Ch.a.n. Murthy

S.C.No.155 of 2009 1 Dt: 20.10.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

HANAMKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Addl. Sessions Judge,

Hanumakonda

Friday, the 20 th day of October, 2023

Sessions Case No.155 OF 2009

(P.R.C.No.07/2009 on the file of VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Warangal)

1. Name and description: The State of Telangana of the Complainant.through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S.Hasanparthy.

2. Name and description of the accused :

A-1:Nagavelli Mohan Raj, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:50 yrs, Occ: Junior Telecom Officer, Sangem Exchange, R/o.H.No.4-7-12, Near Venkateshwara Kirana shop, Andhra Bank, Hanumakonda A-2:Koppu Rammohan (Discharged)

3. Offence with which charged : Under Section 306 IPC.

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: A-1 is found not guilty

6. Sentence or Order :

In the result,A-1 is found not guilty for the charge under section 306

IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by :Smt B. Vanaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: Sri G. Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.C.No.155 of 2009 2 Dt: 20.10.2023

This case is coming up before me on 19.10.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt B. Vanaja, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri G. Vidyasagar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P. S Hasanparthy filed the charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.170 of 2008 of P.S. Hasanparthy for the offence under Sections 306 IPC, the brief facts of which are as follows:

On 14.10.2008 at about 07.30 hours, LW.1/Complainant Kasani Kiran

Kumar lodged a report stating that the deceased Kasani Kumara Swamy is his father and he was the then vice President and later the President of Telecom employees consumers society, Warangal; A-1 is Junior Telecom officer in Sangem exchange and

A-2 is Accounts Officer in BSNL Bhavan, Warangal. In the year 1999, A-1 has taken an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- towards loan from the telephone consumers society.

Every month an amount of Rs.8,000/- was deducted from the salary of A-1 upto

August, 2008. Later, A1 with the support of A2 has taken back his loan application from the society on the plea of verification and informed the same to A2. As the loan application of A1 is not with the society of A2 the deduction of loan amount was stopped. The deceased requested A-1 several occasions to return the loan application, but A1 and A2 bluntly denied to return the application to the Telecom

S.C.No.155 of 2009 3 Dt: 20.10.2023 employees consumers society, Warangal for which the deceased/Kumara Swamy was the President and A2 refused to deduct the loan amount from the salary of A-1.

Prior to this incident, one A. Shedrak has filed a complaint at Police

Station, Hanumakonda alleging that the deceased was alleged accused in

Cr.No.188/2008 U/s.420 IPC and the said case referred as lack of evidence and submitted for final report by LW13 on 09.08.2008. After referring the above case, A1 and A2 increased mental torture towards deceased. Even after several requests, A1 asked the deceased/K. Kumaraswamy to come to his house on 13.10.2008 morning.

Accordingly, on 13.10.2008 at about 08.00 AM, the deceased went to the house of A1 along with LW4/N.Bhumaiah, where the accused A1 abused the deceased and stated that he will not return the application. As the deceased stated that A1 has not paid the amount, for which he will be responsible to pay the balance amount, upon that A1 abetted the deceased to die to escape from the deductions. Due to the harassment of accused A1 and A2, the deceased suffered mental agony, vexed upon his life and consumed pesticide poison on 13.10.2008 at about 12.30 hours by writing a death note that he is committing suicide due to the harassment of A-1, telephoned to LW-4/

N.Bhumaiah and informed the same. On receipt of message from the deceased, the

LW-4/N. Bhumaiah went to the house of deceased and shifted him to MGM hospital,

Warangal for treatment and while undergoing treatment, the deceased died on the same day at 2.50 PM. Later, LW-1/Kasani Kiran Kumar filed a report.

2.On receipt of report from LW-1/K.Kiran Kumar, LW-14/D.Nalini,

Probationary D.S.P., i/c PS Hasanparthy, registered a case vide Cr.No.170/2008 for

S.C.No.155 of 2009 4 Dt: 20.10.2023 the offence U/s. 306 IPC and during the course of investigation, she examined and recorded the statement of LW1, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 7 namely K. Bharathi, K. Eswaraiah, N. Bhumaiah, P. Sanjeeva, P. Jonus Reddy, J.

Bikshapathi, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and drafted crime details form in the presence of witnesses, later LW15/K.Janardhan Reddy, S.I of police, Hasanparthy took up further investigation into this case.

LW12/Dr.A.Hemantha Rao, Professor, FMD, Kakathiya Medical College,

Warangal conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was due to Organophosphate an insecticide poisoning. The

Accused A1 and A2 surrendered before the VII Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Warangal and were released on bail and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/s. 306 IPC.

3.The case was taken on file by the learned VII Addl. Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Warangal, against the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

4.On appearance of the Accused, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of Code of

Criminal Procedure. As the offences charged against the accused A1 and A2, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209 Cr.P.C., has committed the case vide P.R.C.No. 07/2009 to the Hon'ble

Principal Sessions Court, Warangal.

5.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Warangal, assigned the

Sessions Case and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

S.C.No.155 of 2009 5 Dt: 20.10.2023

6.As per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad vide

Crl.Rev.case No.2087/2009, dt.29.03.2023, A2 is discharged for the offene under

Sec.306 IPC. Thus A1 only is examined under section 228(2) Cr.P.C. Charge under

Section 306 IPC was framed against A1, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which A1 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.

7.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P.17 were marked on behalf of the prosecution and thus the prosecution closed the evidence.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 is examined under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

9.Heard the learned Addl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for accused.

10. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Point: The prosecution has examined as many as 9-witnesses as Pws 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-17 documents. PW1 is the de-facto complainant and son of the deceased Kumara Swamy, who alleged to have lodged Ex.P12 report at the earliest point of time and PW-2 is the wife of the deceased. PW-3 is the eye

S.C.No.155 of 2009 6 Dt: 20.10.2023 witness and Pws 4 and 8 are the circumstantial witnesses. PW5 is the photographer who has taken photographs Exs.P6 to P8 photographs and negatives taken over the dead body of the deceased. PW-6 is the panch witness for Ex.P-15 inquest panchanama, PW-7 is the panch witness for the scene of offence panchanama, drafting rough sketch as per Ex.P10 CDF and PW-9 is the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet.

