the said cheques was taken by A2 and presented by A2 in the bank and make it credited into the said fraudulent account and thereafter he has withdrawn the entire amount. Withdrawal of entire amount from the said account is borne by
Ex.P8. It further discloses that even after death of Ankaiah Gowd also A2 has withdrawn Rs.40,00,000/- out of said Rs.1 Crore sale consideration. Thus, the things are happened in dark but the withdrawal is admitted by A2.
136. When it gone through the written arguments filed by both sides and arguments advanced by the both counsels the learned counsel for A1, A3 and A4 contended that
A1, A3 and A4 are innocent they have been falsely implicated with assumptions and presumptions of the complainant basing on Ex.P3 sale deed. But on careful examination of the entire things and material on record the said contentions of the A1,
A3 and A4 does not acceptable.
137. At the time of arguments, the counsel for accused argued that the disputed documents i.e. Ex.P3 and P9 did not sent to FSL, to prove the alleged forgery committed by the accused 1 to 3 with the aid of A4 and A5. In the fact in the complaint
Fair Judgment 63/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 itself the complainant clearly averred that the deceased Ankaiah Gowd is a signatory he never used to affix thumb marks in any where, but Ex.P9 and P3 documents contains the thumb marks said to have been affixed by Ankaiah Gowd as per the accused. But in fact, they are forged one. In such a contrary to send the disputed and questioned thumb impressions to FSL for examination by a finger print expert and to get opinion there must be some other admitted and specimen impressions are necessary. When there is no admitted thumb impressions of the Ravula Ankaiah
Gowd and for collecting specimens the said Ravula Ankaiah Gowd is no more there is no scope to the complainant to send the disputed thumb impressions to FSL for examination and opinion of a finger print expert.
138. Moreover, another significant fact mentioned in the complaint and deposed by
Pw1 the thumb impressions appears in Ex.P3 and P9 are dubbed, they are smudged some impressions are taken on Ex.P3 in a half shape, in order to make impossible them for scientific examination. Thus, the complainant at the inception stage i.e. in her
CFR itself clearly explained the loss of opportunity by her to send those impressions to the expert for examination. Hence the defence taken by the accused that the complainant did not prove the thumb impressions on Ex.P3 and P9 are not belongs to
Ankaiah Gowd and they were not sent to scientific expert for examination and opinion is not acceptable.
139. Further, the accused had taken a plea that he complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as she is not a victim. The accused are not disputing about the relationship of Pw1 with the minor beneficiaries or Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and A2 herein. When admittedly Pw1 being mother to the minor beneficiaries and in order to
Fair Judgment 64/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 protect the interest of the minors she initiated the criminal complaint against the accused 1 to 6 for the offence committed by them.
140. Moreover, it is settled law in a cognizable offence any person can file a report to the police or a complainant before the court of law to set the criminal law in to motion and the complainant must be need not a victim or injured. In view of the same, there is no strength in the plea taken by the accused that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and it is not acceptable and cannot be considered.
141. Further, the accused vehemently argued that the minors not deposed evidence in this case hence the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 is noway helpful to prove the case and the accused are entitled for acquittal. Even as per the averments of complaint, and from the entire case of the complainant, even from the cross examination of Pw1, it is very much clear that by the date of occurrence the sons of the complainant are minors who are the ultimate beneficiaries under Ex.P2/WILL. The said version of the complainant is supported by contents of the Ex.P2/WILL to say that the sons of the complainant are minors by the time of occurrence. In such a case, there is no scope to them to know about the entire conspiracy and the offence committed by the accused which taken some where in secrecy.
142. As per the Sec.118 of Indian Evidence Act undoubtedly a child is a competent witness who is below the age of 18 years. But if they have knowledge about the commission of offence at the time of occurrence they can come before the court and depose evidence. If the minors came to know about the occurrence through some body their evidence comes under the purview of hear say evidence and it will not be useful either to the complainant or to the accused, since in a fiduciary relation
Fair Judgment 65/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 the complainant/Pw1 has to inform about the things happened to the minor beneficiaries and as per the tunes of Pw1 only they can depose evidence before the court, even though they were examined. In such a case, their evidence would not be much helpful either to the complainant or to the accused. At the same time, mere non examination of minor beneficiaries who has no personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the case would not defeat the entire case of the complainant.
