Smt.C. Satya Vani, ASCJ

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU

PRESENT:- Smt. C. Satyavani, B.A., (Hons) B.L.,

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu

Tuesday, the 12 th day of May, 2015

S.C.No. 580/2012

(PRC No.55/2012 on the file of A.J.F.C.M, Ananthapuramu) 1Name of the Complainant :State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudraml Police Station.

2Description of the accused:1 Choppa Lalithamma, aged 40 years, D/o C. Guru Shanthappa, Caste-Balija, D.No.11/14, Gayathri nagar, B.K.Samudram village and mandal,

2. Pasupuleti Nagaraju, aged 38 years, S/o P.Reddappa, Caste- Balija, D.No.11/23, Gayathri nagar, B.K.Samudram village and mandal. 3Offences:U/Sec. 306 I.P.C. 4Plea of accused :Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge :Not guilty 6Sentence or order:Judgment pronounced. (V.S.J). In the result, the accused A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C and are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time. 7 Cr. No. and P.S concerned :204/2011 of B.K.Samudram Police Station.

This case coming on 28-4-2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Smt. G.Padmaja and Sri P.Nagi Reddy, Advocates on behalf of the accused A-1 and of Sri K.Sreeramulu, Advocate on behalf of the accused A-2, and upon hearing both sides and upon perusal of the available material on record, this court delivered the following:- 2

J U D G E M E N T

1. The brief facts of the charge sheet are that the deceased P.V.Somi

Reddy is working as field assistant and living in Gayathri colony, B.K.Samudram

Mandal along with LW-1 P.Sarojamma, LW-2 P.Sudarshan Reddy and LW-3

P.Swathi and both the accused A-1 and A-2 C.Lalithamma and P.Nagaraju are their neighbours and there is vacant site dispute between deceased and accused A-1. The accused No.1 has high handedly occupied the site by erecting slabs and in this regard accused A-2 use to support A-1, and both use to pick up quarrel and harassed him physically and mentally. A panchayat was also held by village elders but accused A-1 did not heed their words and both the accused continued their harassments. The deceased use to share his sorrow with LW-1 P.Sarojamma, LWs-4 to 7 by name P.Sidda Reddy,

B.Padmavathi, D.Raja Rathnam and P.Prabhakar Reddy by saying that“ accused will not remove the slabs and he will loose his land and he is unable to bare their harassment and it will be better to die inspite of bearing the harassment.

Again on 21-12-2011 at about 7.00 P.M.,, the accused went to the house of deceased and picked up quarrel about the disputed site and threatened him with dire consequences and warned him that he and his family will be thrown away from the street, due to the said incident the deceased vexed with his life and decided to end his life and on the next day morning at about 3.00 A.M., while LW-1 P.Sarojamma, LW-2 P.Sudarshan Reddy and LW-3 P.Swathi were sleeping in the house, he consumed some pesticide and was struggling, they noticed the same and took him to Government General Hospital,

Ananthapuramu and admitted him in the hospital. LW-1 informed the same to

LW-4 P.Sidda Reddy. While undergoing treatment the deceased died on 23-12- 2011 at about 2.20 a.m.

Basing on the complaint of LW-1 P.Sarojamma, a case in Crime

No.204/2011 under Section 306 read with 34 IPC of B.K.Samudram Police

Station was registered by LW-12 D.V.Narayana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police,

B.K.Samduram Police Station and took up investigation, examined LW-1 3

P.Sarojamma, LW-2 P.Sudarshan Reddy, LW-3 P.Swathi, LW-4 P.Sidda Reddy,

LW-5 B.Padmavathi, LW-6 D.Raja Rathnam and LW-7 P.Prabhakar Reddy, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in presence of LWs-8 to 10 C.Irfan

Khan, G.Manikanta and K.Bramhaiah. He forwarded the dead body for postmortem examinations. LW-11 Dr.M.Babu, Assistant Professor, Government

Medical College, Ananthapuramu conducted postmortem on the dead body and opined that the deceased died due to organophosphate poisoning. On 4-1-2012

LW-12 D.V.Narayana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Police

Station arrested the accused and sent them to court for remand. Thus, the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

2.The Honourable Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Ananthapuramu took cognizance against the accused as PRC No.55/2012 for the offence under Section 306 read with 34 I.P.C.

