Smt.C.R.Sumalatha

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, MARKAPUR

Present:- Smt. Ciripireddy Suma Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Thursday, this the 16th day of September 2021

SESSIONS CASE No. 250 of 2016

(P.R.C.No.22/2016 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Cr.No.78/2015 of Peddaraveedu P.S.)

Complainant:State : Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle

Description of the Accused1.Kanala AnjaniSrikanthReddy, S/o.Nagireddy, aged 39 years, caste by Reddy, D.No.3-4-343, Kanchana Towers, Flat No.31, Pattabhipuram, Guntur Town

2.Musalamadugu Srinivasulu @ Srinu, S/o.Seshaiah, aged 38 years, Rajaka by caste, Pothampalli Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP27 BG 0194. Charge:U/Sec.304 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to execute bond and to furnish sureties as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

DATES OF

Occurrence:19.08.2015 Complaint:20.08.2015 Committal Order:09.08.2016 Appearance :30.11.2016 Commencement of trial:22.03.2021 2

Closure of trial:20.04.2021 Sentence or Order:16.09.2021

Explanation for the delay:

In this entire case record was received from the Hon'ble District &

Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. Charge was framed on 17.07.2017

and summons were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial.

The prosecution side evidence commenced from 22.03.2021 and the same was closed on 20.04.2021. The prosecution examined PWs1 to 27 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P31. On 14.09.2021 accused 1 and 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C, and they denied the offence and counsel for accused 1 and 2 reported no defence evidence and the arguments of both side counsels are completed on the same day. On 16.09.2021 Judgment is pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Ciripireddy suma

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

// True copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR

Present:- Smt Ciripireddy Suma Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Thursday, this the 16th day of September, 2021

SESSIONS CASE No. 250 of 2016

(P.R.C.No.22/2016 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Cr.No.78/2015 of Peddaraveedu P.S.)

STATE : Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle...Complainant

Vs

1.Kanala Anjani Srikanth Reddy, S/o.Nagireddy, aged 39 years, caste by Reddy, D.No.3-4-343, Kanchana Towers, Flat No.31, Pattabhipuram, Guntur Town

2.Musalamadugu Srinivasulu @ Srinu, S/o.Seshaiah, aged 38 years, Rajaka by caste, Pothampalli Village, Peddaraveedu Mandal, Driver of Tractor bearing

No.AP27 BG 0194....Accused

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conducted the prosecution case for State, and Sri M. Sriramireddy, Advocate Advocate defended the Accused No.1 and of Sri G. Velugondaiah, Advocate defended

Accused No.2 before the Court.

// J U D G M E N T //

1. The Inspector of Police, Markapur Circle Police

Station laid charge sheet against Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence under section 304 of Indian Penal Code in Cr.No.78 of 2015 of Peddaraveedu Police Station.

2.Brief accusation against the accused are that PW1 who is the younger brother of Deceased No.1, who belongs to

Rajasthan State migrated to Dornala Village, about 5 years back 4 he started ready-made garment shop at Yerragondapalem Village and deceased No.1 too migrated to Dornala and started a readymade shop under the name and style of Parvathi readymade shop at Yerragondapalem, deceased No.1 used to go to Yerragondapalem village from Dornala in view of his business.

On 19.08.2015 A1 who owned an extent of Ac.4.36 cents near

Thummalavagu Bridge on Dornala to kunta road, engaged 13 tractors belonging to PW1to PW22 to carry earth for levelling the said land upto black tapped road and also a JCB belonging to

PW9 for digging earth and to load the same in said tractors, the tractor bearing No.AP27 BG 0194 was driven by Accused No.2.

While the said work is in progress, accused No.1 got placed heap of earth across the road with the help of Accused No.2 in order to slow down vehicular traffic on the Highway though other tractor drivers advised Accused No.1 and 2 not to place earth heaps on the highway road. Whileso, on the same day night while the deceased Nos.1 to 3 were returning to Dornala from Yerragondapalem on a motor cycle driven by the deceased

No.1 and when reached culvert situated in between Rajampalli-

Chatlamitta villages around 21.30 hours and 22.00 hours, deceased No.1 could not observe earth heaps on the road due to darkness and lost control over the motor cycle and fell down on the road and sustained severe bleeding injuries, Deceased No.1 and 2 died instantaneously due to severe fatal injuries and

Deceased No.3 succumbed to injuries while under going 5 treatment at Government Hospital, Markapur.

Basing on the report of PW1, LW33-P.Suresh Babu, S.I of Police, Peddaraveedu P.S registered a case in Cr.No.78 of 2015 for the offence under section 304 of IPC of Peddaraveedu

P.S on 20.08.2015 at 7.00 hours and submitted original F.I.R to the court and its copies to all officers concerned. On receipt of

F.I.R PW27-P. Karunakar, Inspector of Police, Markapur took up investigation, he visited the scene of occurrence on 20.08.2015 in the presence of PW24 and LW27-Bandi Venkateswarlu and prepared scene observation report duly attested by the above mediators. He also got photographed scene of occurrence through PW22 and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. On the same day PW27 held inquest over the dead body of Deceased No.1 at Government Hospital while LW33-

P.Suresh Babu, S.I of Police Peddaraveedu P.S and LW34-A.

Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police, Markapur Rural P.S held inquest over the dead bodies of Deceased No.2 and Deceased No.3 respectively in the presence of PW24, PW25 and LW27-Bandi

Venkateswarlu. During the course of inquest PW27 secured the presence of PW1 to PW4, he examined them and recorded their section 161 Cr.P.C statements, while LW33-P.Suresh Babu, S.I of

Police, Peddaraveedu P.S secured PW26 and LW6-Rajput Anup

Singh and LW34-A. Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police, Markapur P.S secured PW5 and LW7-Ramana Rajpura Arjun Singh, LW33-

P.Suresh Babu, S.I of Police, Peddaraveedu P.S and LW34-A.

6

Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police, Markapur Rural P.S examined PW26 and LW6 and PW5 and LW7 respectively and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and after completion of

Inquest over the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 3, the dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 to 3 were forwarded to the

Government Area Hospital, Markapur for conducting autopsy.

LW30-Dr.I.C. Lakshmi Reddy, Medical Officer,

Government Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.1 and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.1 would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhagic due to injury to vital organs.

LW31-Dr.P.Lakshmireddy, Medical Officer, Government Area

Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2 and issued Post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.2 would appear to have died due to head injury and hemorhagic shock caused by multiple fractures visceral injury due to run over accident. LW32-dr.S. Ravindra Reddy,

Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3 and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.3 would appear to have died due to hemorrhagic shock secondary to contusion liver and extradural hematoma. On 27.12.2015

LW36-B.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, Markapur examined

PW6 to PW23 and recorded their statements under section 161

Cr.P.C. On 12.02.2016 at 7.00 hours LW36/B.Srinivasa Rao, 7

Inspector of Police, Markapur arrested A1 at his house at Guntur and on 16.12.2016 LW36 arrested A2 at 7.00 hours at

Pothampalli Village and produced them respectively for judicial remand to the Court. After completion of entire investigation

LW36/B.Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, Markapur filed chargesheet against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 304 IPC for negligently placing heap of earth on the highway road with the knowledge as it is likely endangering to human lives and thereby caused death of deceased No.1 to 3. Hence, chargesheet.

3.After filing of charge sheet before the learned Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, the learned

Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused No.1 to

and 2 has taken on file under section 304 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and numbered as P.R.C.22/2016.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to accused 1 and 2 u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C. by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate,

Markapur. Upon hearing the arguments on prosecution and defence, as the offence under section 304 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur committed the case

to the Sessions Court, Prakasam District, Ongole u/sec.209 of

Cr.P.C wherein the Sessions Court, Prakasam District, Ongole 8 after verifying the records and satisfied, the P.R.C.No.22/2016 was numbered as Sessions Case No.250 of 2016 and made it over to this Assistant Sessions Court, Markapur on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2 before this court, accused 1 and 2 were examined u/sec.228 (2) of Cr.P.C., charge under section 304 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against Accused No.1 and 2 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for trial.

