Sri CH A N Murthy

Page 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Thursday, the 18th day of August, 2022)

PRESENT: Sri. CH. A.N. Murthy,

Assistant Session Judge,

Huzurnagar.

SESSIONS CASE No. 145 of 2018

( P.R.C. No. 05/2018 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Huzurnagar, in Crime No.309/2017 of P.S. Mellachervu)

COMPLAINANT : The State through Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S. Mellachervu.

ACCUSED:

A1 Sadham Srinu, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 23 years, Occ: Welder, A2 Sadham Satyanarayana, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Agriculture, A3 Sadham Ravi, S/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 30 years, occ: Agriculture A4 Sadham Gangamma, W/o. Seetharamaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Revuru village of Mellachervu Mandal.

Offences Charged : U/Sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

IN THE RESULT, the accused nos. 1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charge U/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. MOs-1 and 2 (Knifes) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri. L. Srinivas, Addl.P.P.

Accused is defended by : Sri. Ch. Yadhagiri, Advocate.

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 2 of 14

This case coming before me for final hearing on 17.08.2022 in the presence of Sri. L. Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri. Ch. Yadhagiri, Learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mellachervu filed the charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 4 in Cr. No. 309/2017 for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 IPC, the brief facts of which are narrated here under :

(a) On 25.08.2017 at 10.00 PM, the complainant /Sadham

Govindararaju lodged a Telugu written report in PS Mellachervu stating that he blessed with two sons and their care and caution to see his elder brother i.e., LW-4/Sadham Gangaiah. Accused nos. 1 to 4 bore grudge against LW-4/Sadham Gangaiah, due to personal grudges. Previously, the accused nos. 1 to 4 are went to the house of LW-4/Gangaiah and they were quarreled with LW-4/Gangaiah and beat him. On 25.08.2017 about 6.00 AM, the complainant’s son (LW-2/Vijay Kumar) and LW-8/Munagala

Rambabu are chatting on the road, in the meantime, accused no. 1 came there and quarrel with his son and accused no. 1 warned to his son to kill him. Suddenly, the accused no. 1 has attacked on LW-2/Vijay Kumar by stabbing with knife over his right shoulder, left shoulder and also stomach and caused bleeding injuries. On seeing the same, LWs-4 to 8 namely Sadham Gangaiah, Juvvenboina Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah, Thodeti

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 3 of 14

Veeraiah and Munaga Rambabu and some others grab the knife from the hands of the accused no. 1 and rescued LW-2/Vijay Kumar. At that moment, accused no. 2 to 4 have started throwing the stones on LW-1/

S. Govindaraju and LW-3/Sadham Naresh and they also have received simple injuries. If, LWs-4 to 8 namely Sadham Gangaiah, Juvvenboina

Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah, Thodeti Veeraiah and Munaga Rambabu and some others would not rescue them, the accused nos. 1 to 4 would have kill

LW-2/Vijay Kumar and the complainant /LW-1 requested to take Legal action against the Accused nos. 1 to 4.

2)Basing on the said report, LW.16/V. Jayakar has registered a case in Cr. No. 309/2017 for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC and investigated into; that the investigation reveals that LW-4/Sadham

Gangaiah is the close relative of accused nos. 1 to 4. Since long, the accused nos. 1 to 4 belong to Congress-I party under the leader ship of

LW-4/Gangaiah. Recently, LW-2/Sadham Vijay Kumar and his villager namely Vippakuntala Sudhakar Reddy and some others went to Kodad to approach the Smt. Utham Padmavathi, who is the MLA of Kodad

Assembly and they got permission to sanction CC road to Revuru village without knowledge of LW-4/Gangaiah. Accordingly, LW-4/Gangaiah has irritated them and how they got sanction of CC road without his knowledge. Earlier, LW-2/Vijay Kumar, LW-3/Sadham Naresh, LW- 4/Gangaiah, J. Gurvaiah and Juvvenaboina Narsimha Rao quarreled with

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 4 of 14 accused nos. 1, 2, Vippakuntala Sudhakar Reddy, Sadham Satyanarayana and V. Laxma Reddy. Due to the acts of LW-4/Gangaiah and LW-2/S.

Vijay Kumar, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have decided to kill LW-2/Vijay

Kumar, who is the main follower of LW-4/Gangaiah in Congress-I Party.

Accordingly, on 25.08.2017 at 6.30 PM, the Yadav community people were celebrating Lord Ganesh Festival and conducting Kabaddi game in front of goddess Gangamma Temple. The accused no. 1 went to said place, while LW-2/ Vijay Kumar was chatting with LW-8/Rambabu.