3. After following due procedure as contemplated under law, the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu committed the

case under Section 209 (a) Cr.P.C to the Court of Sessions, Sessions Division,

Ananthapuramu. After receipt of case material the Honourable Sessions Judge,

Ananthapuramu has taken the matter on the file as S.C.580/2012 and made over the same to this Court for disposal according to law.

4. After appearance of accused, this court examined them under

Section 228 Cr.P.C for which they pleaded not guilty. On hearing both sides, charge under Section 306 I.P.C was framed against the accused A-1 and A-2, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 11 and got marked

Exs.P-1 to P-12 and closed its side evidence. On behalf of defence DW-1 was examined and Ex.D-1 was marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material 4 against them and reported no defence evidence.

7.Heard both sides.

8. Now the points for determination are:-

1. Whether the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased P.V.Somi

Reddy, harassed him physically and mentally and threatened him with dire consequences and thereby instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide ?

2. To what finding ?

9.POINTS No.1 and 2:- Admittedly, the accused are known to PW-1

P.Sarojamma the defacto-complainant as being neighbours. The deceased died on consuming poison. The said fact is not in dispute.

10.It is the case of prosecution that only because of accused A-1, A-2 harassing, abusing and beating the deceased with regard to dispute over the site infront of the house of PW-1, the deceased committed suicide and that accused A-1 and A-2 alone are responsible for such suicide by the deceased.

11.In order to scrutiny the said allegation it is deposed by PW-1 the defacto-complainant also being the wife of deceased that accused A-1 is resident opposite house to her house and A-2 is resident of a house situated back side to her house and the quarrel took place on 18-12-2011 and on 22-11-2011 at 5.00 A.M., the deceased consumed pesticide poison. On 23-12-2011 in the morning the deceased died. Ex.P-1 is the complaint. At the same time in her cross-examination it is admitted that she is residing in the house of accused A-1 on rent basis. It is voluntarily added by PW-1 to her evidence that accused A-1 was indebted for Rs.16,000/- and made a request to reside in her house so that the said amount can be set off. It is admitted by

PW-1 that she has no document to show that she has any house site. It is stated by her that her house door is towards east and on east of her house the house of accused A-1 is situated which goes to understand that there is no other site so as to presume any quarrel over the same.

12.PW-2 P.Sudarshan Reddy son of PW-1 deposed that the quarrel took place as the accused laid slabs infront of their house and PW-3 P.Sidda 5

Reddy states that the dispute in between PW-1, deceased and accused was with regard to rastha as some stones were kept on the rastha by A-1. It is also stated by PW-3 that many quarrels took place in between family of deceased and accused A-1 with regard to said rastha. PW-4 B.Padmavathi also states that with regard to the site where the stones were raised by accused, the dispute and quarrel took place in between accused and the deceased. It is also stated that four or five times the quarrel took place.

13.On scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 nothing is made clear as to how the dispute can arose in between the accused and the deceased with regard to a site infront of the house of PW-1 wherein PW-1 is residing in said house on rent belonging to accused. The evidence of Investigating Officer reveals that there are no documents in the name of PW-1 with regard to any house site nor the same is collected by him. On perusal of Ex.P-1 it shows that there was a dispute with the accused with regard to the open site infront of the house of PW-1. But no such documents could be placed before this court so as to presume any such site belonging to PW-1 or the deceased. Moreover, it is the case of PW-1 that they are residing in the house of accused A-1. When such is the case, the site infront of the house of accused A-1 wherein PW-1 is residing cannot be presumed as belonging to PW-1. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to place sufficient and satisfactory material to observe whether the said quarrel infact took place with regard to a site belonging to PW-1.

14.On further scrutiny of the case facts in order to observe whether the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased, it is also to firstly establish that the death of the deceased is suicidal.

