Smt.C.R. Sumalatha

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PENUKONDA

Present: - Smt. C.R.Sumalatha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Monday, the 25th day of April, 2016

Sessions Case No.39/2016

State by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Roddam P.S.

Name of the accused:

R.Anjinappa, 54 years, S/o H. Ramappa, P.Roppala village, Roddam mandal.

Offence: Attempt to murder punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Judge: - Guilty.

Result:- In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 307 of Indian Penal

Code and he is convicted u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 307 of Indian Penal

Code. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

The prosecution was conducted by Sri D.Nagaraju, Additional Public

Prosecutor, Penukonda and Sri Y.Lakshminarayana, Advocate on behalf of Accused.

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sessions case was committed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Penukonda, in P.R.C.No.45/2015 and it was made over to this Court by the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, dated 20-1-2016.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Roddam P.S., laid charge sheet for the offence

U/sec 307 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief accusation against the accused is that about 27 years back P.W.1 married the accused and lived together amicably, out of wedlock they are blessed with two sons and a daughter. The accused who was addicted to alcohol suspecting 2 the fidelity of P.W.1 used to beat P.W.1 whenever P.W.1 attends coolie work and talk with any other male persons. Due to that P.W.1 went to the house of her younger son P.W.3 H.Ramachandra at Bangalore and stayed with him for three months. Later, one week back P.W.1 came to P.Roppala village, on 29.9.2015 at about 10A.M. while P.W.1 was cleaning black slabs in her house the accused questioned P.W.1 as to where she went for all these days and hacked her with a sickle on her left hand, wrist and right jaw and caused bleeding injuries, P.W.1 ran away from the house and fell down in front of house of P.W.4 H.Narasimhappa and lost concious. Meanwhile P.W.2 H.Padmakka, L.W.4 H.Kristappa and P.W.4

H.Narasimhappa intervened and rescued P.W.1 and shifted the injured P.W.1 to

Government hospital, Penukonda for treatment in 108 ambulance. The doctor who rendered treatment referred P.W.1 to Govt. hospital, Ananthapuramu for better treatment, the doctor who examined P.W.1 at Govt. hospital, Anantapuramu referred P.W.1 to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for better treatment on the same day at about 8 P.M. P.W.1 was admitted at Governement General

Hospital, Kurnool. On 2.10.2015 morning P.W.1 regained conscious. The accused hacked P.W.1 with sickle with an intention to kill her suspecting her fidelity, due to timely intervention of P.W.2 and P.W.4 she survived with life.

3. Basing on the report of PW1, a case in Cr.No.77/2015 U/sec 307 of Indian

Penal Code was registered and investigated into. Hence the case.

4. This case was taken on file U/sec 307 of Indian Penal Code against accused.

5. On appearance of accused, he was examined U/s 228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation, heard both sides, charge U/sec 307 of Indian Penal Code is framed against accused, read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

for the incriminating material available against him, he denied the same and reported no defence evidence, accordingly defence evidence is closed.

3

8. Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the Accused is found guilty for the offence U/sec 307 of

Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. Point:

To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution got examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P1 to P5 and M.O.1. Among them P.W.1 is de-facto complainant-cum- injured victim, P.W.2 to P.W.4 are hear say witnesses, P.W.5 is one of the mediators for observation of scene of offence and seizure of weapon i.e. M.O.1,

P.W.6 is Medical Officer, P.W.7 is Investigating Officer, P.W.8 is H.C.2269 who recorded statement of P.W.1.

11. P.W.1 who is cited as defacto-complainant –cum-injured victim in this case in her evidence deposed that about 27 years back her marriage took place with the accused, since four years accused is addicted to alcohol and used to beat her everyday, due to unbearable harassment she left the company of accused and went to Bangalore to stay along with her younger son (i.e.) P.W.3, she stayed there for two years during that period the accused visited the house of P.W.3 for two or three times and three months back she returned to the house, on the next day accused picked up quarrel with her saying “Inni rojulu yevari daggaraku poyiuntivi”, when P.W.1 replied that she went to her younger son’s house accused grew wild, accused caught hold her tuft and pulled her tuft and picked up a sickle and hacked her on her left fore arm and over left wrist due to that she sustained cut injuries. P.W.1 further deposed that when accused tried to hack over left side of her neck, at that time when she turned her face it hit over her right cheek as a result she sustained cut injury. Thereafter she ran away from the house to rescue herself and fell down on the road and lost conscious and three days later she regained conscious at Government General Hosptial, Kurnool there police examined her and obtained her signature on the statement which is marked as

Ex.P1.

4

12. A perusal of contents of Ex.P1 categorically goes to show that since some years accused who is addicted to alcohol started suspecting fidelity of P.W.1 and used to beat her and about 3 months back P.W.1 went to Bangalore to stay along with her younger son (i.e.) P.W.3, later she returned back to their house at

P.Roppala village on 29.9.2015 at 10 A.M. accused picked up quarrel with her saying “Inni rojulu yevari daggaraku poyiuntivi”, when P.W.1 did not respond accused beat her with a sickle over her left arm, elbow and wrist, accused also hacked her over her right jaw due to that she sustained bleeding injuries, raising cries she came out of the house and fell on the road and lost conscious. Later on 2.10.2015 she regained conscious on that day police examined her and recorded her statement. The evidence of P.W.1 and contents of statement of P.W.1 recorded by P.W.8 i.e. Ex.P1 is quite corroborative and consistent with each other with regard to accused who is husband of P.W.1 addicted to alcohol and used to harass

P.W.1 due to unbearable harassment P.W.1 left the company of the accused and went to Bangalore to stay along with her younger son (i.e.) P.W.3, after some period when she returned to the house, accused picked up quarrel with her saying “Inni rojulu yevari daggaraku poyiuntivi” and hacked her three times on her left hand and also over right cheek and caused bleeding cut injuries, due to injuries

P.W.1 lost conscious and regained conscious three days later at Government hospital, Kurnool. During cross examination of P.W.1 nothing is elicited from her to disbelieve her evidence except putting suggestions that disputes arose between her and her husband in relation to landed property and this case is foisted by her taking advantage of injuries sustained by her when fell down on a heap of black slabs from terrace by slipping which is denied by her.

13. Prosecution also examined P.W.3 who is none other than younger son of

P.W.1 and accused, P.W.3 also deposed that P.W.1 left the company of the accused and stayed along with him at Bangalore for four months as accused who is his father used to beat P.W.1 by consuming alcohol. Later he brought P.W.1 to their house at Roppala, accused suspecting the fidelity of the P.W.1 hacked P.W.1 with a sickle and caused bleeding injury. On knowing about the incident through P.W.2 he went to hospital and found injuries to P.W.1 over her left hand and right cheek.

5

14. The evidence of P.W.s 1 and 3 is quite clear, cogent, consistent and corroborative with each other with regard to accused addicted to alcohol and used to beat P.W.1, due to that P.W.1 left the company of the accused and stayed along with P.W.3 at Bangalore for some period. Later when she returned back accused suspecting fidelity of the P.W.1 hacked P.W.1 with a sickle and caused injuries to

P.W.1 over her left hand and right cheek and accused is responsible for causing injuries to P.W.1. Further during cross examination of P.W.3 the learned counsel

for accused also suggested to P.W.3 that frequently P.W.3 used to pick up quarrel

with accused as the accused is in the habit of consuming alcohol from the above suggestion it is crystal clear that accused is in the habit of consuming alcohol.

15. Prosecution also examined P.W.2 and P.W.4 who are cited as hearsay witnesses who are none other than close relatives of accused and P.W.1.

P.W.2 in her evidence deposed that nearly four months back on one day at about 10 A.M. when she was at her house she heard cries of P.W.1, immediately she came out of the house and found P.W.1 lying on the road with four bleeding injuries over her left hand and right cheek, immediately she informed the same to P.W.1’s sons and on the arrival of 108 ambulance she along with P.W.4 and L.W.4

K.Kristappa shifted P.W.1 to Government hospital, Penukonda, from there to

Government hospital, Anantapuramu and from there to Govt. General Hospital,

Kurnool for better treatment. P.W.4 deposed that about four months back P.W.1 returned to P.Roppala from Bangalore as she went to stay with her son (i.e.) P.W.3 in view of disputes between P.W.1 and accused and a galata took place between

P.W.1 and accused and in the said galata P.W.1 sustained injuries over her left hand and right cheek caused by sickle. Due to the above injuries P.W.1 lost conscious, he along with P.W.2 and L.W.4 K.Kristappa shifted P.W.1 to Government

Hospital, Penukonda and from there to Government hospital, Anantapuramu and from there to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment. During cross examination of P.W.2 the learned counsel for accused suggested to P.W.2 that there are disputes between her and accused in relation to property and in view of the same she is deposing falsehood which is denied by her and during cross examination of P.W.4 the learned counsel for accused suggested to P.W.4 that a galata took place between P.W.4 and accused in relation to family dispute of his 6 daughter and son of accused who are husband and wife which is denied by P.W.4.

It is therefore admittedly P.W.2 and P.W.4 are relatives to both P.W.1 and accused and they are also residents of same village. Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 and

P.W.4 who are residents of same village and relatives to accused and P.W.1 is quite probable immediately after the incident, and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.4 except putting suggestions to P.W.2 that she is speaking falsehood in view of disputes between their family and accused in relation to property and except putting suggestions to P.W.4 he is speaking falsehood against the accused in view of enmity between him and accused in relation to family dispute between his daughter and her husband who is elder son of accused which are denied by him

16. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 is quite clear, cogent, consistent and corroborative with each other with regard to P.W.1 staying away from accused along with their younger son (i.e.) P.W.3 and P.W.1 returning back to the house of accused at P. Roppala village and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 is quite clear, cogent and consistent with each other with regard to P.W.1 sustaining injuries over her left hand and right cheek caused with a sickle by the accused and due to injuries P.W.1 lost conscious, P.W.2 along with P.W.4 and L.W.4 K.Kristappa shifted P.W.1 to the hospital for treatment.

17. Prosecution also examined P.W.5 who is cited as one of the mediators for the observation of scene of offence and seizure of material object M.O.1. P.W.5 in his evidence categorically stated that on 4.10.2015 at about 10 A.M. P.w.1 visited the scene of offence in his presence and in the presence of L.W.8G.Subramanyam and seized a sickle which is marked as M.O.1 under the cover of scene observation- cum-seizurenama duly attested by him and L.W.8.