12.PW-1 who is the son and PW-2 is the wife of deceased/Kumaraswamy deposed that during the year 2008, the deceased Kumara Swamy died due to consumption of poison and they have specifically stated that due to financial problems the deceased has resorted to the said act and both stated that they cannot say the specific reason for committing the suicide by the deceased Kumara Swamy and PW-1 clearly stated that police obtained the signature/Ex.P1 on Ex.P12 report.

Both these witnesses were treated hostile by the learned APP and during the course of their cross examination, both have denied a suggestion put by the learned

Addl.P.P., that they have stated before police as in Exs.P-2 and P-3, their 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police and they have also denied a suggestion put by the learned APP that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused.

13.The direct eye witness examined by the prosecution as PW-3 and the circumstantial witnesses PW-4 and PW-8 also pleaded ignorance about their knowledge in the facts of this case. PWs-3, 4 and 8 were also treated hostile by the learned APP and they have denied a suggestion put by the learned APP that they

S.C.No.155 of 2009 7 Dt: 20.10.2023 have stated before the police as in Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-11, their 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police respectively.

14.In the absence of any evidence from the son and wife of deceased/PW- 1 & PW-2 respectively, and the other eye witnesses PW-3 and the circumstantial witnesses PWs 4 and 8, the evidence of the Panch witnesses PWs 6 & 7 for the alleged inquest panchanama and preparation of Crime Details form is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused.

15.PW-5 is the Photographer who deposed that about 15 years back, on one day, police Hasanparthy called him to the mortuary room, MGM hospital,

Warangal to take photographs of the deceased/Kumara Swamy, later, he handed over the Exs.P-6 & P-7 positive photographs and Ex.P8 is the negative to police.

16.PW-7 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form deposed that about 14 years back, he along with LW10/S.Kumara Swamy went to the house of the deceased/Kumara Swamy and at that time, police Hasanparthy have observed the scene of offence where the deceased Kumara Swamy has committed suicide and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence on CDF in their presence and Ex.P10 is the Crime Details Form.

17.PW-9 is the Investigating Officer, who categorically stated in his chief examination that on 14-10-2008, PW1 lodged report Ex.P12 before LW14/D.Nalini, probationary DSP incharge of P.S.Hasanparthy, basing on which, a case was registered in Cr.No.170/2018, U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P-13/printed FIR to all the concerned and she has examined Pw1 in the police station and recorded

S.C.No.155 of 2009 8 Dt: 20.10.2023 his statement. On 30.10.2008, the A1 and A2 surrendered before him and obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble Prl. District Court, Warangal. Hence, he effected the arrest of A1 and A2 and released them on bail and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. During the course of cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-9 categorically stated that Ex.P-14/Death note was never sent to the

Expert inorder to ascertain whether the Death Note/Ex.P-14 contains the hand writing of the deceased/Kumaraswamy.

18.But the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW-9 at best would reveal the manner in which he has conducted the investigation in this case. In the absence of any evidence from the kith and kin of the deceased and the eye witness PW-3 and the circumstantial witnesses PWs 4 & 8, the sole testimony of the Investigating officer

PW-9 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt alleged against the

A-1 for the charges U/S. 306 IPC to base a conviction. Though a note was seized by the police from the scene of offence, but as rightly contended by learned defence counsel that such Death Note/Ex.P-14 was never sent to an expert by the prosecution to substantiate the fact that Ex.P-14 contains the hand writing of the deceased and in the absence of the same, no sanctity can be attached to

Ex.P-14/Death Note.

Thus the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s. 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused is entitled to benefit doubt of it.

S.C.No.155 of 2009 9 Dt: 20.10.2023

19. IN THE RESULT, the A-1 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 306 IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of October, 2023)

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: P.Kiran Kumar -None -

PW-2 : K.Bharathi,

PW-3 : N.Bhumaiah,

PW-4 : P.Sanjeeva,

PW-5 : J.Bixapathi,

PW-6 : K.Rajamouli,

PW-7 : N.Thirupathi,

PW-8 : Jonus Reddy ,

PW-9 : K.Janardhan Reddy, I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on report

Ex.P-2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1,

Ex.P-3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-2,

Ex.P-4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-3,

Ex.P-5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-4,

S.C.No.155 of 2009 10 Dt: 20.10.2023

Ex.P-6 & 7:(2) Photographs

Ex.P-8:Negative,

Ex.P-9:Signatures of PW-6 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-10:Crime Details Form,

Ex.P-11:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-8,

Ex.P-12:Report lodged by PW-1,

Ex.P-13:Printed FIR,

Ex.P-14:Death Note

Ex.P-15:Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-16:Post Mortem Examination report.

Ex.P-17:APFSL Expert Opinion.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

S.C.No.155 of 2009 11 Dt: 20.10.2023

CALENDAR EXTRACT

SESSIONS CASE No. 155 of 2009

ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, HANAMKONDA IN

P.R.C.No. 07/2009 ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL. JUDL.F.C.M., WARANGAL.

1.Name of the Police Station & : P.S. Hasanparthy, Crime Number:Cr.No. 170/2008

2. Name of the Accused:

A-1:Nagavelli Mohan Raj, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:50 yrs, Occ: Junior Telecom Officer, Sangem Exchange, R/o.H.No.4-7-12, Near Venkateshwara Kirana shop, Andhra Bank, Hanumakonda A-2:Koppu Rammohan (Discharged)

3.Date of Occurrence:13-10-2008

4.Date of Report:14-10-2008

5. Date of Arrest Surrender:30.10.2008

6. Date of release on Bail:30.10.2008

7.Date of Commitment:20-03-2009

8.Date of commencement of trial:10-08-2023

9.Date of closure of Trial:19-10-2023

10.Date of Judgment:20-10-2023

10.Finding of the Court:Not guilty

11.In the result,A-1 is found not guilty for the charge under sections 306

IPC and he is accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

S.C.No.155 of 2009 12 Dt: 20.10.2023

12.Explanation for delay: This case was received by this Court from VII Addl.