Since the complainant would able to establish her entire case from the evidence of
Pw1 to Pw4 and the documents relied by the complainant speaking voluminously about the guilty mind of the accused and the series of acts done by A1 to A4.
143. In further, the counsel for accused heavily relied upon certain portion of cross examination of Pw1 that she has no personal knowledge with A1, A3 and A4 and she has lack of personal knowledge regarding the role of every individual accused and she has no documents to show that the property purchased by Ankaiah Gowd from the funds of property of Ravindra Gowd etc. In fact, the defence taken by the accused that there is no documentary evidence to show that the property purchased under
Ex.P2/WILL is out of the sale proceeds of the share of Ravindra Gowd is of no consequence since in Ex.P2/WILL itself Ankaiah Gowd clearly mentioned that the properties under Ex.P2 is belongs to Ravindra Gowd and they are fell to his share in the family partition. When the accused are not disputing about execution of
Ex.P2/WILL or the contents therein, the defence taken by the accused is noway helpful to the accused.
144. As per the criminal jurisprudence the entire burden lies on the complainant to establish the essentials of offences charged against the accused. In the present case
Fair Judgment 66/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 in hand, from the evidence of the complainant with the support of evidence of Pw3 and Pw4 and from the documentary evidence clearly establishes that in fiduciary role of A2 property was entrusted to him, later, with a dishonest intention knowingly and fraudulently all the accused fabricated Ex.P3 sale deed and thereafter they misappropriated the amounts credited into the fraudulent account.
145. The counsel for A1, A3 and A4 has raised another plea that the dispute among the parties to the present case is civil in nature and in view of pendency of civil litigation in between parties, the role attributed to A1, A3 and A4 is not fasten any criminal liability against them without any specific allegations. In support of said version of the accused, they relied upon several judgments besides oral arguments.
146. The counsel for A1, A3 and A4 relied on the following decision of the Hon'ble apex courts.
Sl. No. Judgments 1Manorama Tiwari and others Vs Surendra Nath Rai 2016 (1) ALD CRIMINAL 310 SC 2Bar counsil fo Maharastra and Goa Vs Rajive Naresh Chandra Narula and others 2025 INSC 1147 3Ummadisetti Ratnasagar Vs State and other 2016 (2) ALD CRIMINAL 135 4Thavarayal Salim Vs Thekkeveettil Karuvantevalappil Saru the Hon’ble High court of Kerala decided in OP (c ) No.2060 of 2011 (0) dated 11.07.2011 147. In so far as the judgment in that Manorama Tiwari’s case is concerned the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that protection U/Sec.197 Criminal Procedure
Code is available only when the act complained of is reasonably connected with discharge of official duty”.
In the present case in hand, the allegations leveled against A4 are not confined to discharge the official duties of A4 it relates to active participation in registration of a
Fair Judgment 67/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 fraudulent document knowingly it is a forged and created one despite the alleged executant being in critical condition in hospital in Nellore but she accepted and registered the document more particularly in a private residence of 3rd party who is noway concerned with any of the parties to the present case. It clearly indicates that
A4 committed the offence not in connection with her official duty or while discharging her official duty, hence, the said judgment does not come the way to aid A4.
148. In Ummadisetti Ratnasagar Vs State and another it was held that when a dispute is purely civil in nature and the essential components of criminal offence are absent, criminal proceedings should not be permitted to continue.
But in the present case in hand, the evidence on record clearly establishing, the specific allegations of forgery, criminal breach of trust, cheating, conspiracy, supporting by material evidence i.e. oral and documentary. Therefore, the dispute in the present case cannot be termed as purely civil in nature and the said judgment is not applicable to the present set of facts.
149. In Bar Council of Maharastra and Goa Vs Rajiv Naresh Chandra Narula and others the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dealt with the issue relating to professional misconduct and disciplinary proceedings concerning advocates.
But herein in this case the charges levelled against the accused is arising out of forgery, misappropriation, cheating and therefore the present set of facts in this case is different from the above mentioned judgment, hence, not applicable.
150. In Thavarayal Salim Vs. Theekkeveettil Karuvantevalappil Saru it was observed that an attesting witness need not necessarily have knowledge of the contents of a document and mere attestation does not automatically fasten liability.