18. Prosecution also examined P.W.6 who is cited as Medical Officer. P.W.6 in her evidence stated that on 29.9.2015 at 2.50 P.M. she examined P.W.1 and found a laceration of 5 x 4 x 4 cm over left arm exposing nerves, 10x 5 x1 cm laceration over left arm just above to the above mentioned injury, 10 x 10 x 4 cm deep laceration over right jaw, fracture right humerous, fracture right ulna. During cross-examination of P.W.6 the learned counsel for accused suggested to P.W.6 7 that the above injuries could be possible when fallen on slabs from height of 10 feet which is denied by P.W.6.

19. The contention of learned counsel for the accused is that the ocular evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the ocular evidence of P.W.6 with regard to the injuries. Though P.W.1 did not specifically state about fracture of right humerous and fracture of right ulna, the Medical Officer who examined P.W.1 on 29-9-2015 at 2.50 P.M. categorically stated that P.W.1 sustained fracture of right humerous and fracture of right ulna said to be caused on 29.9.2015 due to assault.

Further during cross-examination of P.W.6 no suggestion is put to P.W.6 that P.W.1 did not sustain fracture of right humerous and fracture of right ulna or P.W.1 sustatined fracture of right humerous and fracture of right ulna not during the course of commission of offence. However sustaining of injuries by P.W.1 on 29.9.2015 is not disputed by the accused but, the contention of accused is that

P.W.1 sustained above injuries when she fell down on slabs from a height of 10 feet, a suggestion to that effect is also posed to Medical Officer for which the

Medical Officer stated that there is no associated contusions and dust over the injuries and also the margins of injuries are clear “cut” so the possibility of sustaining above injuries is very less when fallen on slabs from a height of 10 feet.

It is therefore admittedly there is no dust particles over the injuries and associated contusions to the injuries are also not found and further the margins of injuries sustained by P.W.1 are clear “cut”, as such possibility of sustaining above injuries when fallen from a height of 10 feet is very less. If really P.W.1 sustained above injuries when she fell down on slabs from a height 10 feet certainly there will be accumulation of dust over the injuries and also contusions to the injuries but the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are clear “cut injuries” which could be caused due to sharp edged hard object, on perusal of wound certificate of P.W.1(i.e.) Ex.P3 also categorically goes to show that the injuries sustained by P.W.1 are caused due to sharp edged hard object. If really P.w.1 sustained above injuries when fell down on heap of slabs certainly there must be blood stains over the heap of slabs over which

P.W.1 said to have fallen and sustained injuries and when any person fallen on the slabs from a height of 10 feet certainly the slabs will be broken and broken small pieces of slabs will also pricked inside the injuries but no piece of slab or dust 8 particles are found on the injuries, this itself clearly indicates that the above injuries could not be possible when fallen on heap of slabs from a height of 10feet. Further except putting above suggestion to Medical Officer and suggestion to P.W.1 that she sustained injuries when she fell down on black slabs from terrace by slipping, nothing is elicited either from P.W.1 and from other witnesses and even from P.W.5 in whose presence Investigating Officer observed the scene and seized M.O.1 and from Investigating Officer who visited scene of offence as to whether there are heap of slabs near the house of P.W.1 or not, if there are heap of slabs at how much distance those slabs are from the house of accused and P.W.1 and whether house of accused is a terrace house or not, whether there is steep wall to the said house or not,if there is heap of slabs whether there are blood stains over the heap of slabs or not whether it is observed by Investigating Officer or not, it is for the reasons best known to the accused. Further even during examination of accused under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. accused also did not state anything to support his contention as to how P.W.1 sustained injuries except pleading that he did not commit the offence. Further the contention of the accused is that this case is foisted against him in view of land dispute and during cross examination of P.W.1 it is categorically elicited that the accused is having only Ac.1.00 cents of landed property. If really

P.W.1 foisted this case against the accused to knock away the property and if really

P.W.3 who is none other than younger son of P.W.1 and accused deposed falsehood with an intent to knock away the property and P.W.4 is deposing falsehood in view of enmity with the accused in relation to family dispute between elder son of accused and his wife who is daughter of P.W.4 and P.W.2 is deposing falsehood in view of landed dispute, certainly accused would have examined his elder son who is staying at Somandepalli, Penukonda mandal to prove that accused is innocent and

P.W.1 foisted this case against the accused with an intent to knock away the property, P.W.2 is speaking falsehood in view of disputes between them in relation to landed property, P.W.3 is speaking falsehood against the accused to knock away the property and P.W.4 is speaking falsehood in view of enmity between him and accused in relation to family dispute between L.W.6 and her husband(ie.) elder son of accused but accused did not try to examine his elder son and during examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. when accused is asked whether he is intending to 9 examine any of the witnesses on his behalf. accused stated that there is no defence evidence on his behalf, it is for the reasons best known to the accused.

20. The contention of accused is that except examining P.W.1 to P.W.4 who are relatives to each other prosecution did not examine independent witnesses. A perusal of rough sketch Ex.P5 categorically goes to show that P.W.4 is neighbour of

P.W.1 and behind the house of accused there is a condemed house of accused and in front of the house of P.W.1/accused there is CC road and as per rough sketch there are no residential houses surrounding the house of P.W.1/ accused except the house of P.W.4. During cross examination of P.W.7 no suggestion is put to P.W.4 denying rough sketch and no suggestion is put to P.W.7 that there are residential houses surrounding the house of P.W.1 other than the house of P.W.4 as mentioned in the rough sketch. Further according to P.W.1 incident took place inside their house and there is no possibility for P.W.4 who is relative of P.W.1 and who is neighbourer of P.W.1 to go inside the house and to witness the incident, P.W.4 found P.W.1 when she came out of the house and she fell down on the road and evidence of P.W.2 is that on hearing the cries of P.W.1 she came out of the house and found P.W.1 on the road with injuries and they shifted P.W.1 to the hospital and their evidence need not be discarded on the mere reason that they are hear say witnesses and relatives.

21. Prosecution also examined P.W.7 who is Investigating Officer in this case and P.W.8 he who recorded statement of P.W.1 on 2-10-2015 at 10 P.M. at

Government General Hospital, Kurnool, P.W.8 in his evidence stated that on the instructions of P.W.8 he rushed to General Hospital, Kurnool on 2.10.2015 at 10.00

P.M., he secured P.W.1 and recorded statement of P.W.1 and he obtained signature of P.W.1 after readover the contents to her. P.W.7 who registered the case and investigated into, in his evidence stated that basing on statement of P.W.1 he registered the case on 3.10.2015 and investigated into. The contention of accused is that reasons for delay in registering the case is not properly mentioned by P.W.7.

A perusal of Ex.P1 Statement recorded by P.W.8 on 2.10.2015 at 10.00 P.M. goes to show that the offence took place on 29.9.2015 at 10.00 A.M. immediately after sustaining injuries P.W.1 lost conscious and regained conscious on 2.10.2015 morning on that day P.W.8 on the instructions of P.w.7 went to Government 10

General hospital, Kurnool from Roddam and recorded statement of P.W.1. A perusal of wound certificate of p.W.1(i.e.)Ex.P3 also goes to show that injured (i.e.)

P.W.1 was first seen by her on 29.9.2015 at 2.50 P.M. (i.e.) on the date of incident and she found injuries over the body of P.W.1. P.W.1 in her evidence categorically stated that immediately after sustaining injuries she lost conscious and regained conscious 3 days later at Government General Hospital, Kurnool, on that day she was examined by P.W.8, P.W.2 to P.W.4 are not direct eye witnesses who witnessed the offence and they are only hearsay witnesses who came to know about causing of injuries to her by the accused through P.W.1. It is therefore, accused causing injuries to P.W.1 came into light when P.W.1 regained conscious and spoken about the manner of commission of offence, due to that the delay in registering the case is occurred and in the present facts and circumstances of the case the delay in registering the case is not a fatal to the case of prosecution, though P.W.8 did not mention the reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant and column No.8 in F.I.R. (ie.) Ex.P4 is kept blank, the reason for reporting by the complainant is evident on record and nothing is elicited from P.W.6 Medical officer who examined P.W.1 on the date of incident that at the time of examination of

P.W.1 by P.W.6 P.W.1 is in conscious state and no suggestion is put to P.W.6 to that effect. It is therefore the delay in registering the case is properly explained and it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

22. It is therefore the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with evidence of

P.W.5 to P.W.7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 categorically proved that on 29.9.2015 at 10A.M. while P.W.1 is attending work in the house accused hacked P.W.1with a sickle for three times on her left hand and over right jaw and caused bleeding injuries to P.W.1 and accused is responsible for causing injuries to P.W.1.

23. In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the prosecution proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, hence, accused is convicted for the same under section 235(2) of Criminal

Procedure Code.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

11

When accused questioned about the quantum of sentence he submitted that he has to look after his daughter aged about 18 years and prayed pardon. Accused pleaded lenient view but he is not entitled because prosecution proved that accused committed the offence u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code, therefore, he is not entitled for lenient view.

In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence u/s 307 of Indian

Penal Code and he is convicted u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 years for the offence u/s 307 of Indian

Penal Code. M.O.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off u/s 428 Cr.P.C.

Accused is informed about his right of appeal against the judgment

before the Hon’ble District Court, Ananthapuramu. Accused reported that he

has no means to engage a counsel to prefer an appeal.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25th day of April, 2016.

Asst. Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for

Prosecution : Defence: P.W.1 Harijana Ramappagari Marekka None P.W.2 H.Padmakka P.W.3 Ramachandra P.W.4Narasimhappa P.W.5 G.Venkataramudu P.W.6 J.Joshna P.W.7 K.Dasthagiri P.W.8C.Narasimhulu 12

Exhibits marked for Prosecution: Ex.P1 Statement of P.W.1 dt.2.10.2015 Ex.P2 Scene observation and seizurenama Ex.P3 Wound certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P4 F.I.R. Ex.P5 Rough sketch

Defence: Nil Material objects M.O.1 Sickle

A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PENUKONDA

Present: Smt. C.R.Sumalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda.

Wednesday, the 3rd day of August, 2016.

O.S.87/2007

Between:- G.Ramdoss, S/o G. Rangappa, 68 years, Hindu, Retired employee, Door No.2/408, Gorantla, Gorantla Mandalam. …. Plaintiff

Vs.