15.The evidence of PWs-1 to 4 and also the evidence of PW-11

D.V.Narayana Reddy, the Investigating Officer reveals that the deceased himself consumed pesticide poison which is observed by PW-10 Dr.M.Babu as the dead body of the deceased containing poison. It is sufficient to observe that the death of the deceased is suicidal, at the same time it is also to establish that accused A-1 and A-2 alone instigated or abetted such suicide.

6

16.On perusal of the evidence of PW-1 it shows that on 18-12-2011 accused A-1 and A-2 and also mother of A-1 quarrelled with the deceased, beat him and PW-1 separated them. The deceased felt ashamed and on 22-12-2011 at about 11.00 A.M., he consumed pesticide poison out side the house when she was sleeping and when she heard some sounds she went out and observed that husband of the deceased consumed poison. Immediately he was taken to the Government Hospital, Ananthapuramu in auto. On 22-12-2011 in the morning the deceased died. Ex.P-1 is the complaint and PW-2 is the scribe of

Ex.P-1. PW-2 deposed that the quarrel took place in between both accused with his father and his father felt insulted and also told him that he cannot live and he intends to die. Thereafter he came to know that his father written letter

before committing suicide and on 21-12-2011 he consumed poison. The

deceased was admitted into the hospital. PW-2 was at Tadipatri. Thereafter on the next day the deceased was discharged and on the next day i.e., on 22-12- 2011 at 5.00 A.M., the deceased again consumed poison and on 23-12-2011 the deceased died.

17.PW-3 brother of the deceased deposed that on 21-12-2011 galata took place in between accused and deceased and also that the deceased told him that he will not live as the accused are continuously insulting him and intended to commit suicide and on 22-12-2011 he was informed by PW-1 that the deceased consumed poison and on the next day the deceased died.

18.PW-4 deposed that after the quarrel on the next day he came to know that the deceased consumed poison. It is also stated by him that at the time of quarrel in between the deceased and accused he was present and after two days the deceased died.

19.The evidence of PW-1 shows that mother of accused A-1 also quarrelled with deceased and beat the deceased. Where as Ex.P-1 does not reveal the same. Admittedly she did not state the said fact to the police and also that on 18-12-2011 the said quarrel took place. It is not the case of PW-1 under Ex.P-1 that on 18-12-2011 the quarrel took place. Admittedly she did not state the said fact to the police. PWs-2 to 4 did not speak about mother of 7 accused A-1 and the galata in between mother of accused A-1 and the deceased which shows that PW-1 is with an intent to improve and involve the other persons related to accused A-1 in the instant crime. The mind set of

PW-1 is to understand that she has an intention to implicate the accused and even mother of accused A-1 by way of improving her case from Ex.P-1. The involvement of mother of accused A-1 is a material fact and omission of the same in Ex.P-1 amounts to suppression of facts if it is established and otherwise it is to observe that it is nothing but to improve her case in order to implicate the accused and her relative. Therefore, the case of PW-1 suffers with inconsistency in this regard with that of Ex.P-1.

20.The very case of the accused and argument of the learned counsel is that the deceased consumed poison not because of accused A-1 and A-2 and it is only by way of several other incidents and indebtedness of the deceased to several persons. In this regard on scrutiny of the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 it is admitted by PW-1 that the deceased was remanded in a case filed by the

Patel Transport Corporation for misappropriation of money. PW-1 exhibited her ignorance with regard to quantum of said misappropriation which shows that she is suppressing the facts when she is aware of the criminal case and misappropriation and also that she is aware of other activities of the deceased.

Ignorance of quantum of misappropriation appears to be strange. Admittedly

PW-1 and the deceased working in ' Podupu Scheme' and then used to collect money under the said scheme and used to deposit the money in the banks.

Admittedly there was a galata against the deceased for not depositing the collected money. In the light of said admission it can be understood that such galatas took place with others also, to the deceased and he is not new to the galatas with regard to finance. The instant case and the quarrel if any cannot be an incident not experienced by the deceased ever. Therefore, unless there are special reasons and grounds to show that infact such galata in between accused and the deceased if any occurred were of such a nature that without ending of life of the deceased there was no other option for the deceased. But for the insult and beating if any the deceased committed suicide cannot be 8 conclude without any strong proof of it.