JFCM Court, Warangal. On appearance of accused, Charges framed on 27.4.2023.

Trial commenced from 10.08.2023 to 19-10-2023, PWs 1 to 9 were examined. On 19-10-2023, Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments and posted for judgment. On 20.09.2023 Judgment was pronounced. Thus, the delay is explained.

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HANAMKONDA

Dis.No: Date :

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 1 Dt: 20.10.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

HANAMKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Addl. Sessions Judge,

Hanumakonda

Friday, the 20 th day of October, 2023

Sessions Case No.391 OF 2022

(P.R.C.No.02/2022 on the file of II Addl. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Huzurabad)

1. Name and description: The State of Telangana of the Complainant.through Sub-Inspector of Police P.S.Kamalapur.

2. Name and description of the accused :

A1 Burri Komurelli @ Kumara Swamy, S/o.Chandraiah, Age:61 yrs, A2Burri Thirupathi, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:52 years, A3Mekala Ailaiah, S/o.Kanakaiah, Age:57 years, All R/o.Kamalapur village and Mandal

3. Offence with which charged : Under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC.

4. Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge: A-1 to A3 are found not guilty

6. Sentence or Order :

In the result,A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under section 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months.

The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Prosecution conducted by :Smt B. Vanaja, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by: Sri P. Satyanarayana, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 2 Dt: 20.10.2023

This case is coming up before me on 19.10.2023 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Smt B. Vanaja, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri P. Satyanarayana, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accused and the matter is having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P. S Kamalapur filed the charge sheet against the accused A1 to A3 in Crime No.71 of 2021 of P.S. Kamalapur for the offence under Sections 306 r/w 34 IPC, the brief facts of which are as follows:

On 24.05.2021 at about 01.00 PM, LW.1/Complainant Kinnera Venu lodged a report by stating that the about 25 years prior to date of offence, the father of LW-1/K. Venu namely Kinnera Buchiramulu has purchased land to an extent of

Ac.0.02 guntas in Sy.No.909 from Burri Chandraiah and Accused Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of Burri Chandraiah. Prior to the incident, A-1 to A-3 went to the land of LW-1/K.

Buchiramulu and stated that the land belongs to A-1 to A-3 and called him before the caste elders for panchayath on 18.04.2021. In the said panchayath, the panchayath elders decided the matter and given judgment in favour of A-1 to A-3, since then, the deceased has suffered and thinking about land matter and the deceased said with the A-1 that he will die before the house of A.1. On 23.05.2021 at about 10.00 PM, the father of LW-1/K. Venu i.e., Burri Chandraiah has slept in his house. During early hours i.e., at about 03.00 AM, the LW-5/Vengala Bixapathi called LW-1/K. Venu and

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 3 Dt: 20.10.2023 informed that his father committed suicide by hanging to Neem tree near to the house of A-1. Later, LW-1/K. Venu went to police station and lodged a report.

2.On receipt of report from LW-1/Kinnera Venu, LW-13/J.Parameshwar,

S.I of police, PS Kamalapur, registered a case vide Cr.No.71/2021 for the offence

U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC. During the course of investigation, LW-13/J. Parameshwar has examined and recorded the statement of LW-1/K. Venu at PS Kamalapur, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of above mediators got photographed through LW-6/J. Bixapathi. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the detailed statements of LWs 2 to 5 namely B. Rajaiah, K. Chiranjeevi, K.

Punnam Chander and V. Bixapathi. Further, he proceeded to scene of offence and conducted the scene observation panchanama, he seized one nylon rolled ope which is having white color and log is about 12 feet 1 inch and width is 1 ½ inches in the presence of mediators. Later, he has collected the land purchased document i.e.,

Five rupees Bond paper vide No.6855,dt.23.04.2000 from the complainant/LW1.

On 15.11.2021, LW13/J.Parameshwar, apprehended A1 to A3 and they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the Accused A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC.

3.The case was taken on file by the learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Huzurabad, against the accused for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34

IPC.

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 4 Dt: 20.10.2023

4.On appearance of the Accused A1 to A3, the learned Magistrate furnished the copies of case documents to the accused as required under Sec.207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure. As the offences charged against the accused A1 to A3, is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate after compliance of Sec.209 Cr.P.C., has committed the case vide P.R.C.No. 02/2022 to the Hon'ble Principal Sessions Court, Hanumakonda.

5.The Hon'ble Principal Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda, assigned the

Sessions Case and made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law.

6.After apeparance of A-1 to A-3 before this court, they are examined under section 228(2) Cr.P.C. Charges under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC was framed against A1 to A3, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which A1 to A3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, the Court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses to record their evidence.

7.During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P- 21 were marked on behalf of the prosecution and thus the prosecution closed the evidence.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, A-1 to A3 are examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the same and did not choose to examine any defence witnesses.

9.Heard the learned Addl. P.P. for the State and the learned counsel for accused.

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 5 Dt: 20.10.2023

10. Now the point for determination is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused A1 to A3 for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Point: In this case, the prosecution has examined as many as (10) witnesses as PWs-1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 documents. PW-1 is the de-facto complainant/son of the deceased Buchiramulu, who alleged to have lodged

Ex.P17 report at the earliest point of time; PW-2 and PW-3 are the sons-in-law of the deceased. PW-4 is the eye witness, PW-5 is the photographer who have taken

Exs.P-6 to P-11 photographs and Ex.P-12 is the CD, PWs 6 and 7 are the panch witnesses for inquest, PW-8 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form, PW-9 is the

Medical Officer and PW-10 is the Investigating officer, who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet.