6.During course of trial on behalf of Prosecution the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to PW.27 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.31.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused 1 and 2 were examined u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused

Nos.1 and 2 through Blue Jeans Video Linkage

9.Point for consideration : “Whether the prosecution

established the guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the

offence punishable u/section 304 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

9

Code, beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. POINT: To prove the case of Prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW27 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P31 among them PW1 is the Defacto Complainant, PW2 to

PW5, PW26 are hear say witnesses. PW6 to PW8 are the independent witnesses, PW9 is the driver of Proclainer, PW10 to

PW22 are the tractor drivers, PW23 is the photographer, PW24 is one of the mediators of scene observation report and inquest report of deceased Nos.1 to 3, PW25 is one of the mediators of inquest reports of deceased Nos.1 to 3 and PW27 is

Investigating Officer.

11. who is the Defacto Complainant in this case, who is none other-than the elder brother of deceased in his evidence deposed that on 19.08.2015 at about 8.30 P.M he received telephone message from the deceased No.1 that he was at

Kunta, coming to Dornala on a motor cycle and asked him to wait at the shop and half an hour later he again received phone call from the mobile of deceased No.1 and came to know that the deceased No.1 met with an accident and sustained injuries, immediately he along with PW2 and others rushed to the scene of occurrence and found dead bodies of deceased No.1 and 2 with bleeding injuries over head of deceased No.1 and came to know that deceased No.3 succumbed to injuries while on the way to hospital later, police obtained his signature on a written 10 report and read over the contents to him and he does not know to read and write “Telugu” and he does not know how the accident was occurred.

12. A perusal of contents of written report goes to show that “on 19.08.2015 at 10.00 P.M while deceased No.1 to 3 are returning to Dornal from Yerragondapalem on a motor cycle driven by deceased No.1 and when they reached Chapta situated in between Rajupalem - Chattlamitta village deceased No.1 run over heap of soil placed across the road and lost control over his motor cycle and dashed to the road or any vehicle coming in opposite direction and died on the spot. Deceased No.2 who is the pillion rider also died on the spot and Deceased No.3 succumbed to injuries on way to the hospital”. The evidence of

PW1 is silent about the manner of the accident as to how the said accident took place and who is responsible for the said accident. Further the evidence of PW1 is also silent about existence of heap of soil across the road on which said accident took place and Deceased No.1 who run over heap of soil lost control over motor cycle and dashed the road or any other vehicle coming in opposite direction. AT this juncture it is pertinent to note that the evidence of PW2 who accompanied

PW1 to the scene of occurrence is also silent about existence of heap of soil across the road on which accident took place and deceased No.1 when run over said help of soil lost control over 11 motor cycle and dashed the road or another vehicle coming in opposite direction except finding two dead bodies at the scene of occurrence and knowing that another deceased was shifted to hospital. It is significant to note that during cross examination of PW1, PW1 candidly conceded that the contents in the written report are not averred by him and he does not know who scribed written report and it is the contention of the accused that PW1 never visited scene of occurrence and never found dead bodies of deceased Nos.1 and 2 and heap of soil at the place of accident and he is deposing false as tutored by the prosecution to support the case of Prosecution, which is denied by PW1. Therefore admittedly PW1 is not direct eye witness for the occurrence of accident and admittedly written report is not scribed on the instructions of PW1 who does not know to read and write “Telugu” language and further Ex.P26 (written report) duly signed by PW1 does not contain the name and address particulars of the scribe of Ex.P26 and there is no endorsement on Ex.P26 to the effect that the contents of Ex.P26 are read over to PW1 and explained to him in the language in which he could understand. Therefore, it is unsafe to relie upon the contents of

Ex.P26 and the contents of Ex.P26 need not be looked into.

13. Coming to the evidence of PW26, who is none other than brother of deceased No.2, PW26 in his evidence deposed that in the year 2015 on one day while his brother was 12 proceeding on a motor cycle and reached near Kunta he met with an accident and died on the spot and on information he rushed to the scene of occurrence and there he found the dead body of deceased and also heap of soil on the middle of the road and on enquiry he came to know that deceased while proceeding on a motor cycle fell down by skidding when dashed the heap of soil. The evidence of PW26 is silent as to when he received information about the accident, through whom he came to know about the manner of accident, the time at which said accident occurred except vaguely deposing that while his brother was proceeding on a motor cycle and when reached near kunta he met with an accident and died on the spot, at the scene of occurrence he found dead body of deceased and also heap of soil on the middle of the road and on enquiry he came to know that the deceased while proceeding on a motor cycle fell down by skidding when dashed heap of soil. The evidence of PW26 is silent as to whether PW1 and PW2 also accompanied him to the scene of offence and it is also not the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that PW26 accompanied them to the scene of occurrence.

Except the evidence of PW26, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 who rushed to the scene of occurrence immediately after the accident is silent about existence of heap of soil across the road where the said accident occurred and it is unsafe to solely relie upon the evidence of PW26 unless corroborated with other independent witnesses.

13

14. Prosecution also examined PW3 and PW4 who are near relatives of Deceased No.1 to 3, PW3 and PW4 turned hostile and did not state anything against the accused 1 and 2 in support of the case of prosecution, though learned A.P.P cross examined them at length nothing is elicited from them in support of the case of Prosecution.

15. Prosecution also examined PW6, who is the father of

PW7 and PW8, who purchased an extent of Ac.12.00 in the names of PW7 and PW8, PW7 and PW8, who inturn sold an extent of Ac.4.36 cents to Accused No.1 on 03.07.2015. PW6 to

PW8 have turned hostile and did not state anything against

Accused No.1 and 2 in support of the case of Prosecution, except stating that they came to know about the accident took place near the land sold by them and they does not know how the said accident took place. Though the learned A.P.P cross examined them at length nothing is elicited from them against accused 1 and 2 and in support of case of prosecution.

16. Prosecution also examined PW9, who is cited as

Proclainer Driver and PW10 to PW22, who are cited as tractor drivers. PW9, PW10 to PW22 have also turned hostile and did not state anything against the accused 1 and 2 in support of the case of prosecution though learned A.P.P cross examined them at length nothing is elicited from them against accused 1 and 2 and 14 in support of case of prosecution.

17.Coming to the evidence of PW23, who is a photographer running a photo studio at Markapur, PW23 in his evidence deposed that in the year 2015 on one day at about 10.00 P.M Inspector of Police, Markapur called him to police station and instructed him to take photographs of scene of occurrence, immediately he accompanied Inspector of Police,

Markapur to the scene of occurrence and he took photographs of scene of occurrence and also the dead bodies of deceased at the scene of occurrence.

18. It is the evidence of PW24, who is cited as one of the mediators of scene observation report and inquest report of deceased No.1 to 3 that in the year 2015 an accident took place near Chatlamitta of Rajupalem village when an unknown vehicle dashed the motor cycle which resulted in the death of two persons and at request of police he accompanied police along with LW27-Bandi Venkateswarlu to the scene of occurrence, there, police observed scene of occurrence and prepared scene observation report duly signed by him and LW27-Bandi

Venkateswarlu, from scene of occurrence they all proceeded to

Government Hospital, Markapur there police held inquest over the dead bodies of Deceased No.1 to 3 and prepared inquest reports duly attested by him and LW27-Bandi Venkateswarlu and

PW25.

15

19.It is the evidence of PW25 who is cited as one of the mediators for the inquest of Deceased Nos.1 to 3, that on enquiry he came to know that the Deceased No.1 to 3 while proceeding on a motor cycle leaving from Kunta they fell down on the road by skidding from the motor cycle. Though PW24 and PW25 are not direct eye witnesses to the occurrence of accident, PW24 has acted as one of the mediators for the scene observation of place of accident and the inquest held over the dead bodies of Deceased No.1 to 3 and PW25 acted as one of the mediators for the inquest held over the dead bodies of deceased No.1 to 3, evidence of PW24 and PW25 is quite contradictory with each other with regard to the manner of accident and the number of persons died due to the said accident and to the case of prosecution in respect of the manner of the accident and there is no explanation from PW24 and

PW25 and from the prosecution with regard to the above discrepancies in the evidence of PW24 and PW25 who are none other than the Village Revenue Officer and Village Revenue

Assistant with regard to the manner of accident and number of persons died in the said accident. The above discrepancies in the evidence of PW24 and PW25 are not a minor discrepancies and it goes to show and it creates doubt with regard to the manner of accident due to which the deceased 1 to 3 said to have died.