K. Surya Prakash, S/o Rama Krishna Chari, 45 years, Hindu, Business, Door No.3/101, Gorantla, Gorantla mandalam. …Defendant

This suit coming on 25.7.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.D.Pakkera Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and Sri.B.Abubakar, Advocate for Defendant and having stood for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,72,560/- being the balance of principal and interest due on ‘A’ marked, ‘B’ marked, ‘C’ marked promissory notes dt.8.1.2005, 8.1.2005 and 9.1.2005 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.50,000/- in favour of Haritha Vijayalakshmi for Rs.48,000/-, in favour of

G.Parvathamma for Rs.49,000/- agreeing to repay with interest at 6% p.a.

Plaintiff paid Rs.48,000/- to Haritha Vijayalakshmi on 29.11.2007 and

Rs.49,000/- to G.Parvathamma on 29.11.2007. Haritha Vijayalakshmi and

Parvathamma made over the promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.1.2005 and executed ‘A’ promissory note payable to the plaintiff on demand with interest at Rs.0.50 Ps. Per Rs.100/- per month. The defendant borrowed

Rs.48,000/- on 8.1.2005 from G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi, daughter of 2 plaintiff, w/o K.Ravi Sankar of Gorantla and executed ‘B’ promissory note payable to G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi on demand with interest at Rs.0.50 Ps per 100/- per month. G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi wanted money for her expenses. The plaintiff paid Rs.48,000/- to G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi and

G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi made over the promissory note to the plaintiff by an endorsement dated 29.11.2007 and delivered possession of the promissory note to the plaintiff. The defendant borrowed Rs.49,000/- from

G.Parvathamma, wife of plaintiff, on 9.1.2005 and executed ‘C’ marked promissory note payable to the plaintiff on demand with interest at Rs.0.50

Ps per 100/- per month. G.Parvathamma received Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.11.2007 and made over the promissory note by executing an endorsement and delivered possession of the ‘C’ marked promissory note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff demanded the defendant to pay the amounts due under the promissory notes intimating about the endorsements made by

G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmi and G.Parvathamma in the name of plaintiff on 29.11.2007. The defendant did not choose to pay any amount towards any of the three promissory notes. The defendant in a very defiant manner asked the plaintiff to do whatever the plaintiff could do. Hence, the suit.

3.Denying the averments of the plaint the defendant filed written statement contending that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.1.2005 and the defendant never executed suit promissory note dt.8.1.2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. The defendant further contended that the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.48,000/- from G.Haritha Vijayalakshmamma and he never executed promissory note in favour of G.Haritha Vijayalakshmamma agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. and the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from G.Parvathamma on 9.1.2005 and the defendant never executed promissory note in favour of

G.Parvathamma agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. The 3 defendant further contended that the defendant is not aware that G.Haritha

Vijaya Lakshmamma received an amount of Rs.48,000/- from plaintiff on 29.11.2007 and made over the promissory note dt.8.1.2005 to the plaintiff on receipt of consideration of Rs.48,000/- and delivered possession of promissory note to the plaintiff and the defendant is not aware that

G.Parvathamma received an amount of Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.11.2007 and G.Parvathamma made over the promissory note to the plaintiff by executing an endorsement and delivered possession of promissory note. The defendant further contended that in the above suit the defendant was set exparte and exparte decree was passed against him, the plaintiff also filed E.P.4/2010 in this suit to realize decreetal amount, the defendant filed I.A.212/2010 in the suit i.e. O.S.87/2007 under section 5 of

Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 91 days and same was dismissed for not filing of medical certificate of defendant herein. Against the orders passed in I.A.212/2010 the defendant preferred a revision in

C.R.P.No.4307/2010 before Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, the

Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition on 8.7.2011 on payment of costs of

Rs.10,000/-, the Hon’ble High Court in its order dt.15.11.2010 in

C.R.P.No.4307/2010 passed interim stay of further proceedings in

E.P.4/2010 in O.S.87/2007 dt.15.11.2010 directing the petitioner i.e.

defendant herein to deposit 50% of decreetal amount together with costs and respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. As per the directions of Hon’ble High Court the defendant has deposited half of the decreetal amount with interest and costs i.e. an amount of Rs.1,24,487/- the same is withdrawn by the plaintiff. The defendant further submits that if the defendant succeeds in the above suit the plaintiff has to repay the amount of Rs.1,24,487/- with interest from the date of deposit till the date of payment. There is no cause of action for the suit and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4 4.Basing on the above pleadings, my predecessor has framed following issues for trial:

(i)Whether defendant borrowed Rs.50,000/- from plaintiff and executed suit promissory note agreeing to repay with interest at 6% p.a.?

(ii) Whether defendant borrowed Rs.48,000/- from G.Harita Vijaya

Lakshmamma and executed promissory note agreeing to repay with 24% p.a.?

(iii)Whether plaintiff paid this Rs.48,000/- to Smt.Haritha

Vijayalakshmamma, made endorsement dt.29.11.2007 and handed over promissory note in favour of plaintiff?

(iv)Whether G.Parvathamma received Rs.49,000/- from the plaintiff on 29.11.2007 and made over promissory note, endorsed the same on promissory note?

(v) Whether plaintiff is entitled to suit claim?

(vi) To what relief?

5. During the course of trial on behalf of plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and through him Ex.A1 Suit promissory note dt.8.1.05 for

Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, Ex.A2 Suit promissory note dt.8.1.2005 for Rs.48,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmamma, Ex.A3 Transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 made by G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmamma in favour of plaintiff,

Ex.A4 Suit promissory note dt.9.1.2005 for Rs.49,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of G.Parvathamma, Ex.A5 Transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 made by G.Parvathamma in favour of plaintiff are marked.

P.W.1 also got examined G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmamma as P.W.2,

G.Parvathamma as P.W.3 and one Dr.P.N.Satyanarayana Rao (P.W.4) who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1, A2, A3 and A4 and scribe of Ex.A3 and A5.

5

6. On behalf of defendant, defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and no documents are executed.

7. Heard arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendant.

8. Issues No.1 to 3: To substantiate case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 besides examining P.W.2 and P.W.3 who executed transfer endorsement Ex.A3 and

Ex.A5 in favour of the plaintiff respectively and P.W.4 who is one of the attestors of Ex.A1, A2 and A4 and scribe of Ex.A3 and A5. P.W.1 in his evidence categorically deposed that on 8.1.2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from him and executed suit promissory note (i.e.)

Ex.A1 agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 6% p.a. but the defendant did not pay any amount towards the amount due under promissory notes dt.8.1.2005. P.W.1 further stated that on 8.1.2005 the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.48,000/- from G.Harita Vijaya

Lakshmamma and executed a promissory note (i.e.) Ex.A2 in favour of

G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 6% p.a., as the said G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma is in need of money he paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- to P.W.2, P.W.2 has made over the promissory note (i.e.) Ex.A2 to him under transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 (i.e.) Ex.A3 and delivered possession of Ex.A2 to him. P.W.1 further stated that on 9.1.2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.49,000/- from his wife G.Parvathamma and the defendant executged promissory note (i.e.) Ex.A4 in favour of his wife agreeing to repay the same on demand with interest at 6% p.a., on 29.11.2007 she received an amount of Rs.49,000/- from him and made over the promissory note to him under transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007(i.e.) Ex.A5, delivered the possession of promissory note to him. P.W.1 further deposed that he also intimated 6 about the transfer endorsement made by P.W.2 and 3 in his favour and he demanded the defendant to pay the amount due under promissory notes (i.e.) Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 but the defendant did not choose to pay any amount towards the amount due under Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A4. P.W.1 further deposed that an exparte decree was passed against the defendant, the defendant made an application to set aside the exparte decree, the same was dismissed by this Court on that the defendant preferred revision before

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P. No.4307/2010 the Hon’ble

High Court in C.R.P.No.4307/2010 directed the defendant to deposit half of the decreetal amount, the defendant has deposited an amount of

Rs.50,000/- on 3.3.2011 and an amount of Rs.74,487/- on 18.3.2011 in this

Court. He also filed cheque petition in E.A.49/2011 in E.P.4/2010 in

O.S.87/2007 and received an amount of Rs.1,24,487/- on 29.4.2011.

9. To support the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.1 also got examined his daughter G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma, P.W.2 corroborated the evidence of

P.W.1 in all material aspects and stated that on 8.1.2005 the defendant approached P.W.1 for loan, P.W.1 lent an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant in turn the defendant executed promissory note (i.e.) Ex.A1 for

Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a., as the defendant is in need of another Rs.50,000/- the defendant requested to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as she is having only Rs.48,000/- she gave

Rs.48,000/- to the defendant, on the same day the defendant executed a promissory note for Rs.48,000/- in her favour (i.e.) Ex.A2 and with his own handwriting agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. P.W.2 further deposed that in spite of demand the defendant did not pay any amount towards the discharge of amount under Ex.A1 and A2 as she is in need of money she approached her father i.e. P.W.1, P.W.1 paid Rs.48,000/- to her, on receipt of amount of Rs.48,000/- she transferred promissory note dt.8.1.2005 for Rs.48,000/- executed by her favour i.e. Ex.A2 in favour of 7 her father by making transfer endorsement on 29.11.2007 on the back of

Ex.A2.

10. P.W.1 also got examined P.W.3. To support the evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.1 also got examined his wife, G.Parvathamma, P.W.3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 in all material aspects and stated that on 9.1.2005 the defendant approached her for loan of Rs.50,000/- on 9.1.2005, as she is having only Rs.49,000, she lent Rs.49,000/- to the defendant, defendant executed a promissory note on the same day for Rs.49,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. P.W.3 further stated that the defendnat did not pay any amount towards discharge of promissory note dt.9.1.2005 for Rs.49,000/- i.e. Ex.A4 and as she is in need of money she received an amount of Rs.49,000/- from her husband on 29.11.2007 and made over Ex.A4 in the name of the plaintiff.