21.Moreover, it is the case of PW-2 that the deceased has written a letter before committing suicide and also that the said letter is seen by PW-2 and was handed over by the deceased to the police. When such is the case, the case of prosecution is totally a different version. The investigating agency in the instant case never taken steps to examine and record the statement of the deceased. No document is placed before this court that the deceased was not in a position to speak. Therefore, in absence of any statement recorded by police and the evidence of PW-2 deviating from the case of prosecution and introducing a suicide note by the deceased without filing the said document also goes to observe that the case of the prosecution has been deviated and suffers contradictions with their own case.

22.The evidence of PW-1 also shows that prior to the death of the deceased he preferred a complaint before the police and in absence of the said complaint it is to observed that there is a deliberate suppression of facts. It is laid down several times by the Apex Court that the delay shall not be excused in preferring the complaint wherein there is no reasonable explanation made.

But to the instant case a deliberate suppression is made with regard to the prior incident of consuming poison as well a complaint allegedly made by the deceased prior to his death. When such is the case, Ex.P-1 is not at all a first information and it suffers with true facts which cannot be excused and the same cannot be relied upon.

23.Further a very important fact is suppressed in the instant case.

PW-1 deposed in her chief examination that on 18-12-2011 quarrel took place and on 22-12-2011 the deceased consumed poison. Where as in her chief- examination she deposed that the deceased consumed poison for two times.

She explained that on 19-12-2011 the deceased consumed poison. She again states that on 20-12-2011 the deceased consumed poison and was discharged on 21-12-2011 and again on 22-12-2011 the deceased consumed poison and on 23-12-2011 he died. After the said evidence she again states that on 21-12-2011 for the first time the deceased consumed poison.

9

24.On perusal of the evidence of PW-2 it shows that the deceased consumed poison for two times and PW-3 deposed that he came to know that the deceased consumed poison only once and he does not know whether the deceased consumed poison twice. PW-4 is not aware as to how many times the deceased consumed poison. On perusal of Ex.P-1 it shows that on 21-12- 2011 the galata took place and on 22-12-2011 the deceased consumed poison.

PW-2 is said to be the scribe of Ex.P-1. Nothing can be presumed that any stranger prepared Ex.P-1 without the instructions of PW-1 or without knowledge of case facts. Therefore, a deliberate suppression is observed in presenting the prior incident of quarrel as well consuming poison in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 with that of Ex.P-1. PW-1 in a confused state of mind has given three dates 19-12-2011, 20-12-2011 and 21-12-2011 as the date of consuming poison for the first time. When such is the mind set of

PW-1 nothing can be presumed as Ex.P-1 contains true facts and evidence of

PW-1 contains any truth in placing the facts before the court.

25.It is denied by PW-1 that the deceased was joined in the hospital on 21-12-2011 by her relative by name Ramanjaneyulu wherein the case sheet pertaining to the deceased called from the Government Hospital,

Ananthapuramu shows that the deceased Somireddy, son of Venkata Reddy with an admission No.8689 was admitted in the hospital on 21-12-2011 and was discharged on the same day at 6.10 P.M., which is elicited in the cross- examination. Nothing could be disputed with regard to the case sheet under

Ex.D-1 as it does not belong to the deceased. Therefore, it shows that there is a material suppression of facts under Ex.P-1. Moreover, when it is elicited that the deceased discharged at 6.10 P.M., on 21-12-2011 and on the same day at 7.00 P.M., the quarrel took place which appears to be very strange without any sufficient material. It cannot be believed that any such quarrel took place on 21-12-2011. The evidence of PW-1 in her chief-examination at the first instance also does not reveal the fact of quarrel on 21-12-2011. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 is contrary and inconsistent with Ex.P-1. The evidence of

PW-1 is not supported by any document so as to believe her version with 10 regard to consuming of poison on any of three dates given by her. Therefore, the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 is not at all sufficient nor satisfactory to know that the quarrel took place on 21-12-2011 and that it is the only cause for consuming poison on 22-12-2011.