16

20.Coming to the evidence of PW27, who is Investigating

Officer in this case, PW27 categorically deposed that on 20.08.2015 at 7.00 hours PW1 went to Peddaraveedu P.S and presented a written report to LW33-P. Suresh Babu, S.I of Police,

LW33 registered a case in Cr.No.78/2015 for the offence under section 304 IPC and issued F.I.R. On receipt of F.I.R PW27 took up investigation, during the course of investigation on the same day he visited the scene of occurrence situated on Guntur –

Kurnool Highway along with LW27-B. Venkateswarlu and PW24, he observed scene of occurrence in their presence and prepared scene observation report duly attested by the said mediators and he also drawn rough sketch of the scene of occurrence and also got photographed the scene of occurrence through PW23. On the same day he also visited the Government Hospital along with

LW27-Bandi Venkateswarlu, PW24 and PW25, and he held inquest over the dead body of Deceased No.1 in their presence and prepared inquest report duly attested by them. During the course of inquest of Deceased No.1, LW33-P. Suresh Babu, S.I of

Police, Peddaraveedu P.S also held inquest over the dead body of

Deceased No.2 in the presence of LW27-B. Venkateswarlu, PW24 and PW25 and prepared inquest report duly attested by them and LW34-A. Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police, Markapur Rural P.S also held inquest over the dead body of Deceased No.3 in the presence of LW27-B. Venkateswarlu, PW24 and PW25 and prepared inquest report duly attested by them. PW27 further 17 deposed that during the course of inquest of Deceased No.1, he secured the presence of PW1 to PW4, he examined them and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. LW33-P.

Suresh Babu, S.I of Police examined PW26 and LW6-Rajput Anup

Singh and recorded their statements and LW34-A.

Venkateswarlu, S.I of Police, Markapur Rural P.S examined LW7 and PW5 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements and after completion of inquest over the dead bodies of Deceased No.1 to 3, he forwarded the dead bodies of deceased 1 to 3 to the medical officers for conducting autopsy. LW30-Dr.I.C. Lakshmi

Reddy, Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.1 and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.1 would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhagic with injuries to vital organs, LW31-Dr.P. Lakshmireddy, Medical

Officer, Government Area Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.2 and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.2 would appear to have died due to head injury and hemorrhagic shock caused by multiple fractures visceral injury due to run over accident and

LW32-Dr.S. Ravindra Reddy, Medical Officer, Government Area

Hospital, Markapur conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased No.3 and issued post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased No.3 died due to hemorrhagic shock secondary to contusion liver and extradural hematoma. PW27 further deposed 18 that during the course of further investigation his successor

LW36-B. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, Markapur arrested

Accused No.1 on 27.12.2015 at 17.00 hours at his house in

Guntur and produced him for judicial remand and on 16.02.2016

LW36 arrested Accused No.2 at 7.00 hours at his house at

Pothampalli Village and produced him for judicial remand and after completion of Investigation and after receipt of

Postmortem certificates LW36 filed chargesheet against Accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under section 304 IPC.

21. PW27 categorically conceded that he did not secure any record pertaining to ownership of land as well as tractors and also driving licence of the tractor drivers, who are cited as witnesses. There is no explanation from PW27 and from the prosecution as to why PW27 did not secure any records/ documents pertaining to ownership of land to prove that

Accused No.1 is owning land on the high way where the accident is said to have occurred that Accused No.2 owner of a tractor bearing No.AP27 BG 0194 and the said tractor is used by

Accused No.1 driven by Accused No.2 for placing soil across the highway to slow down the vehicular traffic and due to which the accident occurred and Accused No.1 and Accused No.2 are responsible for the occurrence of said accident and the death of

Deceased No.1 to 3.

19

22. Except the uncorroborated evidence of PW26, who is none other than brother of deceased No.2, who is only a hearsay witness absolutely there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove that at the place of occurrence of accident he found heap of soil on the middle of the road, due to which deceased No.2 while proceeding on a motor cycle dashed said heap of soil and sustained injuries which resulted in his death.

Absolutely there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that Accused No.1 with the assistance of Accused No.2 placed heap of soil across the Highway land in order to slow down vehicular traffic to avoid obstruction in levelling the land purchased by Accused No.1 from PW7 and PW8 to level his land upto black tapped road and due to negligently placing of heap of soil across the road by Accused No.1 and 2, the deceased No.1 who is proceeding on the way on a motor cycle along with

Deceased No.2 and 3 met with an accident when dashed said heap of soil and due to the said accident deceased 1 and 2 died instantaneously due to severe injuries and Deceased No.3 succumbed to injuries while under going treatment and prosecution utterly failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

23.In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused 20

No.1 and 2 are directed to execute bond and to furnish sureties as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 16th day of

September, 2021.

Sd/- Ciripireddy suma

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW1:Diya Jalam Singh @ Jamal Singh PW2:Radhod Chand Singh PW3:Bukkasamudram Kotireddy PW4:Dudekula Siddaiah PW5:Tagoor Chandan Singh PW6:Yeruva Chinna Kotireddy PW7:Yeruva Nagireddy PW8:Yeruva Seshasayana Reddy PW9:Challa Suresh PW10:Chittaya Subbareddy PW11:Kunduru Venkatareddy PW12:Kunduru Satyanarayanareddy PW13:Dudekula Ankireddy PW14:Mallu Chenchireddy PW15:Duddayalla Palankireddy PW16:Mallu Palankireddy PW17:Palleboina Srinu PW18:Kolla Narasimha Rao PW19:Alisetti Venkateswarlu @ Laddu PW20:Mudamanchu Bujji PW21:Kalasani Yogireddy PW22:Dudekula Satyanarayana Reddy PW23:Gopaluni Naga Sundara Narahari PW24:Mittakayala Bala Guravaiah 21

PW25:Rajpur Kesar Singh PW26:Visno Punmaram PW27:P. Karunakar Rao, : For Defence:NONE

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the written report. Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4:Signature of PW5 on the inquest report of Deceased No.3 Ex.P5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P6:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P7:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW9 Ex.P8:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10 Ex.P9:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW11 Ex.P10:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW12 Ex.P11:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW13 Ex.P12:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW14 Ex.P13:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW15 Ex.P14:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW16 Ex.P15:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW17 Ex.P16:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW18 Ex.P17:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW19 Ex.P18:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW20 Ex.P19:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW21 Ex.P20:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW22 Ex.P21:Positive photographs along with one CD Ex.P22:Scene Observation report dt.20.08.2015. Ex.P23:Inquest report of deceased No.1 dt.20.08.2015. Ex.P24:Inquest report of deceased No.2 dt.20.08.2015. Ex.P25:Inquest report of deceased No.3 dt.20.08.2015. Ex.P26:Report of PW1 Ex.P27:First Information Report Ex.P28:Rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P29:Post-mortem certificate of deceased No.1 22

Ex.P30Post-mortem certificate of deceased No.2 Ex.P31Post-mortem certificate of deceased No.3

For Defence:NIL

Material Objects marked

– NIL –

Sd/- Ciripireddy suma

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur

6. Office copy.

// True copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur

1

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR

Present:- Smt. Ciripireddy Suma Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Friday, this the 17th day of September, 2021

SESSIONS CASE No. 80/2018

(P.R.C.No.1/2018 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Cr.No.42/2017 of Yerragondapalem P.S.)