11. P.W.1 also got examined P.W.4 Dr.P.N.Satyanarayana Rao who is none other than one of the attestors of Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A4 and scribe of

Ex.A3 and Ex.A5, P.W.4 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 in all material aspects with regard to the defendant borrowing an amount of

Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.1.2005 and defendant executing Ex.A1 in favour of P.W.1 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. in his presence and in the presence of one Kullayappa, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and the defendant himself scribed Ex.A1. P.W.4 also deposed that on the same day the defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.48,000/- from P.W.2 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. and executed Ex.A2 in favour of

P.W.2 with his own hand writing, he and Kullayappa attested Ex.A2. P.W.4 also deposed that on 9.1.2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.49,000/- from P.W.3 promissing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. and executed promissory note i.e. Ex.A4 in favour of P.W.3 with his own hand writing in his presence and in the presence of Kullayappa but attested 8

Ex.A4. During cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 nothing is elicited from

P.W.1 to P.W.4 to disprove their evidence except putting suggestions denied by them.

12. To rebut the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.3 and to support the contention of the defendant in his written statement the defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and no documents are exhibited. During cross examination of D.W.1 D.W.1 candidly conceded that he is having money transactions with the plaintiff and his wife and he has no enmity with the plaintiff and with P.W.4 and P.W.4 is financially well. If it is so there is no necessity for the plaintiff to file the suit against the defendant and there is no necessity to P.W.4 to speak falsehood against the defendant. Further except vaguely denying borrowing of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff on 8.1.2005 on execution of promissory note i.e. Ex.A1 in favour of plaintiff and denying borrowing of Rs.48,000/- from G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma on 8.1.2005 and executed on Ex.A2 in favour of G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma and borrowing of Rs.49,000/- from P.W.3 on 29.11.2007 and execution of

Ex.A4 in favour of P.W.3 defendant did not specifically state whether the signatures contained on those documents are of his signatures, except stating that on 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 he was not in Gorantla. The contents of written statement and evidence of D.w.1 is silent as to whether the defendant was true that on 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 and that he did not mention the same in his written statement in his chief affidavit filed in lieu of his chief examination. It is for the reasons best known to the defendant.

There is no whisper in the contents of written statement that the defendant is not in Gorantla from 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005. There is no either oral or documentary evidence to prove that from 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 the defendant was not in Gorantla village and no villager of Gorantla was examined to prove that the defendant was not in Gorantla from 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005. A preview defendant No.1 is not present 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 9 at Gorantla certainly the defendant would have stated that 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 he was not in Gorantla and went to . Absolutely there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove that from 7.1.2005 to 10.1.2005 defendant was not at Gorantla. Absolutely there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of defendant to prove that the contention of the defendant in his written statement. In the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 that on

Ex.A1, A2, A4 categorically proved that on 8.1.2005 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. and defendant executed Ex.A1 in favour of P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.4 and another attestor by name Kullayappa on the same day the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.48,000/- from P.W.2 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 6% p.a. and defendant executed Ex.A2 in favour of P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.4 and Kullayappa and defendant also borrowed an amount of Rs.49,000/- from P.W.3 on 9.1.2005 agreeing to repay the same at interest at 6% p.a. and defendant executed Ex.A4 in favour of P.W.3 in the presence of P.W.4 and Kullayappa. Accordingly issues 1 to 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

13. Issues 4 and 5: P.W.1 stated that on 29.11.2007 as P.W.2 is in need of money he paid an amount of Rs.48,000/- to her, P.W.2 transferred

Ex.A2 in his favour and executed transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 i.e.

Ex.A3 and delivered possession of Ex.A2. P.W.1 further stated that on 29.11.2007 P.W.3 received an amount of Rs.49,000/- from him and executed transfer endorsement i.e. Ex.A5 and delivered possession of Ex.A4 to him, he demanded the defendant to repay the amount due under Ex.A2 and A4 intimating about the transfer endorsement i.e. Ex.A3 and A5 by

P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively in his favour. But the defendant did not choose to pay any amount towards amount due under Ex.A2 and A4. P.W.2 stated that she demanded the defendant to repay the amount due under promissory note (i.e.) Ex.A2 executed in her favour but the defendant did 10 not choose to pay any amount towards discharge of amount due under

Ex.A2, as she is in need of money she approached P.W.1, P.W.1 paid

Rs.48,000/- on 29.11.2007 to her and that she has transferred Ex.A2 in favour of P.W.1 and made an endorsement to that effect. P.W.3 also stated that in spite of demand the defendant did not pay any amount towards discharge of amount due under Ex.A4 and as she is in need of money she received Rs.49,000/- from P.W.1 on 29.11.2007 and made over the promissory note executed by the defendant i.e. Ex.A4 in the name of P.W.1 under Ex.A5. P.W.4 who is cited as scribe of Ex.A4 and A5 also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 in all material aspects with regard to plaintiff paying an amount of Rs.48,000/- to P.W.2 on 29.11.2007 and P.W.2 executing the transfer endorsement Ex.A3 which is scribed by him and plaintiff paying an amount of Rs.49,000/- to P.W.3 on 9.1.2005 and executing the transfer endorsement i.e. Ex.A5 which is scribed by him. It is therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 coupled with Ex.A3 and A5 categorically proved that on 29.11.2007 P.W.2 received an amount of

Rs.48,000/- from the plaintiff and executed transfer endorsement Ex.A4 in favour of P.W.1 and on 29.11.2007 P.W.3 received an amount of

Rs.49,000/- from P.W.1 and executed Ex.A5 in favour of P.W.1 proved that and that the plaintiff is entitled to claim suit amount.

14. The evidence of P.W.1 is that as per the directions of Hon’ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.R.P. No.4307/2010 the defendant has deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 3.3.2011 and an amount of

Rs.74,487/- on 18.3.2011 in this Court, he also filed cheque petition in

E.A.49/2011 in E.P.4/2010 in O.S.87/2007 and received an amount of

Rs.1,24,487/- on 29.4.2011. A perusal of orders in C.R.P. No.4307/2010 goes to show that the defendant is directed to pay 50% of decreetal amount together with interest and costs, as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court in C.R.P. No.4307/2010 defendant paid Rs.1,24,487/- out of which 11

Rs.86,280/- is towards 50% of decreetal amount, Rs.11,507/- is towards costs and Rs.34,545/- is towards interest. It is therefore, as the defendant paid 50% of decreetal amount together with interest and costs the defendant is liable to pay remaining 50% of decreetal amount, accordingly this issue is answered.

15. Issue No. 6:In the result, Suit is decreed for Rs.74,773/- with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till date of realization on Rs.86,280/-.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 3rd day of August, 2016.

Senior Civil Judge,

Penukonda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendants: P.W.1 G.Ramdoss D.W.1K.Surya Prakash P.W.2 G.Harita Vijaya Lakshmamma P.W.3 G.Parvathamma P.W.4 Dr.P.N.Satyanarayana Rao

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff Ex.A1 Suit promissory note dt.8.1.05 for Rs.50,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff Ex.A2 Suit promissory note dt.8.1.2005 for Rs.48,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmamma Ex.A3 Transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 made by G.Haritha Vijaya Lakshmamma in favour of plaintiff Ex.A4 Suit promissory note dt.9.1.2005 for Rs.49,000/- executed by the defendant in favour of G.Parvathamma Ex.A5 Transfer endorsement dt.29.11.2007 made by G.Parvathamma in favour of plaintiff

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant Nil

S.C.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PENUKONDA

Present: - Smt. C.R.Sumalatha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Saturday, the 7th day of May, 2016

Sessions Case No.221/2014

State by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S.

Name of the accused:

1.K.Venkatesh, 27 years, S/o Kongapalli Govindu, weaver, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town(A1)

2.Shaik Imran, 20 years, S/o Late Mahaboob Peera, Business, Pallavihar, Dharmavaram town. (A2)

3.K.Haseena, 25 years, w/o K. Venkatesh, D/o Shamiulla, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town (A3).

4.T.Baba Fakruddin,21 years, S/o Shamiulla Khan, Carpenter, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town (A4).

5.Madhara Anji @ Ramanji @ Ramanjineyulu, 23 years, S/o M. Anjineyulu, weaver, Erragunta, Dharmavaram town (A5).

Offence: Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity punishable u/s 398 of Indian Penal Code. Making preparation to commit dacoity punishable u/s 399 of Indian Penal Code. Being one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity punishable u/s 402 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Judge: - Not guilty.

Result:- In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC thereby, they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.PC for the offences U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC. A2 is ordered to be released if he is not required in any other case. A1, A3 to A5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A1, A3 to

A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As there is no property a separate order for property is not passed.

The prosecution was conducted by Sri D.Nagaraju, Additional Public

Prosecutor, Penukonda and Sri G.Dayananda Reddy, Advocate on behalf of

Accused.

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sessions case was committed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Penukonda, in P.R.C.No.18/2014 and it was made over to this Court by the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, dated 3-5-2014.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S., laid charge sheet for the offences U/sec’s 398,399,402 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief accusation against the accused are that this is a case of preparation to commit High way dacoity that occurred on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. at culvert

No.416/2 between Haripuram to Ammavaripalli, on Bangalore-Hyderabad N.H.44 road wherein A1 to A5 while lurking at culvert No.416/2 on Bangalore-Hyderabad

N.H.44 were arrested by L.W.16, Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle while they were making preparation for committing a Highway dacoity and found A3 was standing on the road margin and flashing torchlight and trying to stop the lorries, behind her A1, A2, A4 and A5 were found by covering their faces with monkey caps. They tried to stop the jeeps thinking as common passengers vehicle and waiting for an opportunity to commit dacoity. When the accused are interrogated by L.W.16 in the presence of P.W.1 P.Ramachandra and P.W.2 D.Bayapa Reddy they confessed about committing of Highway dacoity at Kothacheruvu bridge on

Bangalore-Hyderabad NH44 road which was occurred on 14.10.2013 relating to

Cr.no.137/13 for the offence u/s 395 of I.P.C. of Penukonda P.S., They also confessed that they have committed several similar High way dacoities in

Anantapur district. L.W.16 seized one cell phone pertaining to Cr.no.137/2013 for the offence u/s 395 of Indian Penal Code of Penukonda P.S. and 3 cell phones, cash of Rs.1,500/- which were robbed from the drivers relating to various offences and also seized two hand roomals, one stick, two chilly powder packets, 3 monkey caps, 2 hand grip ropes one iron rod, one knife and two torchlights collected by accused as part of their preparation for the purpose of committing High way dacoity, L.W.16 seized the same under a cover of mahazarnama in the presence of P.W.s 1 and 2, dt.21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. Hence, the case.

3. Basing on the report of PW1, a case in Cr.No.141/2013 for the offence punishable U/sec’s 398, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code was registered and investigated into. Hence the case.