. 12PW-1 who is the son and PW-2 and PW-3 are the sons-in-law of the deceased respectively. PWs 1 to 3 stand in a line and deposed that about two years back, the deceased Buchiramulu suffered severe stomach pain and having unable to bear the stomach pain, he committed suicide by hanging to a tree. PW-1 stated that the police obtained his signature Ex.P-1 is the signature of PW-1 on Ex.P-17 report.

PWs 1 to 3 were treated hostile by the learned APP and during the course of cross examination, PWs 1 to 3 denied a suggestion that they have stated before police as in Exs.P2 to P4, their 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police and they have also denied a suggestion put by the learned APP that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused.

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 6 Dt: 20.10.2023

13.PW-4 is the direct eye witness examined by the prosecution and he completely pleaded ignorance about his knowledge in the facts of this case. He was also treated hostile by the learned APP and he denied a suggestion put by the learned APP that he has stated before the police as in Ex.P-5, his 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police.

14.PW-5 is the Photographer who deposed that about two years back,

Police Kamalapur called him to take the photographs of the deceased/Buchiramulu.

Accordingly, he has taken photographs. Exs. P-6 to P-11 are the photographs and

Ex.P-12 is the CD pertaining to the photographs.

15.PWs 6 & 7 are panch witnesses for Inquest examined by the prosecution to establish the factum of the conduct of inquest panchanama, have also pleaded ignorance about the conducting of such panchanama in their presence. PWs 6 and 7 have categorically stated that the police have merely obtained their signatures on the Inquest panchanama which are respectively marked as Exs.P13 and P14.

16.PW-8 is the Panch witness examined by the prosecution to establish the factum of the conduct of the scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-20 Crime

Details Form, he also pleaded ignorance about the conducting of such panchanama in his presence. PW-8 categorically stated that the police have merely obtained his signature on the crime details form which is marked as Ex.P-15. Thus, the evidence of the Panch witnesses for inquest panchanama i.e., PWs 6 & 7 and the evidence of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama PW-8 alleged to have been

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 7 Dt: 20.10.2023 conducted by the police in the presence of PW-8 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the drafting of crime details form and Inquest panchanama in their presence.

17.PW-9 who is the doctor who deposed that on 24.05.2021, from 4.15 PM to 6.00 PM., he has conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Kinnera Buchiramulu and opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to “Hanging”.

16.Thus, in the absence of any evidence from the son of the deceased/PW-1 and sons-in-law of the deceased PWs 2 and 3 and the eye witness/

PW-4 and in the absence of any evidence from PWs 6, 7 and 8 the evidence of the photographer/PW-5 and the evidence of the doctor/PW-9 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused.

16.PW-10 is the Investigating Officer, who categorically stated in his chief examination that on 24.05.2021 at about 1.00 PM, basing on the report (Ex.P-17) lodged by LW-1/K.Venu, he registered a case in Cr.No.71/2021, U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC and issued Ex.P-18/FIR to all concerned that he examined LW-1/K.Venu in the police station and recorded his statement. On 15.11.2021, he arrested A1 to A3 and produced them before the Court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

18.But the evidence of the Investigating officer/PW-10 at best would reveal the manner in which he has conducted the investigation in this case. In the absence of any evidence from the kith and kin of the deceased, the sole testimony of the

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 8 Dt: 20.10.2023

Investigating officer PW-9 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt alleged against the A-1 to A-3 for the charges U/S. 306 r/w 34 IPC to base a conviction.

Thus the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge U/s. 306 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused A1 to A3 are entitled to benefit doubt of it.

19. IN THE RESULT, the A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Typed to my Dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of October, 2023)

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: K.Venu, -None -

PW-2 : B.Rajaiah,

PW-3 : K.Chiranjeevi,

PW-4 : V.Bixapathi,

PW-5 : J.Bixapathi,

PW-6 : S.Chandramouli,

PW-7 : S.Omkar,

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 9 Dt: 20.10.2023

PW-8 : Kinnera Ramesh,

PW-9 : Dr.Razamalik Khan

PW-10 : J.Parameshwar, I.O.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW1 on report

Ex.P-2:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-1,

Ex.P-3:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-2,

Ex.P-4:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-3,

Ex.P-5:Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW-4,

Ex.P6 to P11 : Photographs

Ex.P12:C.D

Ex.P-13:Signature of PW-6 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-14:Signature of PW-7 on Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-15:Signature of PW-8 on Crime Details Form,

Ex.P-16:Postmortem Examination Report

Ex.P-17:Report lodged by LW1/K.Venu

Ex.P-18:Printed FIR,

Ex.P-19:Inquest panchanama,

Ex.P-20:Crime Details Form,

Ex.P-21:Bond paper.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil-

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

- Nil -

ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 10 Dt: 20.10.2023

CALENDAR EXTRACT

SESSIONS CASE No. 391 of 2022

ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, HANAMKONDA IN

P.R.C.No. 02/2022 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JUDL. F.C.M., HUZURABAD.

1.Name of the Police Station & : P.S. Kamalapur, Crime Number:Cr.No. 71/2021

2. Name of the Accused:

A1 Burri Komurelli @ Kumara Swamy, S/o.Chandraiah, Age:61 yrs, A2Burri Thirupathi, S/o.Veeraiah, Age:52 years, A3Mekala Ailaiah, S/o.Kanakaiah, Age:57 years, All R/o.Kamalapur village and Mandal

3.Date of Occurrence:23-05-2021

4.Date of Report:24-05-2021

5. Date of Arrest Surrender:15-11-2021

6. Date of release on Bail:15-11-2021

7.Date of Commitment:05-05-2022

8.Date of commencement of trial:11-08-2023

9.Date of closure of Trial:19-10-2023

10.Date of Judgment:20-10-2023

10.Finding of the Court:Not guilty

11.In the result,A-1 to A-3 are found not guilty for the charge under sections 306 r/w 34 IPC and they are accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of 6 months. The unmarked property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

S.C.No. 391 of 2022 11 Dt: 20.10.2023

12.Explanation for delay: This case was received by this Court from II Addl.