Complainant:State : Sub Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Police Station. Description of the Accused1.BavanamVenkataSubbareddy, S/o.Chinna Ramireddy, aged 41 years, Reddy, Cultivation, R/o.Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2.Bavanam Atchireddy, S/o.Yogireddy, aged 39 years, Reddy, Cultivation, R/o. Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

3.Gopu Pedda Subbareddy @ Subbareddy, S/o.Pedda Subbareddy, aged 62 years, Reddy, Cultivation, R/o.Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal. Charge:U/Sec.306 r/w 34 IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 to 3 are directed to execute bonds and to furnish sureties as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 plastic bottle is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

DATES OF

Occurrence:13.05.2017 Complaint:18.05.2017 Committal Order:12.03.2018 2

Appearance :26.02.2021 Commencement of trial:06.04.2021 Closure of trial:17.09.2021 Sentence or Order:17.09.2021

Explanation for the delay:

The entire case record was received from the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge's Court, Ongole. Charge was framed on 26.02.2021 and summons were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial. The prosecution side evidence commenced from 06.04.2021 and the same was closed on 17.09.2021. The prosecution examined PWs1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P18 and M.O.1. On 17.09.2021 accused 1 to 3 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C through Blue Jeans V.C and they denied the offence and counsel for accused 1 to 3 reported no defence evidence. The arguments of both side counsels are heard on the same day and Judgment is pronounced.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/-Smt. Ciripireddy Suma

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

// True Copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur 3

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR

Present:- Smt Ciripireddy Suma Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur

Friday, this the 17th day of September, 2021

SESSIONS CASE No. 80 of 2018

(P.R.C.No.1/2018 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Markapur in Cr.No.42/2017 of Yerragondapalem P.S.)

STATE : Sub Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem P.S...Complainant

Vs

1.BavanamVenkataSubbareddy,S/o.Chinna Ramireddy, aged 41 years, Reddy, Cultivation, R/o.Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

2.Bavanam Atchireddy, S/o.Yogireddy, aged 39 years, Reddy, Cultivation, R/o. Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal.

3.Gopu Pedda Subbareddy @ Subbareddy, S/o.Pedda Subbareddy, aged 62 years, Reddy, Cultivation,

R/o.Pandivanipalli Village, Yerragondapalem Mandal....Accused

The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor conducted the prosecution case for State, and Sri M. Sriramireddy, Advocate Advocate defended the Accused No.1 to 3 before the Court.

// J U D G M E N T //

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Yerrangondapalem Police

Station laid charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 for the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code in

Cr.No.42/2017 of Yerragondapalem Police Station.

2.Brief accusation against the accused 1 to 3 are that the deceasedThirupathi Kotaiah is resident of Mogullapalli

Village of Yerragondapalem Mandal leaving by doing cultivation, in addition to his land deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah also took an 4 extent of Ac.6.00 of land on lease and invested money by borrowing from others and due to scarcity of rains deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah could not clear his debts. On 12.05.2017 evening while the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and PW1 are standing at Kolukula centre in Yerragondapalem, the accused 1 to 3 came to deceased-Thirupathi Kotaiah and they caught hold of the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and abused him as “MAAKU

IVVAVALASINA RS.3,30,000/- IVURA” and they also abused the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah in filthy language, when PW1 intervened the accused 1 to 3 uttered the words to the deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah “NEEVU DABBULU KATTAKA POTHE NEE

BHARYANI PAMPINCHU” and in the meanwhile PW6, PW7 and some others, who were present there separated them. Due to the discourteous words of accused 1 to 3 the deceased-

Thirupathi Kotaiah vexed with his life and decided to commit suicide. On 13.05.2017 morning at 7.00 hours deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah went inside the bath room and consumed pesticide poison to commit suicide and on hearing cries of the deceased-Thirupathi Kotaiah PW1 went to the deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah and shifted him to a private hospital at

Yerragondapalem with the assistance of PW2, PW3, LW4-

Thirupathi Govindamma and LW5-Thirupathi Nasaramma and after getting first aid treatment they shifted deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah to Mahatma Gandhi Super Specialty Hospital,

Narasaraopeta for better treatment. On 18.05.2017 at about 5 2.00 hours the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah died while undergoing treatment. Thereafter PW1 gave report at

Yerragondapalem police against A1 to A3 as the accused to 1 3 are responsible for the death of the deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah. On 18.05.2017 at 12.00 noon PW10, who received report from PW1 registered a case in Cr.No.42/2017 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC of

Yerragondapalem Police Station and submitted original F.I.R to the Court and its copies to all officers concerned and took up investigation.

During the course of Investigation on the same day

PW10 examined PW1 at police station and recorded her statement and visited the scene of offence in the presence of

PW8 and LW12/Cherukuri Subbarao and prepared the scene observation report and drawn rough sketch of scene of offence.

Thereafter PW10 visited the community health centre of

Yerragondapalem there, he secured PW2 to PW5,

LW4/Thirupathi Govindamma and LW5/Thirupathi Nasaramma, he examined them and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.P.C and he also held inquest over the dead body of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah in the presence of PW8,

LW12/Chekuri Subbarao and LW13/Devandla Balaiah. On the same day PW10 also secured the presence of PW6 and PW7, he examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. As per the evidence of PW1 to PW7, LW4/ 6

Thirupathi Govindamma and LW5/Thirupathi Nasaramma a primafacie case has been made out against accused 1 to 3 and the accused 1 to 3 are responsible for the death of deceased by abusing and insulting the deceased in the public. On 22.05.2017

PW9/Dr.Chandra Sekhar, Medical Officer, community health centre, Yerragondapalem issued preliminary post-mortem certificate of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah opining that pending of FSL report (Viscera containing Lung, Stomach, Intestine,

Liver, Kidneys and Sample Water). On 31.05.2017 LW16/M.

Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Yerragondapalem Police

Station forwarded seized material objects to TS FSL, Hyderabad through P.C 3603 of Yerragondapalem P.S for chemical analysis and for opinion. On credible information on 28.06.2017 at 7.45 hours LW16/M. Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Yerragondapalem Police Station arrested 1 to 3 at the house of

Accused No.1 at Pandivanipalli village of Yerragondapalem

Mandal and produced accused 1 to 3 for judicial remand. On 06.04.2017 LW16/M. Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Yerragondapalem Police Station received TS FSL report and on 29.12.2017 PW9, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah issued final Post-mortem certificate opining that the deceased died due to consumption of Herbicide poison→Pullmrary Odema→Respiratory arrest. After completion of investigation LW16/M. Srinivasa Rao, Sub Inspector of Police,

Yerragondapalem Police Station filed chargesheet against 7 accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

3.After filing of charge sheet before the learned Addl.

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Markapur, the learned

Magistrate after verifying charge sheet against accused No.1 to

3 has taken on file under section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code and numbered as P.R.C.1/2018.

4.On appearance of accused No.1 to 3, the copies of documents were furnished to accused 1 to 3 u/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

by the Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Markapur. Upon hearing the arguments on prosecution and defence, as the offence under section 306 r/w 34 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Markapur committed the case to the Sessions Court,

Prakasam District, Ongole u/sec.209 of Cr.P.C wherein the

Sessions Court, Prakasam District, Ongole after verifying the

records and satisfied, the P.R.C.No.1/2018 was numbered as

Sessions Case No.80 of 2018 and made it over to this Assistant

Sessions Court, Markapur on the point of jurisdiction.

5.On appearance of accused Nos.1 to 3 before this court, accused 1 to 3 were examined u/sec.228 (2) of Cr.P.C., charge under section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code have been framed against Accused No.1 to 3 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed 8 to be tried for trial.

6.During course of trial on behalf of Prosecution the prosecution got examined P.W.1 to PW.10 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.18 and M.O.1.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence the accused 1 to 3 were examined u/sec.313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating material available against them, they denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the arguments of learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor for the state and the learned counsel for the accused

Nos.1 to 3 through Blue Jeans Video Linkage

9.Point for consideration : “Whether the prosecution

established the guilt of accused No.1 to 3 for the offence

punishable u/section 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code,

beyond all reasonable doubt” ?