3

4. This case was taken on file U/sec’s 398, 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code against A1 to A5.

5. On appearance of A1 to A5, they were examined U/s 228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation, heard both sides, charge U/sec’s 398, 399, 402 of Indian

Penal Code, is framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

for the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, accordingly defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Accused A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offences

U/sec’s 398, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

10, Point: To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P1. Among them P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of case property. P.W.3 to P.W.5 are Asst.

Sub-Inspectors of police, P.W.6 to P.W.8 and P.W.10 and P.W.11 are police constables who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.9 and P.W.12 are the

Investigating Officers in this case.

11. P.W.1 who is cited as one of the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of case property in his evidence deposed that on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30

A.M. he went to Duddebanda cross, by that time accused were found with

Inspector of Police and his staff, in his presence police seized cell phones from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama. Prosecution also got 4 examined P.W.2 who is also cited as one of the mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property, P.W.2 in his evidence stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30 A.M. he went to Duddebanda cross along with P.W.1, by that time some persons were in the custody of police, police obtained his signature on the panchanama and he cannot say whether police apprehended A1 to A5 and seized stolen property from their possession. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is silent as to why they went to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30 A.M. and whether police called them to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. or not. If P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30A.M. at the request of police who asked them to come to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. Further during the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 categorically stated that due to darkness he cannot say which of the persons were enquired by the police, Inspector of Police and constables showed cell phones to him thereafter he and P.W.2 signed on panchanama. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 it is manifest that at the time he found accused on 21-10-2013 at 5.30 A.M. along with police at Duddebanda cross it was dark and he could not say which of the persons were enquired by the police and evidence of P.W.1 is silent as to from whose possession cell phones are seized and police arrest accused 1 to5 in his presence.

P.W.2 never identified the accused as the persons who were in the possession of police on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. at Duddebanda cross and P.W.2 in his evidence never stated that police seized material objects (ie.) stolen property from the possession of accused and arrested accused in his presence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12. Prosecution also examined P.W.3 to PW.5 who are Asst.Sub-Inspectors of police who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 4.30A.M. they went to Ammavarupalli, there they saw a lady with a torch light in her hand trying to stop the vehicles, on seeing the police jeep the said woman and four or five persons tried to run away, the Inspector of Police,

Sub-Inspector of Police and his staff apprehended A1 to A5. P.W.3 further stted that Inspector of Police sent Head Constable and other constables to Ammavarupalli to secure mediators, they brought P.W.1 and P.W.2, Inspector of Police enquired A1 to A5 separately and seized four cell phones and cash of Rs.3,000/- from the 5 possession of accused under cover of mahazar. P.W.4 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. they proceeded to Duddebanda, there they found a woman focusing torch light and tried to stop the vehicles, they also found four other accused at that place, they apprehended all the accused, on the instructions of Inspector of Police he went to Ammavarupalli and brought P.W.1 and P.w.2 as mediators and Inspector of

Police seized monkey caps, stick and knife from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. P.W.5 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. they went to

Duddebanda, there they found a woman focusing torch light and trying to stop the vehicles, they apprehended all the accused on the instructions of Inspector of Police he went to Ammavarupalli and brought P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators and

Inspector of Police seized monkey caps, stick and knife from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. The evidence of P.W.3 to 5 is quite contradictory with each other with regard to the place where they found a lady focusing a torch light and also the other accused and apprehending all the accused and P.W.4/P.W.5 or Head constable and other constables bringing P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators on the instructions of Inspector of Police and seizure of cell phone, cash of Rs.3,000/-, monkey caps, sticks and knife from the possession of the accused. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 is not minor discrepancies to be ignored and it discredits the evidence of P.W.3 to 5.

13. Prosecution also examined P.W.6 to 8, 10 and 11 who are police constables who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that on 21-10-2013 at 4.30 A.M. he along with other staff accompanied Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police and proceeded to culvert situated in between

Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found a woman with a torch light trying to stop vehicles, they also found four persons covered their faces with mask at a distance of 50 yards and on seeing the police jeep they tried to run away, they apprehended A1 to A5, Head constable and police constable went to Ammavarupalli village and secured two persons as mediators, in their presence Inspector of Police examined each of the accused and seized knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500/- and Nokia cell phone from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama.

6

14. P.W.7 stated that on 21-10-2013 on the instructions of Sub-Inspecotr of police he went to police station and from there he along with other staff accompanied Inspector of police and Sub-Inspector of police and proceeded near a bridge in between Ammavarupalli and Haripuram, there they found accused, on seeing them accused tried to run away, they apprehended the accused. Sub-

Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police interrogated each of the accused, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli village, Inspector of Police seized four cell phones, cash of Rs.1500/-, two torch lights, monkey caps and mirchi packets from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama. P.W.8 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. he along with other staff on the instructions of Inspector of Police he and other staff reached Penukonda P.S. and all of them went to culvert in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found A3 focussing torch light and trying to stop vehicles, they also found other accused at some distance, they apprehended all the accused, Inspector of Police interrogated each of the accused and seized cell phones, cash, chilli powder packets, iron rods, handkerchiefs, monkey caps and knife from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and in their presence panchanama was prepared. Thereafter they brought the accused to

Penukonda police station.

15. P.w.10 stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 4.30 A.M. on the instructions of Inspector of police he along with other staff accompanied P.W.9 and P.W.12 and they went to Duddebanda on seeing the police vehicle some of the persons at

Duddebanda tried to skulk away, they caught hold accused, P.W.12 questioned each of the accused separately later they returned back to police station, on the instructions of P.W.12 HC 597 secured P.W.1 and 2 as mediators, again accused are examined in the presence of mediators. P.W.11 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30

A.m. on the instructions of P.W.12 he along with other staff accompanied PW.9 and

P.W.12 to Duddebanda cross, there they found one lady holding a torch light and four persons hiding themselves in bushes and on seeing police they tried to skulk away, they caught hold the accused and returned back to police station along with accused thereafter, on the instructions of P.W.9 he along with Danunjayababu Head

Constable went to Ammavarupalli village and secured presence of P.W.2 and 7 another person in the presence of mediators P.W.9 and PW.12 questioned each of the accused separately and arrested the accused.

16. P.W.6 to 7 in their evidence stated that they proceeded to the culvert situated in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found the accused, they apprehended the accused. Whereas P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 stated that they went to Duddebanda cross there they found the accused, P.W.8 stated that they went to culvert in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli. Further P.W.6 in his evidence stated that one Head constable and Police constable went to

Ammavarupalli and secured mediators in the presence of mediators Inspector of

Police seized knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500 and Nokia cell phone. Whereas

P.W.7 stated that they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and on interrogation Inspector of Police seized four cell phones, cash of Rs.1,500/-, two torch lights, monkey caps, mirchi packets. Whereas P.W.8 stated that Inspector of

Police seized cell phones, cash, chilli powder, iron rods, handkerchiefs, monkey caps and knife from the possession of the accused, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and in their presence panchanama was prepared.

P.W.7 and P.W.8 did not specifically state who went to Ammavarupalli and secured mediators. The evidence of P.W.6 to 8 is quite contradictory with each other with regard to seizure of knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500/- and a Nokia cell phone, two torch lights, monkeycaps from the possession of accused. Whereas

P.W.s10 and 11 stated that after arrest the accused at Duddebanda cross they returned back to the police station, P.W.11 stated that on the instructions of P.W.9 he along with one Dhanunjayababu secured P.W.2 and another persons in the presence of mediators P.W.9 and P.W.12 questioned each of the accused and arrested the accused, P.W.10 stated that on the instructions of P.W.12 HC597

P.W.1 and 2 as mediators. Inspector of police again examined the accused in the presence of mediators. The said Dhanunjayababu and HC597 are not cited as one of the witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

17. There are several contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.W.6 to 8, 10 and 11 with regard to the place of arrest of the accused, seizure of material objects from the possession of the accused in the presence of 8

P.W.1 and 2 at the place of arrest and securing of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators through Danunjayababu and HC597.

18. The prosecution also examined P.W.9 the then Sub-Inspector of police,

Penukonda P.S., P.W.9 in his evidence stated that he assisted P.W.2 in arresting the accused, on the instructions of P.W.12 he registered this case against the accused and submitted copies of F.I.R. to the concerned and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet in this case. Except that P.W.9 did not state anything about he along with other staff accompanying P.W.12 to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M., there they found the accused trying to stop the vehicles, they apprehended the accused and seized property from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, P.W.12 stated that on 21.10.2013 during the course of investigation pertaining to the crime 137/2013 he received credible information about the accused, immediately he proceeded to Ammavarupalli village, there he found A1 to A5 armed with deadly weapons covering their faces with mask and trying to stop the vehicle with an intent to assault lorry drivers, he along with his staff arrested A1 to A5, he secured P.W.1 and P.W.2 through P.W.4 and P.W.11, in the presence of mediators. He interrogated A1 to A5 separately, accused confessed about stopping of lorries in the high way and assaulting lorry drivers and committing theft of cash and cell phones and on search he found knifes, cell phone, cash, handkerchiefs, chilli powder, monkey caps, torch lights under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above mediators and instructed P.W.9 to register a separate crime basing on the mahazarnama, later he received copy of F.I.R. in

Cr.no.141/2013 for the offence u/s 398, 399 and 402 of I.P.C. Later P.W.9 produced case property before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Penukonda in

Cr.No.137/2013.

19. There are several contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 with regard to place of arrest of accused securing of mediators through P.W.4 and P.W.11 and seizure of Material objects from the possession of accused. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 are not minor discrepancies to be ignored and it goes to the root of the case and it discredidts the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12. It is therefore absolutely there is no 9 cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove the case of prosecution. In view of above discussion it could be safely held that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC thereby, they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.PC for the offences U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC. A2 is ordered to be released if he is not required in any other case. A1, A3 to A5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A1, A3 to

A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As there is no property a separate order for property is not passed.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of May, 2016.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1 P.Ramachandra None P.W.2D.Bayapa Reddy P.W.3 H.Md.Saleem Basha P.W.4 B.V.P. Raju P.W.5 K.Sivasankar P.W.6 Jayaramulu naik P.W.7 Ramanjineyulu P.W.8 Renuka Devi P.W.9S.Sreeram Sreenivas P.W.10 Maruthi P.W.11 M.Kumar P.W.12 I.Ramakrishna

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1Relevant portion in page No.26 of -Nil- In mahazarnama

Material Objects marked

Nil A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, PENUKONDA

Present: - Smt. C.R.Sumalatha, Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Saturday, the 7th day of May, 2016

Sessions Case No.221/2014

State by: Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S.