Fair Judgment 68/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
However in the present case, the role attributed to A3 is not that of a mere passive attestor, but he is in active role by taking part of transaction and involved in creation of a forged document hence the said judgment is not applicable to the present set of facts and it is noway helpful to A3.
151. The counsel for A2 relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble apex court in support of defences raised by the 2ndaccused.
Sl. No. Judgments 1M.Srikanth Vs State of Telangana 2019 (10) SCC 373 2N.Sitarama Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, the judgment of Hon'ble High court of AP in Criminal Petition No.4189/2020 dated 30.04.2022 3Dondapati Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Telangana and another LAWS (APH- 2018- 1-71) which was decided by Hon’ble High court of Andhra Pradesh in CRL.P. No 2850/2016 dated 03.01.2018 4 Md.Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar and another 2009 (8) SCC 751 5Eppilli Lakshmi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2024 (3) ALD Criminal 736 152. When it comes to the judgment in M.Srikanth Vs State of Telangana the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that criminal proceedings should not be
permitted where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and where the dishonest intention, at the inception is absent.
In the present case in hand, the material available on record clearly discloses the dishonest intention entertain by the accused from the inception stage itself while brought Ex.P3 sale deed into existence in a fraudulent manner and it continued until swallow the entire sale consideration under Ex.P3, itself clearly indicates the fraudulent intention of the accused from the inception stage, hence, the said judgment is not applicable to the present set of facts and it does not come to the aid of A2.
Fair Judgment 69/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 153. In Sitarama Raju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh it was held that for constituting an offence under 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code there must be clear entrustment and dishonest intention from the beginning and mere breach of civil obligation is not sufficient.
In the present case in hand the entrustment of property under Ex.P2/WILL with
A2 on behalf of the minors as guardian clearly established and further from the circumstances which taken place in the present case the dishonest intention can be gathered from the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 and the contents of Ex.P1 to P15 more particularly from Ex.P3, P7 to P9 and P15. Hence, the said judgment is also not applicable to the present set of facts.
154. In Dondapati Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of Telangana the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue where the dispute is purely civil in nature without any element of criminality.
The said judgment is also not applicable to the present case since the allegations in the present case is not confined only to a civil dispute but involving of forgery, fabrication of document and creation of fraudulent documents, misappropriation of sale proceeds, hence, thereby attracting criminal liability in this case.
155.In Md.Ibrahm and others Vs. State of Bihar & another the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that mere execution of a document, even if it is invalid does not amount to forgery unless it is shown that a false document was created with intent to deceive the party.
In the present case in hand, the complainant clearly alleges and established that creation of a false sale deed/Ex.P3 by affixing thumb marks as if they were belongs to a person who was in a critical condition and in capable of execution, in the
Fair Judgment 70/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 hospital at a distance of 40 kilometers in critical care unit and on ventilator as if the said document was executed by such a person in Gudur in a private residence of a 3rd party in between 5.00 AM to 6.00 AM itself indicates the intention of the parties how they managed things and how they created the said document and thereby proved the creation of a false document, hence, the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India is noway helpful to A2.
156. And lastly A2 was relied upon Eppili Lakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and another the Hon’ble apex court held that when dispute arise out of civil rights over property and the ingredients of criminal offences are absent, the criminal proceedings should not be continued.
However, in the present case, the material on record discloses the specific criminal acts committed by the accused which constituting a criminal breach of trust, forgery, cheating and conspiracy, therefore the dispute in the present case in hand in between the parties cannot be termed as civil in nature and the said judgment is also noway helpful to A2 and It is not applicable to the present set of acts.
157. While establishing the case of prosecution, the prosecution can rely upon either oral or documentary evidence, direct or indirect evidence. The present case in hand, admittedly, all the direct witnesses for Ex.P3 are the accused, they brought Ex.P3 sale deed into existence and all the witnesses of the complainant are not the direct witnesses. Hence, to prove the guilt of the accused in this case, the complainant relied upon circumstantial evidence. While proving the guilt of the accused basing on the circumstantial evidence the prosecution must establish its case entirely without missing links of each and every circumstance.
Fair Judgment 71/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 158. Moreover, the criminal conspiracy, dishonest intention and fraudulent intention etc cannot be perused by either of the senses and a conspiracy always will take place in dark, hence, it has to be established from the circumstances only.