26.PW-3 brother of the deceased not aware as to how many times the deceased consumed poison also is very strange to the case facts and it is to observe that he is planted in the instant case and has been appraised of the false case. PW-4 said to be an independent witness also deposed that she does not know as to how many times the deceased consumed poison and she also does not know that the deceased ever remanded and with regard to any site in favour of the deceased which goes to show that he is unaware of case facts. It is deposed by PW-4 that he does not know whether PW-1 has undertaken to pay the misappropriated amount on behalf of the deceased to Gayathri Podupu

Pathakam. At the same time it is admitted that one Jayamma was the member in Gayathri Podupu Pathakam and PW-4 filed a criminal complaint against husband of Jayamma and that the said case was compromised which shows that she is aware of the financial transactions of the deceased under the

Podupu Sangam, but the same has been deliberately suppressed. Unless total truth is placed before this court, the part of the evidence of PW-4 cannot be taken into consideration to hold that the accused are responsible for the death of the deceased.

27.PW-5 D.Raja Rathnam and PW-6 P.Prabhkar Reddy said to be independent witnesses turned hostile and stated that they does not know the case facts. PW-7 C.Irfan Khan, PW-8 G.Manikanta and PW-9 K.Bramhaiah are said be the witnesses to the inquest panchanama wherein they stated that no such inquest was made in their presence and they does not know the contents of the same.

28.PW-5 D.Raja Rathnam, PW-6 P.Prabhakar Reddy, PW-7 C.Irfan

Khan, PW-8 G.Manikanta and PW-9 K.Bramhaia were permitted to be declared as hostile but nothing could be elicited from their evidence in support of the case of prosecution by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

11

29.As there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased being suicidal and the dead body of the deceased containing organophosphate poison, the evidence of PW-10 Dr.M.Babu is helpful to observe that the deceased consumed poison.

30.In the light of above evidence and discussion and also in the light of evidence of DW-1 Syadanna the doctor got summoned on behalf of the accused and on perusal of Ex.D-1 also it is to observe that there is a deliberate suppression of prior incident and Ex.P-1 suffers with inordinate delay and material suppression of facts and it suffers for want of true facts.

31.Therefore, in the light of above observations, this court is of the opinion that the case of prosecution is not at all believable and it is held that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged offence against the accused.

Moreover, there is no whisper that the accused infact made the deceased to commit suicide having left no option. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused ever abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, points for determination are answered.

32.In the result, the accused A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C and are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 12 th day of May, 2015.

Addl. Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Prosecution Defence

P.W-1: P.Sarojamma DW-1: Dr.Sydanna, C.A.S P.W-2: P.Sudarshan Reddy Govt. Hospital, P.W-3: P.Sidda Reddy Ananthapuramu. PW-4: B.Padmavathi 12

PW-5: D.Raja Rathnam PW-6: P.Prabhakar Reddy PW-7: V.Irfan Khan

PW-8: G.Manikanta PW-9: K.Bramhaiah PW-10: Dr.M.Babu, Asst. Professor, Govt. Medical College, Ananthapuramu PW-11: D.V.Narayana Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram P.S.

Exhibits marked for Prosecution

Ex.P-1: Complaint given by PW-1 to the police, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-2: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-5, dt.05-01-2012, Ex.P-3: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-6,dt.05-01-2012, Ex.P-4: Signature of PW-7 on inquest panchanama, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-5: Signature of PW-8 on inquest panchanama, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-6 :Signature of PW-9 on inquest panchanama, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-7: R.F.S.L. Report, dt.21-4-2012, Ex.P-8: Postmortem certificate issued by PW-10, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-9: Final report, dt.27-4-2012, Ex.P-10: First information report in Cr.No.204/2011 of B.K.Samudram P.S., dt.23-12-2011. Ex.P-11: Inquest proceedings, dt.23-12-2011, Ex.P-12 : Rough sketch of scene of offence, dt.23-12-2011.

Exhibits marked for Defence

Ex.D-1 : Case sheet pertaining to Somireddy, S/o Venkata Reddy, dt.21-12-2011 vide admission No.8689 containing 3 pages.

