Sri C. Venkatesh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE:: AT :: PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: SRI C.VENKATESH,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

SESSIONS CASE NO.162 OF 2014

Name of the complainantThe State through Sub Inspector of Police, N.T.P.C. P.S (Crime No.112/2013 of P.S. N.T.P.C).

Name of the accusedA1: Madaravena Srinivas, S/o Komuraiah, 32 years, Yadav. A2: Madaravena Bhuchamma, W/o Komuraiah, 60 years, Yadav. A3: Madaravena Komuraiah, S/o Mallaiah, 68 years, Yadav.

All are R/o: Ramaiahpalli village.

Crime number112/2013

Charges framedSection 498-A and 306 IPC.

PRC.No.42 of 2013

Case committed byJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Godavarikhani.

Plea of the accusedNot guilty

Finding of the CourtNot guilty

Sentence or OrderIn the result, accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 306 IPC and they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by::Sri V.Balakrishna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri B.Amarender Rao & Sri T.Ram Reddy, Advocates, Peddapalli.

This case is coming on 22-09-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri V.Balakrishna Rao, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri B.Amarender Rao & Sri T.Ram Reddy, Advocates for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, N.T.P.C filed charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 306 IPC.

2.The brief averments of the charge sheet are that on 30-6-2013 at 11-30 AM, the complainant Dareddy Pullamma lodged a complaint stating that she is a resident of Gunturupalli village.

About 13 years back, she performed the marriage of her younger daughter Mamatha with one Govinda Reddy. During their wedlock, they were blessed with one daughter. After two years of the marriage, her son-in-law died. Her daughter joined in Surya

Hospital as Nurse. About five years back, one Madaravena Srinivas developed love with her daughter Mamatha and married her and they led marital life for one year. Her daughter was made birth control operation before her second marriage. Her daughter informed her that her husband and in-laws were harassing her. She sent one Mettu Ram Reddy, Chalimadugu Veera Reddy and Kalla

Elamanda Reddy to their house, but they abused them and not allowed them into their house, as such, they returned and informed her that the husband and in-laws of her daughter informed them that they have an opportunity of job and bring cash from her parents and her son-in-law beat her daughter in their 3 presence. Due to harassment of the husband and in-laws, her daughter vexed with her life and committed suicide by hanging. At about 9-30 AM, one Kollu Srinivas Reddy informed her daughter's death intimation. On that she went to Ramaiahpalli village and found her daughter dead in front of their house, hence she lodged the complaint.

3.Basing on the above complaint, Sri G.Rajesham, A.S.I of

Police, N.T.P.C registered a case in Crime No.112/2013 U/s 498-A and 306 IPC and took-up investigation. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the complainant

Pullamma. He visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of

Kondam Srinivas Reddy (L.W.11) and Gandla Dharmapuri (L.W.12) and conducted crime detail form and seized one saree from the scene of offence and drawn rough sketch in their presence. He took the photographs of the dead body with the help of Samala

Srinivas (L.W.7). He also recorded the statements of Sureddy

Sreeja, Kolla Saida Reddy, Mushikala Chiranjeevi, Mushikala

Sathakka and Mekala Saritha (L.Ws.2 to 6). Sri G.Shankaraiah (L.W.16), Tahasildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Mettu Shesharathnamma, Ragam

Srinivas and Chilkala Prakash Reddy (L.Ws.13 to 15) and the dead body was referred to conduct postmortem examination.

Dr.Ch.Mohan Rao (L.W.17) who conducted postmortem examination opined that the cause of death was due to Asphyxia due to hanging.

4

4.Sri B.Upender, S.I of Police (L.W.19) took-up further investigation, found the investigation done by A.S.I of Police and found it on correct lines. On 11-7-2013 at 9-30 AM, he arrested the accused No.1 to 3 and sent to judicial remand. Hence the charge.

COGNIZANCE

5.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Godavarikhani taken the cognizance of the case U/s 498-A and 306

IPC against the accused No.1 to 3 and registered it as PRC No.42 of 2013. On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated u/s 208 Cr.P.C., and complied the provisions u/s 209(a) Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Hon'ble Sessions Court, Karimnagar wherein it was registered as SC No.162 of 2014 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

CHARGES

6.On appearance of the accused before this court, the

Additional PP reopened the case u/sec.226 Cr.P.C. Heard both sides

on framing of charges. The accused No.1 to 3 were examined

U/sec.228 Cr.P.C and charges U/s 498-A and 306 IPC were framed against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

7.The prosecution cited nineteen witnesses and got examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9. The Addl.

Public Prosecutor given-up the evidence of L.W.5 Mushikatla

Sathakka, L.W.7 Samala Srinivas, L.W.11 Kodam Srinivas Reddy,

L.W.12 Gandla Dharmapuri, L.W.13 Mettu Shesharathnamma,

L.W.14 Ragam Srinivas, L.W.15 Chilkala Prakash Reddy, L.W.16

G.Shankaraiah, L.W.17 Dr.Ch.Mohan Rao, L.W.18 G.Rajesham, ASI and L.W.19 B.Upender, S.I of Police, as material witnesses turned hostile.

Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination

8.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused No.1 to 3 in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of the accused

U/s 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9.Heard both sides arguments.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 306 IPC?

6

POINT

11.Coming to the case of prosecution, P.W.1 Dareddy

Pullamma, the complainant and mother of the deceased Mamatha, stated that her daughter was married to one Govinda Reddy and they begotten one daughter by name Sreeja and her son-in-law died. After the death of her son-in-law, her daughter was residing at her house and her daughter was working as Nurse in Surya

Hospital, Godavarikhani and subsequently, her daughter was married to A-1. She stated that her daughter died due to stomach pain. She turned hostile and her signature on the complaint was marked under Ex.P.1, and her 161 Cr.P.C statement was marked under Ex.P.2. Nothing incriminating was elicited from P.W.1 to establish the guilt of the accused in the cross examination by Addl.

P.P.

12.P.W.2 Sureddy Sreeja, the daughter of the deceased, also turned hostile, and she denied her 161 Cr.P.C statement under

Ex.P.3 and not supported the case of prosecution.

13.P.W.3 K.Saida Reddy, P.W.4 K.Elamandha Reddy, P.W.5

M.Chiranjeevi, P.W.6 M.Saritha, P.W.7 M.Ramdas Reddy and P.W.8

Ch.Veera Reddy, the independent witnesses, turned hostile at one voice and they denied their 161 Cr.P.C statements under Exs.P.4 to

P.9 respectively. Nothing incriminating was elicited from the said 7 witnesses to establish the guilt of the accused from the cross examination by Addl. P.P.

14.From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.8, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 306 IPC.

In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s 498-A and 306 IPC, hence they are acquitted U/s 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade ­II, transcribed by him, 

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of September, 2015.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the prosecution For the defence

Pw.1: Dareddy Pullamma. ­­NIL­­­ Pw.2: Sureddy Sreeja. Pw.3: K.Saida Reddy. Pw.4: K.Elamandha Reddy. Pw.5: M.Chiranjeevi. Pw.6: M.Saritha. Pw.7: M.Ramdas Reddy. Pw.8: Ch.Veera Reddy. 

8

EXHIBITS MARKED

For the Prosecution Ex.P.1 30­06­2013Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint.

Ex.P.2 30­06­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1. 

Ex.P.3 30­06­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. 

Ex.P.4 30­06­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. 

Ex.P.5 03­07­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. 

Ex.P.6 30­06­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5. 

Ex.P.7 30­06­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. 

Ex.P.8 03­07­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7. 

Ex.P.9 03­07­2013161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. 

For the defence ­­Nil­­

Material objects ­­­Nil­­­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

PEDDAPALLI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PEDDAPALLI

PRESENT: SRI.C.VENKATESH, B.Sc., LL.M.,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PEDDAPALLI

TUESDAY, THIS THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015

E.P.NO. 192 OF 2014

In

O.S.No.180 OF 2013

Between:-

Gunnala Dhanunjay, S/o Komuraiah, Age: 30 years, Occu: Tractor mechanic, R/o H.No.3-4-47/B, Shantinagar, Peddapalli. … Decree Holder/plaintiff

And

Erukala Lingaiah, S/o Erukala Pochalu, Age: 50 years, Occu: Retired Gramasunkari, R/o Raginedu v/o Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District.

..Judgment Debtor/defendant

This Execution Petition coming before me on 21-09-2015 for final hearing in the presence of Sri R.Suresh Babu, Advocate for the Decree Holder/plaintiff and the Judgment Debtor/Defendant was set exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-

:: O R D E R ::

1This is an Execution Petition filed by the Decree Holder under Order 21 Rule 37 of CPC praying the Court to issue arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor for non-payment of decretal amount of Rs.2,38,496/-.

2.The Decree Holder submitted that this Court passed

Judgment and Decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,38,496/- against the Judgment Debtor in the above suit. Inspite of decree 2 passed by this Court, the Judgment Debtor is intentionally avoiding to pay the decretal amount, hence he prayed to send the Judgment

Debtor to civil imprisonment for realization of the decretal amount and he is ready to bear the expenses for sending the Judgment Debtor to the civil imprisonment.

3.The Judgment Debtor was served with notice and he was set exparte.

4.The Decree Holder examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P-1 and P-2.

5.Heard the arguments of D.Hr's counsel.

6.Now the point for consideration is:-

Whether the Execution Petition can be allowed as prayed for?

7.P.W.1 Gunnala Dhanunjay (Decree Holder) has filed his chief examination affidavit on the same lines of the petition and got marked Ex.P.1 certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.180/2013, dated 26-3-2014 and Ex.P.2 certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.180/2013,

dated 26-3-2014.