159. In Vijayan Vs State of Kerala AIR 1999 SC 1086 the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held that “to bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Sec.120 (B) of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing unlawful act. It is no doubt through that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and therefore from established facts inference could be drawn but there must be some material from which it would be reasonable establish a connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done in pursuant to the said conspiracy”.
160. In E.K.Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala 1995 (2) SCC 99 the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held that “conspiracy can be proved even by circumstantial evidence, as only this type of evidence is normally available. There can be hardly be direct evidence on this for the simple reason that conspiracies are not hatched in open they are secretly planed. Lack of direct evidence relating to conspiracy is not significant”.
161. Further, in Mohammad Khaleed Vs. State of West Bengal 2003 (1) ALT (CRL) 37 SC the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the proof of elements of conspiracy and further held that “no direct evidence normally about conspiracy. Agreement of two persons to do an unlawful act or do a lawful act by unlawful means”.
In the present case in hand, to establish the conspiracy between the accused the complainant placed Ex.P2, P3, P7 to P9 and P15 from which it can be reasonably established by an ordinary prudent man about the conspiracy among the accused and the acts done by the accused in pursuance of their conspiracy.
Fair Judgment 72/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 162. Upon careful perusal of entire evidence on record, oral and documentary this court finds that the complainant has succeeded in establishing all the essential components of offence U/Sec.468 Indian Penal Code against A2. The execution of
Ex.P2/WILL establishes entrustment of properties in favour of minor beneficiaries by keeping A2 as guardian in a fiduciary capacity and thereafter the same was converted into his own use. The said fact was established by Pw1 with the support of Ex.P2, P3,
P7 to P9. Thus, the charge U/Sec.406 Indian Penal Code is proved against A2.
163. With respect to the charge U/Sec.468 Indian Penal Code the prosecution/ complainant has to establish that Ex.P3 sale deed Ex.P9 account opening application form is a forged documents with a view to receive the said sale consideration by the accused and utilized the same by him, fraudulently.
164. With respect to execution of Ex.P3 sale deed the unchallenged medical evidence i.e. testimony of Pw3, contents of Ex.P7 and P15 conclusively establishes that Ravula Ankaiah Gowd was continuously admitted in the critical care unit of
Bollineni super specially hospital, Nellore from 14.07.2010 till 30.07.2010. The patient shifting details, and sugar insulin chart, so also, daily rounds check up chart demonstrate that he was under constant medical supervision, with no possibility of leaving the hospital for execution of Ex.P3. In such circumstances, the alleged execution of sale deed at Gudur on 22.07.2010 become highly impossible and creates a serious dent in the genuineness of Ex.P3, which strengthens the inference of the fabrication of Ex.P3 sale deed.
165. The financial transaction reflected in Ex.P8 and P9 lent strong support the complainant’s case. Opening of bank account just a few days prior to transaction
Fair Judgment 73/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 under Ex.P3 coupled with deposit of sale consideration and subsequent withdrawal of entire amount by A2 clearly indicates the dominion over the funds and misuse of the same by A2, when there is no either or survival clause in Ex.P9 application and even after death of Ankaiah Gowd also A2 has withdrawn all those amounts with the active support of A5. These acts clearly establishing the dishonest misappropriation and creation of documents by forging Ex.P3 sale deed and thereby the charge u/Sec.468
Indian Penal Code is clearly proved against A2.
166. The role of A1, A3 and A4 cannot be viewed separably from one to another in isolation. The execution of document, attestation of document and registration of the document/Ex.P3 in a fraudulent manner indicates their active participation in commission of the offence and in pursuance of their conspiracy they have played their respective roles in the manner which they have conspired and A1 to A4 present physically at the time of creation of Ex.P3 in different capacity i.e. A2 and A3 attestors,
A1 buyer on behalf of his company, A4 for registering the said document by using her official capacity, they brought Ex.P3 into existence successfully.
167. In view of said fact and circumstance of the case, the defence of A3 and A4 that
A3 is only an attestor, A4 acted in discharge of her official duty does not acceptable.
Since the acts done by A1, A3 and A4 discloses their conscious involvement in facilitating a fraudulent transaction under Ex.P3. Thus, this court finds that the prosecution successfully established that the sale deed dated 22.07.2010 is not a genuine document but it brought into existence fraudulently with the active participation of A1, A3 and A4. Hence, this court holds that A1 and A3 are liable for the punishment U/Sec.468, 406, r/w 114 Indian Penal Code .