10. POINT: To prove the case of Prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P18 and M.O.1 among them PW1 is the Defacto Complainant,

PW2 to PW5 are near relatives of the deceased-Thirupathi

Kotaiah, PW6 and PW7 are eye witnesses, PW8 is one of the mediators for the observation of scene of offence and for the inquest held over the dead body of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah,

PW9 is medical officer and PW10 is Investigating Officer.

9

11. PW1, who is the Defacto Complainant in this case is none other than the wife of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah in her evidence deposed that about 4 years back her husband (deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah) died due to consumption of pesticide poison and committed suicide as he was indebted to several persons, on knowing about consumption of pesticide poison by the deceased she immediately shifted the deceased to a private hospital at Yerragondapalem with the assistance of

PW2 and PW3 for treatment and from there the deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah was shifted to Mahatma Gandhi Super

Specialty Hospital, Narasaraopeta for better treatment and five days later deceased died while under going treatment and she never gave report to the police and police never examined her and recorded her statement. The learned A.P.P treated her as hostile and cross examined her at length but nothing is elicited from her to prove that “on 12.05.2017 at 12.00 noon she went to

Yerragondapalem Police station and presented a report to the police to the effect that on 12.05.2017 evening while she and her husband were at bus stand centre of Yerragondapalem, A1 to A3 came to her husband and caught hold his shirt demanding her husband to repay the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- indebted to them and when she intervened, A1 to A3 insulted her husband i.e., deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah by uttering the words “NEEVU

DABBULU KATTAKA POTHE NEE BHARYANI PAMPINCHU” on that the persons who were present near by pacified the issue 10 and on the next day morning at 7.00 A.M deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah consumed pesticide poison with an intent to do away his life as he felt ashamed for the words uttered by the accused 1 to 3 and the accused 1 to 3 are responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased”.

12.Prosecution also examined PW2 and PW3, who are none other than the sons of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and

PW1, PW2 and PW3 in their evidence deposed that about 4 years back their father (deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah) by consuming pesticide poison as he indebted to several persons, on knowing the same through PW1 they along with PW1 shifted the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah to a private hospital at

Yerragondapalem village and from there to Mahatma Gandhi

Super Specialty Hospital, Narasaraopeta for better treatment and five days later deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah died while under going treatment. As PW2 and PW3 did not state anything against the accused 1 to 3 in support of case of prosecution learned A.P.P cross examined them at length but, nothing is elicited from them to prove that on 12.05.2017 evening when deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and PW1 were at Yerragondapalem bus stand accused 1 to 3 went to the deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah and demanded him to repay the amount of Rs.3,30,000/- due to them by caught holding his shirt and when PW1 intervened accused 1 to 3 insulted the deceased Thirupathi 11

Kotaiah by uttering the words “ “NEEVU DABBULU KATTAKA

POTHE NEE BHARYANI PAMPINCHU” due to that the deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah felt ashamed and decided to commit suicide and consumed pesticide poison and that accused 1 to 3 are responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah and for the death of deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah.

13. Prosecution also examined PW4 and PW5, who are none other than younger brother and Brother-in-Law of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah, they also turned hostile and did not state anything against accused 1 to 3 in support of case of prosecution, though learned A.P.P cross examined them at length nothing is elicited from them to prove that on their enquiry they were informed that the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah borrowed money for agriculture and sustained loss and on 12.05.2017 evening when the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and his wife (PW1) were at Yerragondapalem bus stand accused 1 to 3 went to deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and demanded the deceased to repay an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- indebted to them by caught hold his shirt and when his wife (PW1) intervened accused 1 to 3 insulted the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah by uttering the words ““NEEVU DABBULU KATTAKA POTHE NEE BHARYANI

PAMPINCHU” and on that the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah felt ashamed and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison.

12

14. Coming to the evidence of PW6 and PW7, who are cited as eye witnesses PW6 and PW7 also turned hostile and did not state anything against accused 1 to 3 in support of case of prosecution, though learned A.P.P cross examined them at length nothing is elicited from them to prove that PW6 is running a saloon at bus stand centre, Yerragondapalem and PW7 is running a cool drink shop opposite to the shop of PW6. On 12.05.2017 evening while PW6 and PW7 are at their respective shops they noticed a gathering consisting of PW1, deceased and accused 1 to 3 insulting the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah caught holding his shirt while demanding the decased Thirupathi

Kotaiah to repay an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- due to them and on the intervention of PW1, they uttered the words to deceased

Thirupathi Kotaiah that ““NEEVU DABBULU KATTAKA POTHE

NEE BHARYANI PAMPINCHU” on that they pacified the matter and all of them left the place and on the next day morning the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison as accused 1 to 3 insulted him.

15.PW8 is one of the mediators for observation of scene of offence and seizure of M.O.1 (plastic bottle) and for the inquest held over the dead body of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah at Community Health centre, Yerragondapalem and PW9 is

Dr.Chandra Sekhar, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued Post-mortem certificate opining that the 13 deceased would appear to have died of consumption of pesticide poison.

16.PW10/M. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police, Markapur Police

Station in his evidence deposed that on 18.05.2017 while he was at Yerragondapalem Police Station PW1 came to police station and presented a written report to him and basing on the same he registered a case in Cr.No.42/2017 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 IPC of Yerragondapalem P.S and took up investigation. During the course of investigation on the same day he visited the scene of offence situated at Pandivanipalli

Village, he prepared scene of observation report and seized one plastic bottle under the cover of mediatornama and he also drawn the rough sketch of scene of offence and from there he went to Government Hospital, Yerragondapalem and there he also held inquest over the dead body of deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah in the presence of PW8, LW12/Chekuri Subbarao and

LW13/Devendla balaiah and prepared inquest report duly attested by them. At the hospital he secured the presence of

PW1 to PW6, he examined them and recorded their statements and on 28.06.2017 he arrested accused 1 to 3 at the house of

Accused No.1 at about 7.45 A.M and produced the accused 1 to 3 for judicial remand and after completion of investigation and after receipt of P.M certificate and TS FSL report he filed chargesheet against accused 1 to 3 for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 I.P.C.

14

17. During the cross examination of PW10, PW10 candidly conceded that no document is recovered by him in relation to the debts indebted by the deceased Thirupathi

Kotaiah. There is no explanation from PW10 and from the prosecution as to why PW10 failed to recover any document in proof by indebtedness by the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah though it is the case of prosecution that the deceased committed suicide as he felt ashamed in view of insult made by accused 1 to 3 to whom the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah was indebted to and it is also the evidence of PW1 to PW6 that the deceased committed suicide as he was indebted to several persons and they categorically deposed that they does not know accused 1 to

3. Absolutely there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah was indebted to accused 1 to 3 and on 12.05.2017 evening while the deceased and PW1 were at Yerragondapalem bus stand accused 1 to 3 went to deceased and demanded the deceased for repayment of amount of Rs.3,30,000/- due to them by caught holding his shirt and on the intervention of PW1 accused 1 to 3 insulted deceased by uttering the words ““NEEVU DABBULU KATTAKA POTHE NEE

BHARYANI PAMPINCHU” and in view of said words the deceased, who felt ashamed committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison and that accused 1 to 3 are responsible for the commission of suicide by the deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and for the death of deceased Thirupathi Kotaiah and prosecution 15 utterly failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

18.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. Accused

No.1 to 3 are directed to execute bonds and to furnish sureties as provided under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. M.O.1 plastic bottle is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by him,

corrected and Pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 17th day of

September, 2021.