Material Objects marked for

- Nil -

A.A.S.J

13

TABULAR FORM TO BE ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT AS PER RULE 67 Cr.P.C.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE : ANANTHAPURAMU

SESSIONS CASE NO : 580/2012

1. Name of the Complainant : State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, B.K.Samudram Police Station.

2. Description of the accused :

1. Choppa Lalithamma, aged 40 years, D/o C. Guru Shanthappa, Caste-Balija, D.No.11/14, Gayathri nagar, B.K.Samudram village and mandal,

2. Pasupuleti Nagaraju, aged 38 years, S/o P.Reddappa, Caste-Balija, D.No.11/23, Gayathri nagar, B.K.Samudram village and mandal.

3. Offences : U/Sec. 306 I.P.C.

4. Plea of the accused : Not guilty

5. Date of offence : 21-12-2011

6. Date of complaint : 23-12-2011

7. Date of appearance of accused : 03-01-2013

8. Date of committal : 14-09-2012

9. Date of commencement of trial : 30-07-2014

10. Date of close of trial : 21-04-2015

11. Date of sentence or order : 12-05-2015

12. Sentence or order :

In the result, the accused A-1 and A-2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C and are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the appeal time.

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN COMMITTAL COURT

On 22-05-2012 this case was taken on file and numbered as PRC No. 55/2012 on the file of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu. Copies furnished on 28-06-2012 to the accused and 14-09-2012 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Ananthapuramu.

14

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY IN COURT, ANANTHAPURAMU

On 28-09-2012 this case was made over by the Session Judge, Ananthapuramu. Charges were framed on 18-03-2013. The trial was commenced on 30-07-2014 and trial was closed on 21-04-2015 and accused are acquitted U/Sec. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. for the offence U/Sec. 306 I.P.C.

Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Copy to the District Collector, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the Superintendent of Police, Ananthapuramu. Copy to the Addl. Judl. I Class Magistrate, Ananthapuramu.

15 16 17 18

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. C.Satyavani, B.A., (Hons)., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

Saturday, the 2 nd day of May, 2015

Original Suit No. 524/2012

Between:-

P.Sreenivasula Reddy … Plaintiff.

And

K.Noor Mohammad … Defendant.

This suit coming on 30-4-2015 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri D.Malleswara Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Rajasekhar,

Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, and the matter having stood over for the consideration till this day, and 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.1,71,300/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dated.28-10-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- and also agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a, and interet is claimed on contract rate as the defendant is not an agriculturist and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the defendant sought for financial accommodation from the plaintiff for his personal and other binding purposes. The plaintiff accordingly agreed to lend the amount. On 28-10-2009 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff executed a pronote in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a., and repeated demands have been made upon the defendant to pay the 2 amount due but with no result. The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, the provisions of Act 4 of 1938 or Act 7 of 77 as extended upto the date have no application. Hence, interest is claimed at the contract rate. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the defendant has no necessity to borrow an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the alleged suit pronote is forged one for wrongful gain by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. It is therefore, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs in the interests of justice.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit pronote, dated.28-10-2009 is true, valid and binding ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount ?

3. To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and got marked Ex.A-1. On behalf of defendant none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.ISSUES No.1 to 3 :- PW-1 to substantiate his case got examined himself and also PW-2 the attestor of Ex.A-1 pronote. On perusal of cross- examination of both the witnesses nothing adverse could be elicited so as to suspect their case and that all the material particulars of Ex.A-1 could well be spoken by them which could not be disputed nor could be disproved.

8. The defendant failed to adduce evidence and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Absolutely, there is no documentary or oral evidence placed on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, in the light of evidence of PWs-1 and 2, the plaintiff could well substantiate his case and could substantiate that Ex.A-1 pronote is true, valid and binding and is entitled for the suit amount and also that the suit is entitled to be decreed. Accordingly, all issues are answered.

3

9.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against defendant for

Rs.1,71,300/- with interest at 12% p.a., on Rs.1,00,000/- being the principal amount from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2 nd day of May, 2015.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

PW-1: P.Sreenivasula Reddy - None - PW-2: B.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A-1: Original suit pronote, dt.28-10-2009 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Exhibits marked for the defendant

- Nil -

A.S.C.J.