Name of the accused:

1.K.Venkatesh, 27 years, S/o Kongapalli Govindu, weaver, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town(A1)

2.Shaik Imran, 20 years, S/o Late Mahaboob Peera, Business, Pallavihar, Dharmavaram town. (A2)

3.K.Haseena, 25 years, w/o K. Venkatesh, D/o Shamiulla, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town (A3).

4.T.Baba Fakruddin,21 years, S/o Shamiulla Khan, Carpenter, Lonukota street, Dharmavaram town (A4).

5.Madhara Anji @ Ramanji @ Ramanjineyulu, 23 years, S/o M. Anjineyulu, weaver, Erragunta, Dharmavaram town (A5).

Offence: Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity punishable u/s 398 of Indian Penal Code. Making preparation to commit dacoity punishable u/s 399 of Indian Penal Code. Being one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity punishable u/s 402 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accused: Not guilty

Finding of the Judge: - Not guilty.

Result:- In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC thereby, they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.PC for the offences U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC. A2 is ordered to be released if he is not required in any other case. A1, A3 to A5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A1, A3 to

A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As there is no property a separate order for property is not passed.

The prosecution was conducted by Sri D.Nagaraju, Additional Public

Prosecutor, Penukonda and Sri G.Dayananda Reddy, Advocate on behalf of

Accused.

2

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sessions case was committed by learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Penukonda, in P.R.C.No.18/2014 and it was made over to this Court by the proceedings of the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu, dated 3-5-2014.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Penukonda P.S., laid charge sheet for the offences U/sec’s 398,399,402 of Indian Penal Code.

The brief accusation against the accused are that this is a case of preparation to commit High way dacoity that occurred on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. at culvert

No.416/2 between Haripuram to Ammavaripalli, on Bangalore-Hyderabad N.H.44 road wherein A1 to A5 while lurking at culvert No.416/2 on Bangalore-Hyderabad

N.H.44 were arrested by L.W.16, Inspector of Police, Penukonda Circle while they were making preparation for committing a Highway dacoity and found A3 was standing on the road margin and flashing torchlight and trying to stop the lorries, behind her A1, A2, A4 and A5 were found by covering their faces with monkey caps. They tried to stop the jeeps thinking as common passengers vehicle and waiting for an opportunity to commit dacoity. When the accused are interrogated by L.W.16 in the presence of P.W.1 P.Ramachandra and P.W.2 D.Bayapa Reddy they confessed about committing of Highway dacoity at Kothacheruvu bridge on

Bangalore-Hyderabad NH44 road which was occurred on 14.10.2013 relating to

Cr.no.137/13 for the offence u/s 395 of I.P.C. of Penukonda P.S., They also confessed that they have committed several similar High way dacoities in

Anantapur district. L.W.16 seized one cell phone pertaining to Cr.no.137/2013 for the offence u/s 395 of Indian Penal Code of Penukonda P.S. and 3 cell phones, cash of Rs.1,500/- which were robbed from the drivers relating to various offences and also seized two hand roomals, one stick, two chilly powder packets, 3 monkey caps, 2 hand grip ropes one iron rod, one knife and two torchlights collected by accused as part of their preparation for the purpose of committing High way dacoity, L.W.16 seized the same under a cover of mahazarnama in the presence of P.W.s 1 and 2, dt.21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. Hence, the case.

3. Basing on the report of PW1, a case in Cr.No.141/2013 for the offence punishable U/sec’s 398, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code was registered and investigated into. Hence the case.

3

4. This case was taken on file U/sec’s 398, 399, 402 of Indian Penal Code against A1 to A5.

5. On appearance of A1 to A5, they were examined U/s 228 of Cr.P.C by explaining the accusation, heard both sides, charge U/sec’s 398, 399, 402 of Indian

Penal Code, is framed against A1 to A5, read over and explained to the accused, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, A1 to A5 are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

for the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence, accordingly defence evidence is closed.

8. Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

for the accused.

9. Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the Accused A1 to A5 are found guilty for the offences

U/sec’s 398, 399 and 402 of Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt?

10, Point: To prove the case of prosecution, prosecution got examined P.W.1 to

P.W.12 and got marked Ex.P1. Among them P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of case property. P.W.3 to P.W.5 are Asst.

Sub-Inspectors of police, P.W.6 to P.W.8 and P.W.10 and P.W.11 are police constables who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.9 and P.W.12 are the

Investigating Officers in this case.

11. P.W.1 who is cited as one of the mediators for arrest of the accused and seizure of case property in his evidence deposed that on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30

A.M. he went to Duddebanda cross, by that time accused were found with

Inspector of Police and his staff, in his presence police seized cell phones from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama. Prosecution also got 4 examined P.W.2 who is also cited as one of the mediators for the arrest of accused and seizure of case property, P.W.2 in his evidence stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30 A.M. he went to Duddebanda cross along with P.W.1, by that time some persons were in the custody of police, police obtained his signature on the panchanama and he cannot say whether police apprehended A1 to A5 and seized stolen property from their possession. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is silent as to why they went to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at about 5.30 A.M. and whether police called them to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. or not. If P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30A.M. at the request of police who asked them to come to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. Further during the cross examination of P.W.1, P.W.1 categorically stated that due to darkness he cannot say which of the persons were enquired by the police, Inspector of Police and constables showed cell phones to him thereafter he and P.W.2 signed on panchanama. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 it is manifest that at the time he found accused on 21-10-2013 at 5.30 A.M. along with police at Duddebanda cross it was dark and he could not say which of the persons were enquired by the police and evidence of P.W.1 is silent as to from whose possession cell phones are seized and police arrest accused 1 to5 in his presence.

P.W.2 never identified the accused as the persons who were in the possession of police on 21.10.2013 at 5.30 A.M. at Duddebanda cross and P.W.2 in his evidence never stated that police seized material objects (ie.) stolen property from the possession of accused and arrested accused in his presence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

12. Prosecution also examined P.W.3 to PW.5 who are Asst.Sub-Inspectors of police who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.3 in his evidence stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 4.30A.M. they went to Ammavarupalli, there they saw a lady with a torch light in her hand trying to stop the vehicles, on seeing the police jeep the said woman and four or five persons tried to run away, the Inspector of Police,

Sub-Inspector of Police and his staff apprehended A1 to A5. P.W.3 further stted that Inspector of Police sent Head Constable and other constables to Ammavarupalli to secure mediators, they brought P.W.1 and P.W.2, Inspector of Police enquired A1 to A5 separately and seized four cell phones and cash of Rs.3,000/- from the 5 possession of accused under cover of mahazar. P.W.4 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. they proceeded to Duddebanda, there they found a woman focusing torch light and tried to stop the vehicles, they also found four other accused at that place, they apprehended all the accused, on the instructions of Inspector of Police he went to Ammavarupalli and brought P.W.1 and P.w.2 as mediators and Inspector of

Police seized monkey caps, stick and knife from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. P.W.5 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. they went to

Duddebanda, there they found a woman focusing torch light and trying to stop the vehicles, they apprehended all the accused on the instructions of Inspector of Police he went to Ammavarupalli and brought P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators and

Inspector of Police seized monkey caps, stick and knife from the possession of accused under cover of panchanama. The evidence of P.W.3 to 5 is quite contradictory with each other with regard to the place where they found a lady focusing a torch light and also the other accused and apprehending all the accused and P.W.4/P.W.5 or Head constable and other constables bringing P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators on the instructions of Inspector of Police and seizure of cell phone, cash of Rs.3,000/-, monkey caps, sticks and knife from the possession of the accused. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 is not minor discrepancies to be ignored and it discredits the evidence of P.W.3 to 5.

13. Prosecution also examined P.W.6 to 8, 10 and 11 who are police constables who assisted P.W.9 and P.W.12. P.W.6 in his evidence stated that on 21-10-2013 at 4.30 A.M. he along with other staff accompanied Inspector of Police and Sub-Inspector of Police and proceeded to culvert situated in between

Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found a woman with a torch light trying to stop vehicles, they also found four persons covered their faces with mask at a distance of 50 yards and on seeing the police jeep they tried to run away, they apprehended A1 to A5, Head constable and police constable went to Ammavarupalli village and secured two persons as mediators, in their presence Inspector of Police examined each of the accused and seized knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500/- and Nokia cell phone from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama.

6

14. P.W.7 stated that on 21-10-2013 on the instructions of Sub-Inspecotr of police he went to police station and from there he along with other staff accompanied Inspector of police and Sub-Inspector of police and proceeded near a bridge in between Ammavarupalli and Haripuram, there they found accused, on seeing them accused tried to run away, they apprehended the accused. Sub-

Inspector of Police and Inspector of Police interrogated each of the accused, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli village, Inspector of Police seized four cell phones, cash of Rs.1500/-, two torch lights, monkey caps and mirchi packets from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama. P.W.8 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M. he along with other staff on the instructions of Inspector of Police he and other staff reached Penukonda P.S. and all of them went to culvert in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found A3 focussing torch light and trying to stop vehicles, they also found other accused at some distance, they apprehended all the accused, Inspector of Police interrogated each of the accused and seized cell phones, cash, chilli powder packets, iron rods, handkerchiefs, monkey caps and knife from the possession of the accused under cover of panchanama, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and in their presence panchanama was prepared. Thereafter they brought the accused to

Penukonda police station.

15. P.w.10 stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 4.30 A.M. on the instructions of Inspector of police he along with other staff accompanied P.W.9 and P.W.12 and they went to Duddebanda on seeing the police vehicle some of the persons at

Duddebanda tried to skulk away, they caught hold accused, P.W.12 questioned each of the accused separately later they returned back to police station, on the instructions of P.W.12 HC 597 secured P.W.1 and 2 as mediators, again accused are examined in the presence of mediators. P.W.11 stated that on 21.10.2013 at 4.30

A.m. on the instructions of P.W.12 he along with other staff accompanied PW.9 and

P.W.12 to Duddebanda cross, there they found one lady holding a torch light and four persons hiding themselves in bushes and on seeing police they tried to skulk away, they caught hold the accused and returned back to police station along with accused thereafter, on the instructions of P.W.9 he along with Danunjayababu Head

Constable went to Ammavarupalli village and secured presence of P.W.2 and 7 another person in the presence of mediators P.W.9 and PW.12 questioned each of the accused separately and arrested the accused.