Sd/- Smt. Ciripireddy Suma

Assistant Sessions Judge, Markapur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: PW1:Thirupathi Guravamma PW2:Thirupathi Venkata Kotaiah PW3:Thirupathi Raju PW4:Thirupathi Gali Kotaiah PW5:Challa Venkateswarlu PW6:Dupati Srinu PW7:Pikkili Sreenu PW8:Jogi Venkata Subbaiah PW9:Dr.Chandra Sekhar PW10:M. Srinivasa Rao, S.I of Police For Defence:

Documents Marked

For Prosecution Ex.P1:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 Ex.P2:Signature of PW2 on the Inquest report Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 16

Ex.P4:Signature of PW3 on the Inquest report Ex.P5:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P6:Signature of PW4 on the inquest report Ex.P7:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P8:Signature of PW5 on the inquest report Ex.P9:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P10:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P11:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Ex.P12:Inquest report Ex.P13:Scene observation report Ex.P14:Post-mortem certificate Ex.P15:Written report of PW1 Ex.P16:First information report Ex.P17:Two rough sketches Ex.P18:FSL Report For Defence:

Material Objects marked

M.O.1:Plastic bottle

Sd/- Smt. Ciripireddy Suma

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur Copies submitted to:-

1. The Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Ongole

Copies to:-

2. The District Collector, Prakasam District, Ongole

3. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole

4. The Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Markapur

5. The Addl. Public Prosecutor, Markapur

6. Office copy.

// True Copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge Markapur

1 OS .NO. 29 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MARKAPUR

Present : Smt. C.R.Sumalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

This the 23rd day of April, 2021

O.S. NO. 29 of 2017

Between:

Peddapothula Venkateswara Reddy S/o Late Musala Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, Cultivation, resident of East Street, Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam District.

…. Plaintiff

Vs.,

Kotha Srinivasa Reddy S/o Late Venkataiah, aged about 48 years, Hindu, Business residing near RamaswamyTemple,Darimaduguvillage, Markapur mandal, Prakasam District.

…. Defendant

This suit is coming on 19-04-2021 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri

M. Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the defendant, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// J U D G E M E N T //

1.This suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 7,69,250/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt 25.02.2014, for a sum of Rs.

5,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff with interest at 18 % per annum and for costs.

2)Brief averments plaint filed by the plaintiff are that on 25.02.2014 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities and on the even date the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. Inspite of demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under suit 2 OS .NO. 29 of 2017 promissory note to the plaintiff as such the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 09.02.2017 to the defendant, even after issuance of legal notice the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under suit promissory note to the plaintiff.

Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendant for recovery of amount due under suit promissory note. Hence the suit.

3. Denying the averments made in the plaint the defendant filed written statement contending that he never borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.02.2014 and he never executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on the even date agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand. The defendant further contended that one Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy availed loan from one Tadipatri Satyanarayana Reddy who is running financial business at Markapur, the said Satyanarayana Reddy insisted Gona Rami Reddy and

Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy to give security for the loan amount and in the said process the defendant subscribed his signatures on promissory note and handed the same to the said Satyanarayana Reddy as security. Subsequently the said loan was repaid by Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy to the said Satyanarayana Reddy but, the said Satyanarayana Reddy did not return the promissory note to the defendant and filed the suit through the plaintiff who is his relative with false allegations and no consideration was passed under suit promissory note and the defendant need not pay any amount to the plaintiff and suit is liable to dismissed and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4. Basing on the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.02.2014 on execution of the suit promissory note or not?

If so, supported by consideration?

3 OS .NO. 29 of 2017

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount as prayed for or not?

3. To what relief?

5.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W1 and got marked suit promissory note dated 25.02.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as Ex.A1, officer copy of legal notice dated 09.02.2017 as

Ex.A2, Postal receipt as Ex.A3. Plaintiff also got examined one Dirisanapu

Chalama Reddy who is scribe of Ex.A1 as P.W2.

On behalf of the defendant defendant examined himself as D.W1 and no documents are exhibited.

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

7.Issues Nos. 1 & 2:

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff examined himself as

P.W1 besides examining the scribe of suit promissory note as P.W2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 and deposed that on 25.02.2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from him for his family necessities and on the even date the defendant executed suit promissory note dated 25.02.2014 (Ex.A1) in his favour agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum either to him or to his order on demand. Inspite of several demands made by him the defendant did not choose to repay the amount due under Ex.A1 as such he also got issued legal notice dated 09.02.2017 (Ex.A2) to the defendant, even after issuance of legal notice the defendant did not choose to pay the amount due under suit promissory note to him. P.W1 further deposed that the suit promissory note was scribed by one D. Chalama Reddy (P.W2) and attested by one G.

Kesava Reddy and G. Jaya Rami Reddy.

4 OS .NO. 29 of 2017

8)In support of the evidence of P.W1, P.W1 got examined the scribe of suit promissory note (Ex.A1) as P.W2, P.W2 corraborated the evidence of the P.W1 in all material aspects with regard to borrowal of an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the defendant from the plaintiff for his family necessities and execution of suit promissory note on the even date by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand in his presence and in the presence of the attestors by names G. Kesava Reddy and G. Jaya Rami Reddy by duly subscribing his signature on the suit promissory note after receipt of consideration of Rs.

5,00,000/- and he scribing Ex.A1. During cross examination of P.W1 and P.W2 nothing is elicited from P.W1 and P.W2 to disprove their evidence except putting suggestions denied by them.

9)To rebut the evidence of P.W1 and P.W2 and to prove the contention of defendant in his written statement the defendant examined himself as D.W1 and deposed that he never borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 25.02.2014 and he never executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18% per annum and infact one Gona

Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy availed loan from one

Satyanarayana Reddy who is running finance business and in that process he subscribed his signatures on a promissory note and handed it to the said

Satyanarayana Reddy as security for repayment of loan amount due by Gona

Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Redy but, the said Satyanarayareddy did not return the promissory note issued by him inspite of discharge of loan amount by Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Redy and got filed this filed through plaintiff who is his relative. During cross examination D.W1 categorically admitted that he has not issued any legal notice / notice to the said

Satyanarayana Reddy demanding him to return promissory note executed by him as security. There is no explanation from the defendant as to why he did not choose to issue notice to the said Satayanaraya Reddy demanding him to return 5 OS .NO. 29 of 2017 the promissory note said to have executed by him as security for repayment of loan amount due by Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy.

Further the evidence of D.W1 and the contents of written statement of D.W1 are silent as to when said Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy repaid money due to said Satynarayana Reddy, for how much amount did the defendant executed Ex.A1 as security, how much amount did the said Gona

Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy have borrowed from said

Satyanarayana Reddy, why he kept quiet without issuing notice to said

Satyanarayana Reddy immediately after repayment of loan amount by Gona

Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy demanding said

Satyanarayanareddy to return pomissory note said to have executed by him as security and why the defendant kept quiet without issuing notice to either said

Satyanarayana Reddy or reply notice to the plaintiff inspite of issuance of legal notice by the plaintiff prior to filing of the suit, it is for the reasons best know to the defendant. Further the defendant did not choose to examine said Gona Rami

Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy on whose behalf the defendant said to have issued suit promissory note to Satyanarayana Reddy and also did not choose to examine the attestors of Ex.A1 to support his contention though according to the plaintiff the attestors were brought by the defendant and the plaintiff did not examine the said attestors and it is not the case of the defendant that the attestors are henchmen of the plaintiff and no steps are taken by the defendant to examine the attestors of Ex.A1, it is for the reasons best know the defendant. Absolutely there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to prove that the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of one

Satyanaraya Reddy as security for repayment of loan amount due by Gona

Ramai Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy and defendant failed to prove the same. When once execution of promissory note is admitted by the defendant the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove the circumstances under which he executed suit promissory note and non passing of consideration under suit 6 OS .NO. 29 of 2017 promissory note. Except the self interested testimony of the defendant absolutely there is no substantial evidence on record to prove that the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of Satyanaraya Reddy as security for repayment of loan amount due by Gona Rami Reddy and Javvaji Venkateswara Reddy. When execution of promissory note is proved by the plaintiff and also admitted by the defendant presumption U/Section 118 (a) of Negotiable instruments acts applies.

10)Sec 118 (a) of N.I Act reads as “ every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration ”.