Fair Judgment 74/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 168. When it comes to the charge framed against A4 i.e. 420 Indian Penal Code is not made out from the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 and from the contents of Ex.P1 to
P15. To, made out a charge U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code prosecution must establish that their must be deception practiced by the accused on the victim and out of such deception the victim must do some thing or omit from doing something which lawfully have to do and thereby some delivery of property to the accused.
169. In the present case in hand, nothing appeared from the entire record to say that
A4 practiced some deception either on the complainant or the minors who are the sons of the complainant and out of such deception she gained unlawfully. In view of the same this court holds that the charge U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code is not proved against A4.
170. In fact, while taking cognizance the charge U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code had taken against A1 to A5 but however, while examination of the accused U/Sec.239
Criminal Procedure Code the charge U/Sec.420 Indian Penal Code was not framed against A1 to A3. Hence even though there is evidence on record, to prove the said charge against A1 and A2 in view of lack of framing of charge for the said offence, at this juncture, if this court is inclined to frame the said charge against the accused and to convict the accused, it will cause prejudice to the accused.
171. Further, out of criminal conspiracy of A1 to A5 they have played their roles effectively in reaching their goal in pursuance e of their conspiracy but surprisingly the charge U/Sec.120(b) was not framed against A1 to A3 while framing of charges. And against A4 alone Sec.120(b) Indian Penal Code was framed. It is settled law that one cannot conspire on his own without another person and meeting of minds. In the
Fair Judgment 75/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026 present case in hand, though the complainant’s case clearly establishing conspiracy done by all the accused as there is no charge against A1 to A3 with respect to conspiracy. Hence, though it was proved by the complainant about the part of A4 in such conspiracy she alone cannot be punished for the said charge hence, she is entitled for acquittal of the same.
172. Further, it was established by the complainant through her evidence oral and documentary about the presence of A4 and facilitating A1 to A3 to brought Ex.P3 into existence in a fraudulent manner and knowingly she gave aid to A1 and A2 in effecting said sale deed so also, registration of the same, A4 is liable for punishment U/Sec.
406, 468 r/w 114 Indian Penal Code being abettor by granting aid to the principle offender in committing an offence U/Sec.406, 468 Indian Penal Code.
IN THE RESULT, the Accused No.2 found guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sections.406, 468 Indian Penal Code; and Accused No.1, 3 and 4 found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.406, 468 r/w 114 Indian Penal Code and accordingly, they are convicted U/Sec.248 (2) Criminal Procedure Code.
Whereas the Accused No.4 found not guilty for the offence punishable
U/Sec.420 and 120 (b) Indian Penal Code and accordingly she is acquitted for the said charges U/sec.248(1) Criminal Procedure Code.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 01st day of May, 2026.
Sd/- B.V.Sulochana Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
GUDUR
Fair Judgment 76/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
In view of the nature of the offence, this Court is found that there are no grounds to invoke provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, Section 360 of Criminal
Procedure Code.
The accused No.2 Heard on quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offences punishable Under Section.406, 468 Indian Penal Code. The accused No.1, 3 and 4 heard on quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offences punishable
Under Section.406, 468 r/w 114 Indian Penal Code
Accused No.1 submitted that he is suffering with ill health and he is having old aged mother, wife and children if he sent to jail they will suffer with starvation and pleaded mercy.
Accused No.2 submitted that he is suffering from both kidneys problem and they are not functioning properly, unable to walk without any support, suffering from old aged ailments, since for the past 10 years suffering with diabetes, eye sight is very bad and pleaded mercy.
Accused No.3 submitted that he is suffering from DVT for his left leg and neuro problem besides suffering with old aged ailments and having family, he is the only person to maintain his family and sole bread winner of entire family and pleaded mercy.
Accused No.4 submitted that she is suffering with kidney problem for the past 16 years and further underwent L-IV and L-V disk problem in spinal card and having retired old aged husband, she has to look after him besides her family responsibility and pleaded mercy.
Fair Judgment 77/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
However, having considering the submissions made by the accused No.2, he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two years and also imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months for the offence punishable Under Section 406 Indian Penal Code.