JFCM Court, Huzurabad. On appearance of accused, Charges framed on 3.11.2022.

Trial commenced from 11.08.2023 to 19-10-2023, PWs 1 to 10 were examined. On 19-10-2023, Accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and heard the arguments and posted for judgment. On 20.10.2023 Judgment was pronounced. Thus, the delay is explained.

ADDL. ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HANAMKONDA

Dis.No:

Date :

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 1 Dt: 20-10-2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HANUMAKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda

Friday, this the 20th day of October, 2023

E.P. No. 04 of 2015

IN

O.S.No.409/2006

Between :-

1.Malladi Komurelli, S/o.Mallaiah, Age:76 yrs, Occ;Agriculture, R/o.Nagaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District per L.Rs., the Decree holder Nos.2 and 3

2.Smt.Malladi Soundarya, W/o.Komurelli, Age:68 yrs, Occ: House-hold, Warangal District (died) per L.Rs., the Decree holder No.3

3.Smt.Kethipelli Sambalaxmi, W/o.Buchi Reddy, Age:49 yrs, Occ: House-hold, R/o.Mucherla Nagaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District

... Petitioners/D.Hrs

And

1.Thota Shyamsundar, S/o.Samba Murthy, Age: 42 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-7-83, Grain Market, Warangal

2.Poreddy Raji Reddy, S/o.Kanakaiah, Age:52 yrs, Occ:Agriculture,R/o.Nagaram village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District

... Respondents/J.Drs.

-:O:-

This petition is coming on this the 18.10.2023 before me for final hearing

before me in the presence of Sri G.Y.Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner/Decree

Holders 1 to 3 and of Sri Ch.Swamy Nathan, Advocate for the

Respondents/Judgment Debtor Nos. 1 and 2; and upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 2 Dt: 20-10-2023

: : O R D E R : :

The Decree Holder filed this petition under Order 21 Rule 37 C.P.C, seeking to order arrest of the Judgment debtor Nos. 1 and 2 and to detain them in civil prison till realization of the decreetal amount.

2. The brief averments of the affidavit filed by the Decree holder in support of the petition are as follows:

The husband of the DHr No.2 and father of the DHr No.3 filed the suit against JDrs/D1 and D2 for recovery of money vide O.S.409/2006 on the file of

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon and the said suit was decreed by the said court vide

judgment dt.19.09.2014, decreeing the said suit with costs, directing the defendants 1 and 2/Jdrs 1 & 2 herein to pay the sum of Rs.2,35,335/- with costs @ 12 % P.A from the date of suit till the date of decree and @ 6% P.A from the date of decree till payment or realization on Principal sum of Rs.1,45,000/-.

3.Thus, as per the said judgment and decree, the JDR Nos. 1 & 2 are liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,98,289/-, but in spite of passing the said judgment and decree long back, the JDR Nos.1 & 2 did not deposit any amount, though they are having sufficient means to pay the same and they have scant respect towards the judgment and decree passed by the said court and hence the decree holder is constrained to file this application seeking to detain the defendants 1 & 2 in civil prison for realization of the decreetal amount.

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 3 Dt: 20-10-2023

4.The JDR Nos.1 & 2 entered appearance through their counsel and filed the counter affidavit denying the execution petition averments and it is further contended by the JDRs, and the said decree was passed in

O.S.409/2006 is an exparte decree and as the JDR No.1 was fallen ill, due to

which, he could not attend the court and consequently, the suit was decreed on 19.09.2014; that the JDR Nos.1 and 2 have no sufficient means and the affidavit filed by the DHr does not contain the necessary ingredients under O.21 Rule 37

CPC and the decree holder without any cogent reasons, seeking the arrest of the

JDR Nos.1 and 2 only in order to harass them; that the decree holders did not submit any documentary evidence to show that the Jdrs are having sufficient means to discharge the decreetal amount and the calculations mentioned in the memo are false and incorrect and hence the E.P is liable to be dismissed.

During the course of enquiry, the Decree Holder himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 documents. On behalf of the JDRs., no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Dhr and perused the material available on record.

6.Now the point for consideration in this Execution petition filed

Under O.21 Rule 37 CPC is : Whether the decree holder is entitled to seek

the arrest of the Jdrs for the realization of the E.P amount , as prayed for or

not ?

7.It is the specific contention of the DHr that the suit filed by him vide

O.S.No..409/2006 has been decreed by the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Jangaon

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 4 Dt: 20-10-2023

for an amount of Rs.2,35,335/- together with costs as mentioned in Ex.s P1 and

P2 Judgment and decree dt.19.09.2014 passed by the said court and as the

JDRs 1 & 2 failed to pay the decreetal amount, in spite of the said judgment and decree and as such, the DHr filed the instant E.P seeking to order arrest of the

JDR Nos.1 & 2 under Order. 21 Rule 37 CPC for realization of the EP amount of

Rs.3,98.289/- and it is the specific contention of the Dhr that though the JDrs having sufficient means to pay the EP amount, but they are intentionally evading the payment of the EP amount and the JDrs have scant respect towards the

Judgment and decree passed as per Exs.P1 and P2 and hence, sought to order arrest of the the JDR Nos.1 & 2 and to detain them in the civil prison for realization of the EP amount.

8.The DHr also exhibited the Judgment and decree passed by the appellate court in As.29/2017 as Ex.P3 and P4, and contended that the appeal preferred by the JDR Nos.1 & 2 against the judgment and decree passed as per

Exs.P1 and P2 was also dismissed and the Hon’ble Prl.District Judge, Warangal has concurred with the findings arrived by the trial Court in O.S.409/2006.