16. P.W.6 to 7 in their evidence stated that they proceeded to the culvert situated in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli, there they found the accused, they apprehended the accused. Whereas P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 stated that they went to Duddebanda cross there they found the accused, P.W.8 stated that they went to culvert in between Haripuram and Ammavarupalli. Further P.W.6 in his evidence stated that one Head constable and Police constable went to

Ammavarupalli and secured mediators in the presence of mediators Inspector of

Police seized knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500 and Nokia cell phone. Whereas

P.W.7 stated that they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and on interrogation Inspector of Police seized four cell phones, cash of Rs.1,500/-, two torch lights, monkey caps, mirchi packets. Whereas P.W.8 stated that Inspector of

Police seized cell phones, cash, chilli powder, iron rods, handkerchiefs, monkey caps and knife from the possession of the accused, they secured two elderly persons from Ammavarupalli and in their presence panchanama was prepared.

P.W.7 and P.W.8 did not specifically state who went to Ammavarupalli and secured mediators. The evidence of P.W.6 to 8 is quite contradictory with each other with regard to seizure of knives, chilli powder, cash of Rs.1,500/- and a Nokia cell phone, two torch lights, monkeycaps from the possession of accused. Whereas

P.W.s10 and 11 stated that after arrest the accused at Duddebanda cross they returned back to the police station, P.W.11 stated that on the instructions of P.W.9 he along with one Dhanunjayababu secured P.W.2 and another persons in the presence of mediators P.W.9 and P.W.12 questioned each of the accused and arrested the accused, P.W.10 stated that on the instructions of P.W.12 HC597

P.W.1 and 2 as mediators. Inspector of police again examined the accused in the presence of mediators. The said Dhanunjayababu and HC597 are not cited as one of the witnesses for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

17. There are several contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.W.6 to 8, 10 and 11 with regard to the place of arrest of the accused, seizure of material objects from the possession of the accused in the presence of 8

P.W.1 and 2 at the place of arrest and securing of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as mediators through Danunjayababu and HC597.

18. The prosecution also examined P.W.9 the then Sub-Inspector of police,

Penukonda P.S., P.W.9 in his evidence stated that he assisted P.W.2 in arresting the accused, on the instructions of P.W.12 he registered this case against the accused and submitted copies of F.I.R. to the concerned and after completion of investigation he laid charge sheet in this case. Except that P.W.9 did not state anything about he along with other staff accompanying P.W.12 to Duddebanda cross on 21.10.2013 at 4.30 A.M., there they found the accused trying to stop the vehicles, they apprehended the accused and seized property from the possession of accused in the presence of mediators under cover of panchanama. Coming to the evidence of P.W.12, P.W.12 stated that on 21.10.2013 during the course of investigation pertaining to the crime 137/2013 he received credible information about the accused, immediately he proceeded to Ammavarupalli village, there he found A1 to A5 armed with deadly weapons covering their faces with mask and trying to stop the vehicle with an intent to assault lorry drivers, he along with his staff arrested A1 to A5, he secured P.W.1 and P.W.2 through P.W.4 and P.W.11, in the presence of mediators. He interrogated A1 to A5 separately, accused confessed about stopping of lorries in the high way and assaulting lorry drivers and committing theft of cash and cell phones and on search he found knifes, cell phone, cash, handkerchiefs, chilli powder, monkey caps, torch lights under the cover of panchanama in the presence of above mediators and instructed P.W.9 to register a separate crime basing on the mahazarnama, later he received copy of F.I.R. in

Cr.no.141/2013 for the offence u/s 398, 399 and 402 of I.P.C. Later P.W.9 produced case property before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Penukonda in

Cr.No.137/2013.

19. There are several contradictions, omissions and exaggerations in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 with regard to place of arrest of accused securing of mediators through P.W.4 and P.W.11 and seizure of Material objects from the possession of accused. The above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 are not minor discrepancies to be ignored and it goes to the root of the case and it discredidts the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12. It is therefore absolutely there is no 9 cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove the case of prosecution. In view of above discussion it could be safely held that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

20. In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC thereby, they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.PC for the offences U/secs 398, 399, 402 of IPC. A2 is ordered to be released if he is not required in any other case. A1, A3 to A5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A1, A3 to

A5 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. As there is no property a separate order for property is not passed.

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

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 7th day of May, 2016.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Penukonda.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution: Defence: P.W.1 P.Ramachandra None P.W.2D.Bayapa Reddy P.W.3 H.Md.Saleem Basha P.W.4 B.V.P. Raju P.W.5 K.Sivasankar P.W.6 Jayaramulu naik P.W.7 Ramanjineyulu P.W.8 Renuka Devi P.W.9S.Sreeram Sreenivas P.W.10 Maruthi P.W.11 M.Kumar P.W.12 I.Ramakrishna

Exhibits marked for

Prosecution Defence Ex.P1Relevant portion in page No.26 of -Nil- In mahazarnama

Material Objects marked

Nil A.S.J.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::PENUKONDA

Present: Smt. C.R.Sumalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda.

Monday, the 20th day of June, 2016.

O.S.9/2011

Between:-

1.Kalluri Balasuryanarayana Murthy, S/o Venkata Rao, 70 years, Retd. Engineer

2.Muthunini Neeraja, W/o Kalluri Kisore, 38 years, house wife

3.Kalluri Koshore, S/o K.B.S.Murthy, 39 years, employee

4.Kalluri Bhanumathi, w/o K.B.S.Murthy, 60 years, house wife

5.Kalluri Uma Anuradha, W/o Kalluri Suresh, 36 years, house wife

6.Kalluri Suresh, S/o K.B.S.Murthy, 41 years, business All are Hindus, residents of D.No.3/680, Opp. Telephone exchange, S.B.I. road, Puttaparthy village and mandal, Anantapur district. …. Plaintiffs

Vs.

1.Putta Narayana, S/o Venkata Ramappa, 54years

2.Putta Venkatadri, S/o Venkata Ramappa, 47years

3.Putta Srinivasulu, S/o Venkata Ramappa, 44 years

4.Putta Thippamma, w/o Putta Narayana, 51 years

5.Putta Nagendra, S/o Putta Narayana, 34 years

6.Putta Venkatasubbaiah, S/o Putta Narayana, 25 years All are Hindus, agriculturists, residents of D.No.3/210, Peddakammavaripalli Road, Puttaparthy villageand mandal, Anantapur district. …Defendants

This suit coming on this day for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.V.Siva Sarma, Sri C.R.Nagarjuna, Advocates for Plaintiffs and Sri.D.Pakkera Reddy and Sri R.Sreekanth Reddy, Advocate for Defendants and having stood for consideration, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for permitting the plaintiff to reach the road from any point to the suit properties to grant permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs, against the defendants and their men, their relations, their agents, or any claiming through defendants, restraining them from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment right in the public road to reach land and direct the defendants to 2 remove the unlawful structure constructed by them and plaintiff may be permitted to remove the same.

2. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property, originally the land in survey number 328 an extent of Ac.8.37 cents is the ancestral property of the defendants. Out of the above extent all the defendants sold Ac.1.00 cents of land in the above survey number under six separate registered sale deeds dt.23.2.2006. Plaintiffs 1to 6 purchased items No.1 to 6 of plaint schedule property respectively under separate sale deeds as per the recitals of said sale deeds possession of the property was also delivered to the plaintiffs on the same day. Plaintiff further submits that the Northern boundary of item No.1 to 6 of plaint schedule property is shown as road to which the plaintiffs also filed original registered plan which shows that the Northern boundary to the plaint schedule properties is shown as road which passes from Puttaparthy village to Peddakammavaripalli village only the defendants tried to encroach into the road, the first defendant is trying to construct shops shown as ABCD in the rough plan and defendants 2 to 6 are supporting the encroachment made by first defendant.

The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties respectively and recognizing their possession and enjoyment. Revenue authorities have also issued passbook and title deed passbooks in favour of plaintiffs. The defendants who are claiming property abutting Northern side of plaint schedule properties in which encroachment made by the defendants in public road and defendants are obstructing plaintiffs from using the road to reach their lands and the plaintiff is having right to enter the road from any point. The plaintiffs further submit that the first plaintiff 4th plaintiff are aged about 60 years, taking advantage of their weakness the defendants are trying to construct permanent structure in suit rastha, if the defendants succeeds in their attempts the plaintiffs will suffer seriously of right of access to reach their 3 property. The plaintiffs further submits that the plaintiffs made several representations to the Tahsildar, Puttaparthy, and also to the police to take action against the defendant by removing the structure in the pubic road and to protect the right of access to the road. The plaintiffs further submits that the defendants have neither right, title nor possession to encroach the road which is situated on the Northern side of plaint schedule properties.

One week ago the first defendant started construction of structure and laid

Kadapa slab and encroached northern side road in front of the land and the plaintiffs are ceased having access to reach their property. If the defendants succeeds in their attempts the plaintiff will be put to serious loss and haradship.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that every sale deed executed by the defendants in the names of plaintiffs specifically shows

Southern boundary as land of the defendant, the plaintiff over night constructed a wall running from east to west on the Southern side by encroaching the land of the defendants to an extent of Ac.0.10 cents just

before filing of the suit and filed this suit with an intent to grab the land of

the defendants. Defendant No.1 further contended that on knowing about the encroachment the defendants demanded the plaintiffs to remove the wall constructed on the southern side of their land and to vacate the encroachment and the defendants did not raise any objection for possession of Ac.1.00 cents of land in survey number 328 of Puttaparthy revenue village at any time as the defendants are demanding the plaintiffs to vacate Ac.0.10 cents of land encroached by them the plaintiffs filed this suit with false and frivolous allegations. The defendants further contended that in every sale deed Northern boundary is mentioned as R& B road and from R& B road the plaintiffs should take their respective extents purchased under their respective sale deed and the defendants have been demanding the plaintiffs either to vacate the encroached portion or to pay the cost of encroached 4 land at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per cent. The defendant No.1 further contended that at no point of time they made any attempt to make constructions on R & B road which is a public road if there was if any obstruction is created the entire population would have raised their voice, the defendant never entertain any such idea of making construction on R &

B road and absolutely there are no signs of obstruction on the road, the defendants never raised any objection for issuance of pattadar passbooks in the names of the plaintiffs for the extents purchased by them and the only objection the defendants is that the plaintiffs under the guise of owning

Ac.1.00 cents of land they have accupies Ac.1.10 cents and constructed a wall on the Southern side by over night and trying to cause wrongful loss to the defendants and prays to dismiss the suit with compensatory costs.