Sec 118 (a) of N.I Act when execution of suit promissory note is proved a presumption as to consideration could be drawn that suit promissory note is supported by consideration. It is therefore from the evidence of P.W1, P.W2 coupled with the admission of the defendant and Ex.A1 it is categorically proved that on 25.02.2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on even date the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand in the presence of P.W2 who is scribe of

Ex.A1 and in the presence of attestors namely G. Kesava Reddy and G. Jaya

Rami Reddy. by duly subscribing his signatures on receipt of consideration of

Rs. 5,00,000/-. It is therefore in view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that on 25.02.2014 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the plaintiff and on even date the defendant executed suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay the same with interest at 18 % per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand in the presence of P.W2 who is scribe of

Ex.A1 and in the presence of attestors namely G. Kesava Reddy and G. Jaya

Rami Reddy by duly subscribing his signatures on receipt of consideration of Rs.

5,00,000/- and the defendant failed to repay the amount due under suit 7 OS .NO. 29 of 2017 promissory note and plaintiff is entitled to recover suit amount from the defendant. Accordingly issues 1 and 2 are answers in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

11) Issue No. 3:

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs. 7,69,250/- (Rupees Seven lakhs sixty nine thousand two hundred and fifty only) with subsequent interest on principal amount

Rs. 5,00,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e 23.02.2017 till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realization.

Typed to dictation to the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of April, 2021.

Sd/- C.R Sumalatha

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur. Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff : For Defendant:

PW.1 P. Venkateswara ReddyD.W1Kotha Srinivasa Reddy P.W2 D. Chalama Reddy

Documents marked

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1Suit promissory note dated 25.02.2014 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. Ex.A2Office copy of legal notice dated 09.02.2017. Ex.A3Postal receipt.

For Defendant:Nil

Sd/- C.R Sumalatha

S.C.J., // True Copy //

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur 8 OS .NO. 29 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present : Smt C.R.Sumalatha

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur

Friday, this the 23rd day of April, 2021

Original Suit No. 29 of 2017

Between :

Peddapothula Venkateswara Reddy, s/o late Musala Reddy, aged about 42 years, Hindu, cultivation, r/o East Street, Markapur town and mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiff

And

Kotha Srinivasa Reddy, s/o late Venkataiah, aged about 48 years, Hindu, business, residing near Ramaswamy temple, Darimadugu, Markapur mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendant

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.7,69,250/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dt. 25.2.2014 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum, and for costs.

Plaint presented on : 23.2.2017Plaint filed on : 28.2.2017

Cause of Action :

Cause of action for the suit arose on 25.2.2014 when the defendant borrowed amount and executed the suit promissory note in favour of plaintiff at

Markapur town, which is within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation :

For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at

Rs.7,69,250/-, on which a court fee of Rs.10,126/- is paid u/sec.20 of APCF &

SV Act.

This suit is coming on 19.4.2021before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Plaintiff; and of Sri

M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for Defendant; and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree :

9 OS .NO. 29 of 2017

1.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,69,250/- with subsequent interest on principal amount of Rs.5,00,000/- @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit i.e., 23.2.2017, till the date of decree i.e., 23.4.2021 and thereafter @ 6% p.a. till the date of realization;

2.that the defendant do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.35,371/- towards costs of the suit; and

3.that the defendant do bear his own costs of Rs.NIL towards costs of the suit. (costs memo is not filed)

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 23rd day of April, 2021

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

MARKAPUR

Table of Costs

ForFor S.No.Particulars Plaintiff Defendant

1.Stamp on Vakalat2.00

2.Stamp on Plaint10,126.00

3. Stamp on Process 65.00

4.Sr. Advocate fee 24,778.00(costs memo is

5.Writing charges200.00 not filed)

6.Typing charges 200.00 Total35,371.00

S.C.J.

O.S.NO. 112 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE::MARKAPUR

Present : Smt. C.R.Sumalatha,

Senior Civil Judge, Markapur,

Wednesday, this the Fifteenth day of September, 2021

O.S.No. 112 of 2018

Narra Venkata Ramana Reddy, S/o.Narra Singareddy, aged 45 years, business, Pitakayagulla (V), Besthavaripeta (M), Prakasam District.….Plaintiff

Vs

Kongalaveeti Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S/o. Ramireddy, aged 27 years,

R/o.Valmiki Nagar, B.V. Peta (V&M), Prakasam District....Defendant

This suit is coming on 13th day of September 2021 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Sriramireddy, Advocate for Plaintiff and of Sri P. Balaranga Reddy, Advocate for Defendant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

// J U D G M E N T //

This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery an amount of

Rs.8,81,213/- being the Principal and interest due under two promissory notes dated 21-04-2015 and 10-06-2015 for an amount of

Rs.3,44,000/- and Rs.1,72,000/- respectively with interest at 24% per annum and for subsequent interest and costs.

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

On 21.04.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.3,44,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and on the even date the defendant executed the suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 at the house of plaintiff infavour of plaintiff. Again on 10.06.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and on the same day the defendant executed suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015 infavour of 2 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 the plaintiff. Subsequently the plaintiff demanded the defendant to discharge the above debts due to him, but, the defendant did not choose to repay any amount and postponing the same on some pretext or the other though the defendant has got capacity to repay the debts due under suit promissory notes. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit. The defendant is not an agriculturist and he is not entitled to benefits of Act 4 of 1938 and Act 11 of 1999 and the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest at 24% per annum. Hence the suit.

3)Denying the averments made in the plaint, the defendant filed written statement contending that the defendant never borrowed an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.04.2015 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the defendant never executed suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 infavour of the plaintiff and on 10.06.2015 the defendant never borrowed

Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the defendant never executed suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015. The defendant further contended that the defendant, who is aged about 25 years is still a bachelor and his father is an employee and the question of borrowing amount for his family necessities does not arise and contention of the plaintiff itself speaks volume about the false case filed by the plaintiff.

The defendant failed intermediate and later on passed intermediate and now the defendant is prosecuting his studies through distance education. The defendant never executed suit promissory 3 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 notes in favour of plaintiff on 21.04.2015 and 10.06.2015 and alleged suit promissory notes are rank forgery, plaintiff got forged suit promissory notes with the aid of his kith and kith and kin and got filed this suit to extract money from the defendant. The plaintiff has no capacity to pay huge amounts of RS.3,44,000/- and Rs.1,72,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff created suit promissory notes for his benefit and to get wrongful gain from the defendant. There is no cause of action to the suit promissory notes and prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

4)Basing on the pleadings of the plaint and written statement following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether suit promissory notes are true, valid, genuine and binding on the defendant or not? If so, supported with consideration?

2. Whether the suit promissory notes are of rank forgery or not?

3. To what relief?

5)During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- as Ex.A1, Suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/- as Ex.A2. The Plaintiff also got examined one Munthala Sarveswara Reddy, who is attestor of

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as PW2 and one Chegireddy Ramireddy, who is scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 as PW3.

On behalf of the defendant, defendant examined himself as

DW1 and no documents are exhibited.

6)Heard arguments of learned counsel for Plaintiff and learned counsel for defendant.

4 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018

7)Issue No.1 & 2:

To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 besides examining PW2 and PW3 and got marked

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and deposed that on 21.04.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- from him for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand and on the even date the defendant executed suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 in his favour and again on 10.06.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of

Rs.1,72,000/- from him for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to him or to his order on demand and on the same day the defendant executed suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015 in his favour. PW1 further deposed that inspite of repeated demands made by him, defendant did not choose to repay any amount and postponing the same on some pretext or the other though the defendant has got capacity to repay the debts due under suit promissory notes. The defendant executed suit promissory notes

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 in his favour in the presence of one Ravuri Kasiranga

Sudhakara Rao and Munthala Sarveswara Reddy (PW2) who acted as attestor and one Chegireddy Ramireddy (PW3), who scribed Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2. PW1 further deposed that the said Ravuri Kasiranga Sudhakara

Rao died due to Covid-19.

8) To support the evidence of PW1, PW1 got examined PW2 and PW3, who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively.