9.A perusal of Exs.P3 and P4 which are the judgment and decree in

A.S.29/2017, dt.22.10.2018 passed by the Hon’ble Prl. District judge, Warangal

clearly reveal that the Hon’ble Appellate Court has affirmed the findings arrived by the trial court as per Exs.P1 and P2 and dismissed the said appeal preferred by JDR Nos.1 and 2.

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 5 Dt: 20-10-2023

10. It is the specific contention of the the decree holder that inspite of the

Judgment and Decree of the appellate court, the Jdrs 1 and 2 did not pay a single paise though they are having sufficient means to pay the said amount. The

Decree Holder also exhibited Ex.P5 pahanies for the years 2017.A perusal of

Ex.P5 pahani, clearly reveals that Jdr No.2 is the owner and possessor of

Ac.1.3705 gts in Sy.742/A/3 and in spite of acquisition of such property by Jdr no.2, the JDR Nos.1 and 2 are not paying the EP amount and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the decree holder, the JDR Nos.1 and 2 are intentionally avoiding to pay the Execution Petition amount in spite of the specific findings given by the trial Court and appellate court as per Exs.P1 to P4.

11.The Decree Holder himself examined as PW1 who has clearly stated the in chief examination as to how the Jdrs 1 and 2 are not paying the EP amount in spite of the concurrent findings rendered by the trial court and appellate court as per Exs P1 to P4 affirming the decree and his evidence also reveals that as per EX.P5 pahanies, the JDRs are having sufficient means to pay the EP amount , but they are intentionally avoiding to pay the E.P. amount without any valid and justifiable reasons.

12.Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination of PW1 to discredit his testimony. PW1 stated that he has not filed any document to show that JDR No.1 has no movable and immovable properties, but it is his evidence that JDR No.2 owned the property at Nagaram village of Hasanparthy. PW1 also stated that he has not filed any document to show that JDR no.2 owned the

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 6 Dt: 20-10-2023

property as on the date of filing of the present EP and he also stated in the cross examination that he has not issued any notice to JDR Nos.1 and 2 to pay the amount due under the decree. Such line of cross examination by the learned counsel for the JDRs will no way enrich the case of the JDR Nos.1 and 2. No such notice as contended by the learned counsel for the JDR Nos.1 and 2 is contemplated under law pursuant to the concurrent findings given by the trial court as well as the Appellate court as per Exs.P1 to P4 and the contention of the learned counsel for the Jdrs that no document has been filed to show that

JDR no.2 has owned the property as on the date of the filing of the present EP is untenable and farfetched.

13.Admittedly, the present Execution Petition has been filed subsequent to the passing of the Judgment and decree passed by the Senior

Civil Judge’s Court, Jangaon as per Exs.P1 and P2 as long back as on

19.09.2014 and later the Jdrs 1 and 2 have preferred the appeal in AS.29/2017 and the said appeal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Prl. District Judge, Warangal on 22.10.2018 as per judgment and decree vide Exs.P3 and P4 and after the said orders vide Exs.P1 to P4 and as no appeal has been preferred by JDR Nos.

1 and 2 against the Judgment and decree vide Exs.P3 and P4, then only the decree holder has prosecuted the present EP by conducting enquiry and as such it can be said that inspite of the JDR Nos.1 and 2 approaching the various fora have evaded the payment of the decreetal amount on one pretext or the other and as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the DHR that though the

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 7 Dt: 20-10-2023

appellate court has given its findings as per Exs.P3 and P4 as long back as on 22.10.2018, the Jdrs have deliberately avoided in paying the EP amount and such conduct of the Jdrs 1 and 2 cannot be ignored.

14.Admittedly, the Jdrs did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, to disprove the contentions of the decree holder that the Jdrs 1 and 2 are unable to discharge the EP amount and that they are not intentionally avoiding to pay the EP amount in spite of having sufficient means. Thus the evidence adduced by the Decree Holder as per Exs.p1 to P5 coupled with the oral evidence of PW1 remained unrebutted and such evidence adduced by the

DHr clinchingly establishes the claim of the Decree Holder and as such, he is entitled to seek the arrest of the Jdrs 1 and 2 for realization of the EP amount as prayed for.

Accordingly this EP is allowed. Issue warrants of arrest against Jdrs 1 and 2 on payment of process and also on the payment of the requisite amount of the subsistence allowance by the DHr as per rules.

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue warrants of arrest against Jdrs 1 and 2 on payment of process and also on the payment of the requisite amount towards subsistence allowance by the DHr as per rules, all on 01-12-2023.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 20th day of October, 2023)

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

E.P.No.04/2015 in O.S.409/2006 8 Dt: 20-10-2023

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For the Decree Holder: For the Judgment Debtors:

PW1 : Smt M.Soundarya - None -

Documents Marked

For the Decree Holder:

Ex.P1 is the C.C of Judgment in O.S.409/2006, dt.19.09.2014

Ex.P2 is the C.C of decree in O.S.409/2006, dt.19.09.2014

Ex.P3 is the C.C of Judgment in A.S.29/2017, dt.22.10.2018

Ex.P4 is the C.C of decree in A.S.29/2017, dt.22.10.2018

Ex.P5 is the pahanie for the year 2017 (2 Nos.)

For the Judgment Debtors:

- Nil-

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of November, 2023

O.S. No. 180 of 2023

(OLD O.S.No.845/2019) Between:-

Punnam Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Madhusudhana Reddy, Age: 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3-9-276, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.…Plaintiff.

AND

1.Moka Indira Varaprasad Varma, S/o. Shivananda Kotaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Unit No.6 & 7, Panduranga Industries, Craftsman’s Guild, Industrial Estate, Mulug Road, Warangal District.