4. Defendants 2 to 5 filed adoption memo adopting written statement of defendant No.1.

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.:

(i) Whether the plaintiffs have right and title over suit schedule lands?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of enjoyment of schedule lands according to sale deeds with Sy.no.s, extents and boundaries?

(iii) Whether defendants have no right to claim right and title over the schedule lands?

(iv) Whether the plaintiffs encroached Ac.0.10 cents of land on the

Southern side of schedule land?

(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction against defendants?

(vi) To what relief?

5

6. Issues No.1 to 4: It is undisputed that plaintiffs purchased plaint schedule property from the defendants through Registered Sale Deed Ex.A1 to A6, since the date of purchase plaintiffs became absolute owners of plaint schedule property and are in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption by anybody. On behalf of defendants the first defendant himself is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 himself categorically admitted that they sold away plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs through Ex.A1 to A6 and delivered possession of plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and since then plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants also examined D.W.2 who is an independent witness on their behalf, D.W.2 also supported the plaintiff’s case. Further the plaintiffs got appointed advocate commissioner, who inspected the plaint schedule property with the help of surveyor filed his report along with surveyor sketch. The report of the Advocate Commissioner and sketch also categorically support the case of plaintiffs. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs categorically proved that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property and are in continuous possession and are in continuous possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit.

7. The contention of defendant is that the plaintiff encroached Ac.0.10 cents of land belonging to them situated abutting to plaint schedule property on the southern side. Except stating that the plaintiffs encroached the said cents of land absolutely nothing is there to believe the version of the defendant. Except stating that plaintiffs encroached Ac.0.10 cents of land on the southern side of plaint schedule property the defendants never given the length and width of the said encroachment Ac.0.10 cents of land to believe or to come to conclusion that plaintiffs encroached or occupied said Ac.0.10 cents of land. Had the plaintiffs really encroached or occupied the said land certainly the defendants should have given length and width of said Ac.0.10 6 cents of land. Without knowing the measurement of Ac.0.10 cents of land it is highly impossible to come to conclusion that the plaintiffs occupied the said Ac.0.10 cents of land on southern side of plaint schedule property. The plaintiff schedule property is situated from East to West and land of defendants also is situated from East to West abutting land of defendant from southern side, if that is so, the measurements of Ac.0.10 cents of land said to have been encroached by the plaintiffs is essential to come to a just conclusion that the plaintiff encroached the said land. In the absence of such measurements of said Ac.0.10 cents of land and in the absence of clinching evidence it is unsafe to come to conclusion that plaintiffs encroached the said Ac.0.10 cents of land on Southern side of plaint schedule property. Further the evidence of D.W.2 is not properly supporting the case of defendant because he never said that he is having land nearby land of plaintiff or defendants. Further D.W.2 never stated that plaintiff’s encroached, occupied or enjoying Ac.0.10 cents of land belonged to the defendant on southern side of Plaint schedule property. It is therefore absolutely there is no cogent and clinching evidence to prove or to believe that plaintiffs encroached or occupied Ac.0.10 cents land belonged to defendant on southern side of plaint schedule property as contended by the defendant. In view of above reason I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs never occupied or encroached Ac.0.10 cents of land belonged to defendant on the southern side of plaint schedule property. Accordingly issues 1 to 4 are answered infavour of the plaintiffs against the defendant.

8. Issue No.5:- It is already discussed in detail in the above issues 1 to 4 regarding the title and possession of plaint schedule property, evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and the report and sketch of Advocate

Commissioner and Ex.A1 to A6 categorically proves that the plaintiffs purchased plaint schedule property from the defendant and are in possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. Further 7 absolutely there is no dispute with regard to the possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property by the plaintiffs and therefore it could be easily said that plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction. The report of the

Commissioner also manifest that the plaintiffs purchased Ac.0.10 cents of land from the defendant and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. D.W.1 who is first defendant also admitting the title and possession of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property.

9. The learned counsel for plaintiff contended that the defendants raised construction on the road abutting to plaint schedule property on the

Northern side. Except stating that there is no either oral and documentary evidence to prove that the defendants raised structure on the road abutting to plaint schedule property on the Northern side. The plaintiffs also got the advocate commissioner appointed to inspect the plaint schedule property and accordingly the advocate commissioner inspected plaint schedule property and got filed his report along with rough sketch prepared by the advocate commissioner and mandal surveyor, Puttaparthi. The report of the advocate commissioner as well as rough sketch filed by the advocate commissioner along with his report shows no structures said to have been laid by the defendant on the road situated on the northern side of plaint schedule property. In the written statement as well as in evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, the defendants categorically stated that they never raised any structures on the road obstructing the plaintiffs for their ingress and agree into the plaint schedule property from the northern side i.e. R & B road at any point of plaint schedule property from the northern side i.e. R & B road at any point of time. If the defendants raised structures as contended by the plaintiffs certainly the advocate commissioner and mandal surveyor, who inspected the plaint schedule property would have shown about the said structures in the commissioner’s report as well as in the rough sketch filed along with the report of the commissioner. Even in Ex.A8 i.e. rough sketch 8 filed by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs never shown about the structures said to have been raised by the defendant obstructing their ingress and egress to plaint schedule property from the said R & B road. Even in the evidence of

P.W.1, P.W.1 did not state that the advocate commissioner also observed the structures said to have raised by the defendant on R & B road and got referred about the said structures in his report and as well as in the rough sketch filed along with the report. If really the defendant raised structures as contended by the plaintiffs on the R & B road abutting to plaint schedule property on its northern side causing obstruction for the ingress and egress of the plaintiffs into plaint schedule property certainly the advocate commissioner also would have shown the same in his report as well as in the rough sketch. Further the plaintiff also did not choose to examine the advocate commissioner and got marked his report and rough sketch. Non- examination of the advocate commissioner and non-marking of report and rough sketch filed by the commissioner itself clearly indicates that no structures have been raised by the defendant as contended by the plaintiff and absolutely there are no obstructions on the R & B road to enter into plaint schedule property by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant raised structures on the R & B road abutting to plaint schedule property, obstructing the plaintiff to enter into their respective land but the plaintiffs miserably failed to prove the same by producing cogent and clinching evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there is no positive evidence to come to conclusion that the defendant raised constructions on the R & B road causing obstruction to the plaintiff to enter into plaint schedule property from R & B road situated on the northern side of plaint schedule property. However even as per evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the documents marked by the plaintiff the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the property and they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and the land i.e. road margin of R & B road on the northern side of plaint schedule property is also being enjoyed by the 9 plaintiff for their ingress and egress into the plaint schedule property from the R &B road the defendant have no any right, title or possession over the said land which is in between plaint schedule property and R & B road on the northern side. It is therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to enter into their respective land from R & B road on northern side of plaint schedule properties from any point and also entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff and to raise any structures as contended by the plaintiff in future over the road margin situated in between plaint schedule property and R & B on the north side. As there is no clinching evidence to show that the defendants raised structures as contended by the plaintiffs removal of structures said to have been raised by the defendant does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief as prayed for with regard to the removal of structures said to have been raised by the defendant. Hence, issue No.5 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

10. Issue No.6:-In the result, the suit is decreed with costs declaring right and title of the plaintiff over plaint schedule property and consequent permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents or anybody on their behalf from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

Typed to manuscript given by me, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open court on this the 20th day of June, 2016.

Senior Civil Judge,

Penukonda.

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined for Plaintiff: Defendant: P.W.1 K.Bala Surya Narayana murthy D.W.1Putta Narayanappa D.W.2 Chinthalapuri Ramappa 10

Exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff

Ex.A1 Registered sale deed document No.342/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A2 Registered sale deed document No.341/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A3 Registered sale deed document No.339/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A4 Registered sale deed document No.340/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A5 Registered sale deed document No.344/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A6 Registered sale deed document No.343/2006 dated 23.2.2006 Ex.A7 Rough plan issued by M.R.O., Puttaparthi Ex.A8 Plaint plan Ex.A9 Certified copy of adangal for fasli 1420 Ex.A10 Paper publication in ‘Sakshi daily’ Anantapur edition dated 19.11.2011 Ex.A11 Pattadar pass book in the name of plaintiff No.1 Ex.A12 Title deed book Ex.A13 Pattadar passbook in the name of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A14 Title deed book in the name of plaintiff No.2 Ex.A15 Pattadar pass book in the name of plaintiff No.3 Ex.A16 Title deedbook in the name of plaintiff No.3 Ex.A17 Pattadar pass book in the name of plaintiff No.4 Ex.A18 Title deed in the name of plaintiff No.4 Ex.A19 Pattadar pass book in the name of plaintiff No.5 Ex.A20 Title deed book in the name of plaintiff No.5 Ex.A21 Pattadar passbook in the name of plaintiff No.6 Ex.A22 Title deed book in the name of plaintiff No.6 Ex.A23 photograph

Ex.A24 Proceedings of Tahsildar, Puttaparthi date 18.11.2001 address to Station House Officer, Puttaparthi Urban P.S. Ex.A25 endorsement dated 15.11.2012 by Vice Chairman, Puttaparthi Urban Development Authority. Ex.A26 Letter of P.W.1 dated 23.6.2012 Ex.A27 Letter addressed to Inspector of Police, Uraban police station, Puttaparthi with plan Ex.A28 Another letter addressed to Inspector of Police Urban policestation

date 14.1.2001.

Ex.A29 Letter addressed to Station House Officer, Urban Police station dt.29.1.2011 Ex.A30 Another letter to station house officer, Puttaparthi, Urban station

dated 19.1.2012

Ex.A31 Letter dated 26.5.2012 addressed to Station House Officer, Puttaparthi. Ex.A32 Letter addressed to Station House Officer, Urban P.S., Puttaparthi Ex.A33 letter dated 4.6.2012 addressed to Station House officer, Puttaparthi urban P.S. Ex.A34 Information supplied under RTI 2005 by Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI sub division, Puttaparthi.

Exhibits marked on behalf of defendant Nil

S.C.J.