3

8.The Decree Holder has filed Ex.P.1 certified copy of

Judgment and Ex.P.2 certified copy of Decree showing that the Decree

Holder is entitled for Rs.2,38,496/-. The Decree Holder stated that the

Judgment Debtor is intentionally avoiding to pay the decreal amount though having movable and immovable properties and that the

Judgment Debtor worked as Gramasunkari and got retirement benefits on the said post, hence he prayed to arrest the Judgment

Debtor for detaining him in civil imprisonment for realization of the decretal amount.

9.Coming to the case of the Decree Holder, Exs.P-1 and P-2 clearly discloses that the Judgment Debtor is liable to pay the decretal amount of Rs.2,38,496/-. Admittedly, the Judgment Debtor worked as Gramasunkari having immovable and movable properties. Though the Judgment Debtor is having sufficient means, he failed to repay the decretal amount. Hence, he is liable for arrest.

IN THE RESULT, the Execution Petition is allowed and issue arrest warrant against the Judgment Debtor on payment of subsistence allowance and conveyance charges to send the Judgment

Debtor to the civil imprisonment for a period of one month. Call on 29-10-2015.

Dictated to Stenographer Grade - II, transcribed by him

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of September, 2015.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

4

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR DECREE HOLDER FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR.

P.W.1: Gunnala Dhanunjay. --NONE---

EXHIBITS MARKED.

FOR DECREE HOLDER:

Ex.P.1:Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.180/2013, dated 26-3-2014.

Ex.P.2: Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.180/2013, dated 26-3-2014.

FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR:

---NIL---

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

PEDDAPALLI.

5

TSKA080002472014

Presented on : 03-09-2014 Registered on : 09-09-2014 Decided on : 16-09-2015 Duration : 1 years, 0 months, 13 days

IN THE COURT OF

senior civil judge AT PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri C. Venkatesh

EP/165/2014

Exhibit No.:

:

RAMANJANEYA CHIT FUND CO., RBY V. RAJESHAM

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: MS. RAMANJANEYA CHIT FUND COMPANY, LAXMI

NAGAR, GODAVARIKHANI

VERSUS :

KOTHAPALLI SHESHAIAH

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Qr.NO.SC2-104, SHARADA NAGAR, GODAVARIKHANI 2:JDR.4 BURRA SAMBAIAH Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B. AMARENDER RAO Advocate for : appearing for KOTHAPALLI SHESHAIAH: Advocate appearing for 2 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 16-09-2015 )

ORDER

DHR COUNTER NOT PRESSED THE EP AS FELL PAYMENT IS

RECEIVED HENCE THE EP IS DISMISSED NO COSTS.

Date : 16-09-2015 (Sri C. Venkatesh)

senior civil judge

PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri C. Venkatesh) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

TSKA080002512011

Presented on : 02-07-2011 Registered on : 11-07-2011 Decided on : 16-09-2015 Duration : 4 years, 2 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF

senior civil judge AT PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

Presided Over by Sri C. Venkatesh

EP/28/2011

Exhibit No.:

:

RAMANJANEYA CHIT FUND CO., RBY V. RAJESHAM

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: LAXMI NAGAR, GODAVARIKHANI

VERSUS :

ENAGANDULA RAJESH

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: Qr.NO.T-160, KALYANKHANI, MANDAMARRI 2:JDR.2 SHANIGARAPU RAJESHAM Age: 0 Occupation :

3:JDR.5 DURGAM KANAKAIAH Age: 0 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B. AMARENDER RAO

Advocate for : N. RAJAIAH appearing for ENAGANDULA RAJESH: Advocate N. RAJAIAH,

N. RAJAIAH appearing for 2, 3 respectively.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 16-09-2015 )

ORDER

HARD DHR COUNSEL AS PER EX P1 TO TOTAL AMOUNT

RECEIVED HENCE THE EP IS DISMISSED NO COSTS.

Date : 16-09-2015 (Sri C. Venkatesh)

senior civil judge

PEDDAPALLI ,KARIMNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF THE senior civil judge: PEDDAPALLI 

Present: Sri C. Venkatesh,

senior civil judge,

PEDDAPALLI .

Date: 22­09­2015

H.M.O.P/74/2013

Between:­

THATIPAMULA SAMMAIAH

Address: H.NO.16­1­251, SHIVAJI NAGAR, GODAVARIKHANI … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

THATIPAMULA SWAROOPA

Address: H.NO.73, BAVUPET … Defendant/Respondent

D O C K E T O R D E R

Date:22­09­2015

petitioner called absent. process not deposited no representation petition dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in the open Court on 22­09­2015

senior civil judge,

PEDDAPALLI .

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE AND

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:FOR RESPONDENT:

­ ­ Nil ­ ­ ­ ­Nil­ ­

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFFFOR THE DEFENDANTS

­ ­Nil­­ ­ ­Nil­ ­

senior civil judge,

PEDDAPALLI .