2.Moka Keshava Rao, S/o. Shivananda Kotaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.104, Venkatamma Nilayam, Circuit House Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

… Defendants .. @@@..

This suit coming before me on 01.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and

Sri Ch. Upender, Learned Counsel for the Defendant and the right of Defendants for filing Written Statement was forfeited as they did not choose to file the Written

Statement; and upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

This suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,48,480/- on the basis of

Original Promissory note, Dt: 10-10-2016.

O.S.No.180/2023 2 Dt: 02-11-2023

2. The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

The plaintiff and defendant No.1 are acquainted with each other.

With such acquaintance, Defendant No.1 has approached the plaintiff and requested to advance the amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs and Twenty thousand only) for his personal and family requirements agreeing to repay the same as and when demanded by the plaintiff. On 10-10-2016, the Defendant

No.1 has taken an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a promissory note promising to clear the said loan amount with accrued interest @ 2% PM i.e., @ 24% Per Annum in the presence of Defendant No.2 as an attesting witness.

ii)Later, on several times, the plaintiff demanded the Defendant No.1 to repay the total amount, but the defendant did not choose to repay the interest amount or total loan amount and dodged the matter. Plaintiff has informed to defendant No.2 about the non-payment of borrowed amount from Defendant

No.1, but the Defendant No.2 also evaded the issue deliberately in collusion with

Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff having vexed with the attitude of Defendants, got issued legal notice on 20-08-2019, but the defendant No.1 managed to return on the grounds 7 days absent and the same was endorsed by postal authority and defendant No.2 unclaimed the same which amount to receipt of the legal notice.

iii)The plaintiff further averred that Defendants under the promissory note, receipt and surety bond are liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-

O.S.No.180/2023 3 Dt: 02-11-2023

principal amount and Rs.2,28,480/- towards interest @ 24% PA from 10-10-2016

to 01-10-2019 till filing of the suit. The total amount payable by defendants jointly and severally is Rs.5,48,480/- along with interest amount.. Hence, the Suit for recovery of the suit amount.

3.Sri Ch. Upender, Advocate has filed Vakalath on behalf of

Defendants, but the Defendants did not filed Written statement inspite of expiry of

Statutory period and D-1, D-2 called absent and the plaintiff is ready. Hence the right of D-1 and D-2 to file Written Statement is forfeited.

4.In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff, Plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to 4 documents on his behalf.

5.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.

6.Now the point for consideration:

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants with subsequent interest and costs as prayed for?

7. POINT : It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- and executed

Ex.A-1 Original Promissory note on 10-10-2016 agreeing to repay the said sum with subsequent interest @ 2 % per month i.e., @ 24% PA. A perusal of the suit promissory note Exs.A-1 coupled with the oral evidence of PW-1 clearly reveal

O.S.No.180/2023 4 Dt: 02-11-2023

the factum of the borrowing of amount of Rs.3,20,000/-. The recitals of Ex.A-1 also reveal that the defendant No.1 has agreed to repay the said amount together with interest @ 2% PM i.e., @ 24% PA and Defendant No.2 stood as guarantor to the suit promissory note. But inspite of repeated demands made by the plaintiff the defendant did not repay the same and finally on 20-08-2019, the Plaintiff got issued a Legal notice to Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, but inspite of which, the defendants did not repay the said amount nor given any reply to the legal notice, thereby the plaintiff has approached this court by way of instant suit. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff, through the oral evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-4 clinchingly establishes the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount and such evidence adduced by the plaintiff was never challenged nor controverted by the defendant and the defendant did not even choose to file their Written statement and ultimately the right of defendants to file the Written Statement is forfeited.

8.Thus, the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff vide Exs.A- 1 to A-4 coupled with the oral evidence of PW-1 establishes as to how the defendant has approached the plaintiff and borrowed the amounts covered under

Exs.A-1 to A-4, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest @ 24% Per Annum and though the plaintiff demanded on several occasions, the defendants have failed to repay the suit amount and thus the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

O.S.No.180/2023 5 Dt: 02-11-2023

9. In the result, the Suit is decreed infavour of the plaintiff with costs, directing the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.

5,48,480/- (Rupees Five lakhs, Forty Eight thousand, Four hundred and Eighty only) together with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the Principal amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum till realization.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of November, 2023)

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: P. Prabhakar Reddy- NIL –

: : EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF : :

Ex.A-1: Original Promissory note, dt. 10-10-2016,

Ex.A-2: Office copy of legal notice, dt. 20-08-2019,

Ex.A-3: Original Postal receipt Nos. 2, dt. 20-08-2019,

Ex.A-4: Original unserved Postal Cover No.2.

: : EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT : :

- NIL -

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HANAMKONDA

O.S.No.180/2023 6 Dt: 02-11-2023

: : D E C R E E : :

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT HANUMAKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of November, 2023

O.S. No. 180 of 2023

(OLD O.S.No.845/2019)

Between:-

Punnam Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. Madhusudhana Reddy, Age: 69 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No. 3-9-276, Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.…Plaintiff.

AND

1.Moka Indira Varaprasad Varma, S/o. Shivananda Kotaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Unit No.6 & 7, Panduranga Industries, Craftsman’s Guild, Industrial Estate, Mulug Road, Warangal District.

2.Moka Keshava Rao, S/o. Shivananda Kotaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Flat No.104, Venkatamma Nilayam, Circuit House Road, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

… Defendants

CLAIM FOR:Suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,48,480/- on the basis of Original Promissory note, Dt: 10-10-2016.

Date and place of Cause of action:Arose on 10-10-2016, 20-08-2019 at

Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

Valuation of the Suit:Suit is for Recovery of money and the relief of recovery of money is valued at Rs.5,48,480/- and a Court Fee of Rs.7,926/- is

O.S.No.180/2023 7 Dt: 02-11-2023

paid herewith Under section 20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act which is sufficient.