PW2 and PW3 corroborated the evidence of PW1 in all material aspects with regard to defendant borrowing an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- from 5 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 the plaintiff on 21.04.2015 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the defendant executing suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 (Ex.A1) infavour of plaintiff on the even date and the defendant borrowing an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff on 10.06.2015 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and the defendant executing suit promissory note dt. 10.06.2015 (Ex.A2) infavour of plaintiff on the even date in their presence and in the presence of one

Ravuri Kasiranga Sudhakara Rao, who died recently due to Covid-19 and scribing of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 by PW3 on the respective dates of execution of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2. During the cross examination of PW1 to

PW3 nothing is elicited from PW1 to PW3 to disprove their evidence except putting suggestions, which are denied by them.

9) To rebut the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and to prove the contention of the defendant in his written statement the defendant examined himself as DW1 and deposed that he never borrowed an amount of Rs.3, 44,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.04.2015 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and he never executed suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 (Ex.A1) infavour of the plaintiff and on 10.06.2015 he never borrowed an amount of Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum and he never executed suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015 (Ex,.A2) in favour of plaintif, previously the plaintiff filed an application in tenders called for liquor shop without his knowledge, for which disputes arose in between them. He being a bachelor and his father being an 6 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 unemployee there is no question of borrowing money for family necessities and suit promissory notes (Ex.A1 and Ex.A2) are of rank forged documents prepared by the plaintiff with the aid of his kith and kin to extract money from him.

10) During cross examination of DW1, DW1 categorically admitted that his written statement is silent about the dispute between him and plaintiff in relation to presenting of tenders in liquor. On perusal of contents of written statement filed by the defendant categorically discloses that there is no whisper in the written statement filed by the defendant with regard to the alleged dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant in relation to presenting of tenders pertaining to liquor as contended by the defendant in his chief affidavit. If really the alleged dispute had arose between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant could have specially got mentioned in his written statement instead of vaguely contending in his written statement that “ the defendant, who is aged about 25 years is still a bachelor and his father is an employee and question of borrowing amount for family necessities does not arise and alleged suit promissory notes are rank forgery and plaintiff got forged suit promissory notes with the aid of his kith and kin to extract money from the defendant”. Further the defendant did not specifically deny he scribing his signatures in “Telugu language” except denying signatures contained on Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and postal acknowledgment which are in “Telugu language” and admitted signatures contained on vakalath, written statement which are in “English language” which are shown to the defendant during his cross examination though 7 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 admittedly the defendant is familiar to read and write “Telugu” and does not know “English language” and admittedly the defendant studied intermediate only. Further the defendant did not specifically state his medium of study but however as the defendant himself during his cross examination admitted that he can read and write “Telugu”, but he does not know “English language”, it can be inferred that defendant’s medium of study is “Telugu medium”. Further no scarp of paper is filed by the defendant to show that the defendant is in the habit of scribing his signatures only in “English language” and he never use to put his signatures in “Telugu language” and even it is not the contention of the defendant that he is not in the habit of scribing his signatures in “Telugu language” and he always use to put his signatures only in “English language”. Further as could be seen from the postal acknowledgment, it is disclosed that summons through post is served personally on 28.06.2018 to the defendant through post which contains signature in “Telugu language” and as could be seen from vakalath filed by the defendant it is revealed that on 18.07.2018 the learned counsel for the defendant filed his vakalath on behalf of the defendant. It is ununderstandable as to how defendant could know the date of next adjournment when the defendant has not personally received suit summons through post by scribing his signatures and how the defendant could engage a counsel and got filed vakalath on the next date of hearing i.e., 18.07.2018, it is for the reasons best known to the defendant. Further it is not the contention of the defendant that on information/knowledge about filing of this suit through some other mode and he got filed vakalath. As there is no specific denial by the defendant about he scribing of signatures in 8 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018 “Telugu language”, it can be safely presumed that the defendant also used to scribe his signature in “Telugu language”.

11) Moreover, the plaintiff by examining himself and by examining PW2 and PW3 who are attestor and scribe of Ex.A1 and

Ex.A2 respectively categorically proved that on 21.04.2015 and on 10.06.2015 the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- and

Rs.1,72,000/- respectively from the plaintiff for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and on the respective dates the defendant executed suit promissory notes dt.21.04.2015 and 10.06.2015 i.e., Ex.A1 and A2 in favour of the plaintiff in the presence of one Ravuri Kasiranga Sudhakara Rao and PW2 and PW3 who are attestors and scribe of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 respectively and the plaintiff has duly discharged his burden and the burden shifts on to the defendant to prove that the suit promissory notes are of rank forgery.

12)Except examining himself the defendant did not choose to adduce either oral or documentary evidence to support his contention in his written statement and in his chief affidavit and no steps are taken by the defendant to send the disputed signatures contained on

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the hand writing expert for comparison with his admitted signatures available with the defendant who studied up to intermediate. Further no animosity is pleaded with PW2 and PW3 to speak falsehood against the defendant infavour of the plaintiff except putting a suggestion to PW2 and PW3 that the plaintiff fabricated suit promissory note with their associates to get wrongful gain as the father of the defendant is an employee, which is denied by PW2 and PW3.

9 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018

Absolutely there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendant to prove the contention of the defendant in his written statement and the defendant failed to discharge his burden. As already discussed above the evidence of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and

Ex.A1 and Ex.A2, it is categorically proved that the defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,44,000/- and Rs.1,72,000/- from the plaintiff on 21.04.2015 and 10.06.2015 for his family necessities agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum either to the plaintiff or to his order on demand and on the even dates defendant executed suit promissory notes Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 infavour of plaintiff in the presence of PW2 and PW3 and one Ravuri Kasiranga Sudhakara Rao and defendant failed to repay the amounts due under the suit promissory notes Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 to the plaintiff. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.

13)Issue No.3:

In the result, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.8,81,213/- (Rupees Eight lakhs eighty one thousand two hundred and thirteen only) with subsequent interest on the principal amount of Rs.5,16,000/- (Rs.3,44,000/-+Rs.1,72,000/-) (Rupees Five lakhs sixteen thousand only) at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum till the date of realization.

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

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 15th day of September, 2021.

Sd/- Ciripireddy Suma

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

10 O.S.NO. 112 of 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff For Defendant

PW1:Narra Venkata Ramana DW1Kongalaveeti Vishnu ReddyVardhan Reddy PW2:Munthala Sarveswara Rao PW3:Chegireddy Ramireddy

Documents Marked

For Plaintiff Ex.A1:Suit promissory note dt.21.04.2015 for a sum of Rs.3,44,000/- Ex.A2:Suit promissory note dt.10.06.2015 for a sum of Rs.1,72,000/-

For DefendantNIL

Sd/- Ciripireddy Suma

Senior Civil Judge,

Markapur.

// True Copy //

S.C.J, Markapur

// JUDGMENT //

Matter is called through Blue Jeans during virtual Lok Adalath. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 along with their respective counsels present through Video conferencing. As could be seen from the record it is disclosed that on 17.03.2021 defendants 4 to 9 as defendants 4 to 7 are subsequent purchasers and D8 and D9 are proforma defendants and counsel for D5 also did not raise any objection on the memo and it seems that counsel for D5 has no objection to not press this suit against D4 to D7 as they are subsequent purchasers from D1 to D3 and plaintiff has agreed to relinquish her share in plaint schedule properties by receiving cash of Rs.

45,00,000/- towards her share. As such in view of memo suit against D4 to D9 is dismissed as not pressed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff filed memo not pressing this suit against defendants 4 to 9 and prays to dismiss this suit against D4 to D9 by giving notice to the counsel for defendants 4 to 7 and no objection is raised by the counsel for defendants 4 to 7 and D8 and D9 are the branch managers of L.I.C and Head Post Master, Markapur respectively. Therefore, in view of the above memo this suit is dismissed against defendants 4 to 9 as no prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants 4 to 9. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 agreed to compromise this matter and also filed terms of compromise on 17.03.2021 and compromised this matter accordingly. Award is passed.

Sd/-

Senior Civil Judge

Markapur