Further, the accused No.2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Three years and also imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six months for the offence punishable Under Section 468 Indian Penal Code.
However, having considering the submissions made by the accused No.1, 3 and 4, they are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of One year each and also imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two months each for the offence punishable Under
Section 406 r/w 114 Indian Penal Code.
Further, the accused No.1, 3 and 4 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of Two years each and also imposed sentence to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two months each for the offence punishable Under Section 468 r/w 114 Indian Penal Code.
The remand period of accused No.1 to 4 if any shall be set off under Sec.428
Criminal Procedure Code.
Fair Judgment 78/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
The accused No.1 to 4 informed about their right to prefer appeal against the
Judgment and sentence. This Court asked the accused No.1 to 4 whether they have means to engage an Advocate at Appellate Court and they informed that they are having means to engage a counsel at Appellate Court.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this, the 01st day of May, 2026.
Sd/- B.V.Sulochana Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
GUDUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Prosecution
Prosecution Name of Witness Description Witness Number
Pw1Ravula SaradhaComplainant
Pw2B.SrinivasuluBrother of complainant
Pw3D.Chandra SekharSummoned witness/ ReddyDoctor
Pw4Naveen kumar Summoned witness/ Chief Manager, SBI, Naidupeta
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Defence/ Accused
Defence Witness Number Name of Witness Description
- NONE -
Exhibits marked on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit NumberDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ Attested by
Ex.P1Complaint of Pw1Pw1
Ex.P2Registrars certified copy of registeredPw1 WILL dated 30.05.2008 executed by father-in-law of Pw1 vide document No.38/2008 of SRO, Gudur
Fair Judgment 79/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Ex.P3Registrar’s certified copy of registeredPw1 sale deed dated 22.07.2010 allegedly executed by father-in-law in favour of Nelcast Ltd. Represented by A1 vide document No.4473/2010 of SRO, Gudur.
Ex.P4Certified copy of petition in GOPPw1 No.43/2011 along with docket and declaration on the file of Hon’ble Principal
District Judge, Nellore.
Ex.P5Death certificate of father-in-law of Pw1Pw1 issued by Municipal Corporation, Nellore
Ex.P6Certified copy of plaint in OSPw1 242/2010/117/2014 along with valuation certificate and schedule therein.
Ex.P7Certified copy of case sheet of RavulaPw1 & Pw3 Ankaiah Gowd belongs to Bollineni Super Specialty hospital, Nellore along with Annexures.
Ex.P8Statement of account pertaining toPw1 & Pw4 account No.62137189444 of S.B.H, Naidupeta branch for the period from 07.07.2010 to 06.11.2010.
Ex.P9Application form pertaining to S.B.H,Pw1 & Pw4 Naidupeta branch dated 07.07.2010 for opening a joint account in the name of Ravula Ankaiah Gowd and Dasaradharamaiah Gowd.
Ex.P10Certified copy of counter in GOPPw1 No.43/2011 by A2 herein
Ex.P11Certified copy of medical certificatePw1 pertaining to husband of Pw1 /Ravula Raveendra Gowd about his mental status as per orders of Hon’ble Principal District
Judge, Nellore in connection with IA
No.52/2012 in GOP No.43/2011 issued by Superintendent, S.V.R.R Government Hospital, Tirupati in favour of Hon’ble
Principal District Judge, Nellore.
Ex.P12Certified copy of plaint in OS 117/2014 onPw1 the file of Hon’ble VII Additional District
Judge, Gudur.
Fair Judgment 80/80 CC No.3 of 2023, Dt.01.05.2026
Ex.P13Certified copy of written statement in OSPw1 117/2014 filed by A2 herein.
Ex.P14Certified copy of Additional writtenPw1 statement in OS 117/2014 filed by A2 herein
Ex.P15Original case sheet of Ravula AnkaiahPw3 Gowd and its annexures
Exhibits marked on behalf of Defence/Accused
Exhibit NumberDescription of the ExhibitProved by/ Attested by - NIL -
Material Objects
Material object NumberDescription of the ObjectProved by/ Attested by - NIL -
Sd/- B.V.Sulochana Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
GUDUR
True copy
Sd/- B.V.Sulochana Rani
Judicial Magistrate of I Class-Cum-
Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Division)
GUDUR
Fair Judgment