DECREE:This suit coming on this day for hearing before me on 01.11.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y. Shyam Sunder Reddy, Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri Ch. Upender, Learned Counsel for the Defendant and the right of Defendants for filing Written Statement was forfeited as they did not choose to file the Written Statement; and this Court DOTH ORDER AND

DECREE that the :

a)Suit is decreed infavour of the plaintiff with costs, directing the

Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.

5,48,480/- (Rupees Five lakhs, Forty Eight thousand, Four hundred and Eighty only) together with subsequent interest @ 24% per annum on the Principal amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6 % per annum till realization.

b) The defendants have to pay an amount of Rs. towards costs of the suit.

(Given under my hand and seal of the Court, this the 2nd day of November, 2023)

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

O.S.No.180/2023 8 Dt: 02-11-2023

PARTICULARS OF THE COSTS OF THE SUIT.

For Plaintiff For Defendant

1. Stamps on plaint.

2. Stamps for power.

3. Stamps on exhibits.

4. Advocate fee.

5. Commissioner's fee.

6. Service of process fee.

7. Subsistance allowances.

8. Miscellaneous fee. --------------------------------------------------- Total: Rs. ---------------------------------------------------

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA

E.P.No.64/2022 Dt: 19-10-2023

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT

HANUMAKONDA.

Present:- Sri Ch.A.N.Murthy,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Hanumakonda

Thursday, this the 19th day of October, 2023

E.P. No. 64 of 2022

Between :- Veludandi Ramulu, S/o.Sammaiah, Age:35 yrs, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.23-1-170, New Shayampeta, Hunter Road, Hanumakonda Dist

... Petitioner/Decree Holder

And

Chiluveru Ramesh, S/o.Venaktaiah, Aged: 45 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.16-1-1126, s.R.Thota, Kareemabad, Warangal ... Judgment Debtor. -:O:-

This petition is coming on this the 18.10.2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.Swamy Nathan, Advocate for the petitioner/Decree

Holder and of Sri D.Janardhan, Advocate for the Respondent/Judgment Debtor; and upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: : O R D E R : :

The Decree Holder filed this petition under Order 21 Rules 11 (2) of C.P.C, praying to recover the E.P. specified total amount of Rs. 3,35,958/- from

Judgment debtor Under Order 21 Rule 43 CPC by attaching the movables shown in the schedule belongs to Judgment Debtor in satisfaction of the

Awarded amount .

E.P.No.64/2022 Dt: 19-10-2023

2.In the affidavit filed in support of the petition by the Decree Holder, it is averred that the suit was decreed in O.S.371/2011, dt. 09.06.2022 by

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda and so far no appeal is preferred by the

J.Dr. He submits that despite of several demands, the J.Dr is intentionally avoiding to pay the decreetal amount the Decree Holder; that as per the order dt.09.06.2022, the J.Dr is liable to pay the decreetal amount and hence the

Execution Petition.

3.A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of J.Dr. denying the material allegations contained in the Execution Petition. The brief contentions of the counter affidavit filed by J.Dr. is as follows:

4.The Judgment Debtor mentioned in his counter that the Decree holder filed O.S.371/2011 against him alleging that he borrowed the loan amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 30.05.2008 on execution of promissory Note in favour of

D.Hr and that the suit was decreed in favour of the Dhr, hence he preferred the appeal in A.S.No.208/2022 and the same is pending on the file of Hon’ble II-

Addl.district Judge, Hanumakonda.

The JDR contends that the lower Court has not considered his documentary evidence i.e., statement of the bank account as well as cheque issued by him in favour of the Dhr and as per the bank transaction held in between him and Dhr after the alleged execution of the Promissory Note, hence it is very much evidencing that he has already paid the alleged amount and he is not due any amount much the alleged amount to the DHr.

E.P.No.64/2022 Dt: 19-10-2023

5.The Judgment Debtor mentioned in his counter that he also filed a

Interlocutory Application along with Appeal and it is coming for filing of the counter and disposal of it and he has got ample of evidence to win the Appeal.

Whereas, the Dhr intentionally, willfully and after knowing about the appeal is pending, filed this Execution petition in order to get the wrongful gain and harassing him. Hence, the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed.

6.Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Decree holder as well as the learned counsel for the Judgment Debtor and perused the material available on record.

7.Now the point for consideration in this case is : Whether the

decree holder is entitled for attachment of movable shown in the schedule

belongs to the Judgment Debtor, U/O. 21 R. 43 CPC , as prayed for or not ?

8. POINT: Admittedly, the suit in O.S.371/2011, dt. 09.06.2022 by

Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda was decreed with costs against the defendant by deducting an amount of Rs.35,000/- in the suit claim of

Rs.2,55,000/- and as such, the suit claim of Rs.2,20,000/- and the principal amount is Rs.1,50,000/-, upon which an interest @ 6% per annum is awarded from the date of filing of the suit till realization of costs and an amount

Rs.13,558/- was also awarded towards costs ,and in the said award, it was clearly mentioned that the Jdr is liable to pay the said amount.

9.It can be said that in order to deprive the Decree Holder the fruits of the award passed by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, J.Dr appears to have came up with such contentions and hence the same cannot be considered

E.P.No.64/2022 Dt: 19-10-2023

in the Execution proceedings and accordingly, the Decree Holder is entitled for the attachment of movables shown in the schedule belongs to the Judgment

Debtor for the realization of the amount as per the award passed by the court in

O.S.371/2011, dt. 09.06.2022 by Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda, Dt.

09.06.2022.

In the result, this Execution Petition is allowed. Issue attachment of Movables shown in the schedule against the Judgment Debtor as prayed by the Decree holder, U/o.21 R.43 CPC on payment of process fee and on payment of such process fees, the office is directed to issue Warrant of Attachment of movables. Call on 28-11-2023.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of October, 2023)

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HANAMKONDA

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

- Nil -

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

WARANGAL