4

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ANANTHAPURAMU

Present:- Smt. C.Satyavani, B.A., (Hons)., B.L.,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu,

Saturday, the 2 nd day of May, 2015

Original Suit No. 524/2012

Between:-

P.Sreenivasula Reddy … Plaintiff.

And

K.Noor Mohammad … Defendant.

This suit coming on 30-4-2015 for disposal before me in the presence of Sri D.Malleswara Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri B.Rajasekhar,

Advocate for the defendant, and upon hearing the counsel for the plaintiff, and the matter having stood over for the consideration till this day, and 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.1,71,300/- being the principal and interest due on a pronote dated.28-10-2009 executed by the defendant in favour of plaintiff for

Rs.1,00,000/- and also agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% p.a, and interet is claimed on contract rate as the defendant is not an agriculturist and for costs of the suit.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are that the defendant sought for financial accommodation from the plaintiff for his personal and other binding purposes. The plaintiff accordingly agreed to lend the amount. On 28-10-2009 the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash from the plaintiff executed a pronote in favour of plaintiff agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 24% p.a., and repeated demands have been made upon the defendant to pay the 2 amount due but with no result. The defendant is not an agriculturist. Hence, the provisions of Act 4 of 1938 or Act 7 of 77 as extended upto the date have no application. Hence, interest is claimed at the contract rate. Hence, the suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement and denied all the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the defendant has no necessity to borrow an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and the alleged suit pronote is forged one for wrongful gain by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no capacity to lend the amount. It is therefore, prayed this court to dismiss the suit with costs in the interests of justice.

4.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the suit pronote, dated.28-10-2009 is true, valid and binding ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit amount ?

3. To what relief ?

5. On behalf of the plaintiff, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and got marked Ex.A-1. On behalf of defendant none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.Heard the counsel for the plaintiff.

7.ISSUES No.1 to 3 :- PW-1 to substantiate his case got examined himself and also PW-2 the attestor of Ex.A-1 pronote. On perusal of cross- examination of both the witnesses nothing adverse could be elicited so as to suspect their case and that all the material particulars of Ex.A-1 could well be spoken by them which could not be disputed nor could be disproved.

8. The defendant failed to adduce evidence and rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. Absolutely, there is no documentary or oral evidence placed on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, in the light of evidence of PWs-1 and 2, the plaintiff could well substantiate his case and could substantiate that Ex.A-1 pronote is true, valid and binding and is entitled for the suit amount and also that the suit is entitled to be decreed. Accordingly, all issues are answered.

3

9.In the result, suit is decreed with costs against defendant for

Rs.1,71,300/- with interest at 12% p.a., on Rs.1,00,000/- being the principal amount from the date of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 2 nd day of May, 2015.

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Plaintiff Defendant

PW-1: P.Sreenivasula Reddy - None - PW-2: B.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy

Exhibits marked for the plaintiff

Ex.A-1: Original suit pronote, dt.28-10-2009 executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff for Rs.1,00,000/-.

Exhibits marked for the defendant

- Nil -

A.S.C.J.

4

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no....

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :IP/0000007/2015 Vadde Pennaiah aged 46 years Vs Hanumantha Reddy aged 30 years

Date : 30-04-2015

Business: Petitioner absent.Affidavit evidence or from 2 rule 6 of PI Act not filed.No representation till 2.00 P.M Hence peittion dismissed as petitioner failed to substantiate his case.No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 30-04-2015 Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur 1 of 101/10/24, 11:47

Case Historyhttp://172.17.40.130/swecourtis/kiosk/cases/case_no....

Back Daily Status

In the Court of :Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :IP/0000019/2015 B.Sainath Reddy aged 28 years Vs A.Anjina Reddy aged 35 years

Date : 30-04-2015

Business: Petitioner absent.Affidavit evidence or from 2 rule 6 of PI Act not filed.No representation till 4.00 P.M Hence peittion dismissed as petitioner failed to substantiate his case.No costs. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED Disposal Date: 30-04-2015 Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur 1 of 101/10/24, 11:47