Intentionally, the accused no. 1 quarreled with LW-2/ Vijay Kumar, LW-4 to LW-8 namely Sadham Gangaiah, Juvvenboina Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah,

Thodeti Veeraiah and Munaga Rambabu and some others came and separated LW-2/Vijay Kumar and the accused no.1. The accused no. 1 warned LW-2/Vijay Kumar to kill him. Accused no. 1 went to his house and told the matter to accused nos. 2 to 4. By knowing the same, the accused nos. 2 to 4 have supported the accused no. 1 for killing LW- 2/Vijay Kumar. On the same day about 07.30 PM, A1 took one knife and proceeded to Gangamma Temple along with accused nos. 1 to 4. LW- 2/Vijay Kumar and LWs-4 to 8 namely Sadham Gangaiah, Juvvenboina

Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah, Thodeti Veeraiah and Munaga Rambabu were present in front of Gangamma temple. Suddenly, the accused no. 1 has attacked on LW-2/Vijay Kumar by stabbing with knife over his right shoulder, left shoulder and also stomach and caused bleeding injuries.

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 5 of 14

On seeing the same, LWs-4 to 8 namely Sadham Gangaiah, Juvvenboina

Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah, Thodeti Veeraiah and Munaga Rambabu and some others grab the knife from the hands of the accused no. 1 and rescued

LW-2/Vijay Kumar. Then, accused no. 2 to 4 have started throwing the stones on LW-1/ S. Govindaraju and LW-3/Sadham Naresh and they have also received simple injuries. If, LWs-4 to 8 namely Sadham Gangaiah,

Juvvenboina Valaraju, J. Thirpaiah, Thodeti Veeraiah and Munaga

Rambabu and some others would not rescue them, the accused nos. 1 to 4 would have killed LW-2/Vijay Kumar. Thus, the accused Nos. 1 to 4 are liable for punishment for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

Hence, the charge.

3)The learned Judicial first class Magistrate, Huzurnagar, took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos.1 to 4 and registered the case vide

PRC No. 5/2018 and committed the above case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda under section 209-A of the Code of Criminal

procedure. The Hon’ble Prl. District Sessions Judge’s Court has numbered the case as SC No. 145/2018 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4)On appearance of the accused nos. 1 to 4 before this Court, they were examined under section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges were framed for the offence under section 307 IPC against

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 6 of 14 the accused no. 1 and for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos. 2 to 4, read over and explained to the accused nos. 1 to 4 in Telugu and when questioned, the accused nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried.

5)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P26 documents and M.Os. 1 and 2 (Knifes) and closed the evidence.

6)After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused nos.1 to 4 were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them and when questioned, the accused nos. 1 to 4 have denied the evidence and did not choose to examine any defence witness.

7)Heard the arguments of Sri. L. Srinivas, learned Additional P.P appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri. Ch. Yadhagiri, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the accused nos. 1 to 4 and perused the material on record.

8) Now the point that arises for consideration in this case is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 4 for the charge punishable under section 307

r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

9)Point:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.08.2017 at about 07.30 PM, A1 took one knife and proceeded to Gangamma Temple along

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 7 of 14 with accused nos. 2 to 4. PWs-2, 3 to 7 and PW-14 are present in front of

Gangamma temple. Suddenly, the accused no. 1 has attacked on PW-2 by stabbing with knife over his right shoulder, left shoulder and also stomach and caused bleeding injuries. On seeing the same, PWs-4 to 7 and PW-14 and some others grab the knife from the hands of the accused no. 1 and rescued PW-2. Then, accused nos. 2 to 4 have started throwing the stones on PWs-1 and 3 and they also have received simple injuries. If, PWs-4 to 7 and PW-14 and some others would not rescue them, the accused nos. 1 to 4 would have killed PW-2 and hence, the accused nos. 1 to 4 are accordingly liable for punishment.

10) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the informant/injured as PW-1, the injured persons as PWs-2 and 3, the direct eyewitnesses to the incident as PW-5 to 7 and 14 and the circumstantial witness to the incident as PW-4. PWs-8 and 15 are the panch witnesses for the seizure panchanama. PWs-9 and 10 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence. PWs-11 and 12 are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama of accused, PW-13 is the Medical Officer, who has treated the injured(PWs-1 to 3) and issued

Exs.P-16 to 18 wound certificates and PW-16 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case.

11) The complainant who alleged to have lodged Ex.P21/report at the earliest point of time, himself did not support the prosecution case. PW-

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 8 of 14 1 categorically stated that about seven years back, there was Ganesh festival and all the villagers gathered there for worshiping the Lord. At that time, somebody beat his sons (PWs-2 and 3) and they have sustained injuries and in that regard police obtained his signatures on white papers and referred the injured (PWs-2 and 3) to Area Hospital,

Huzurnagar for treatment. None beat him on that day and at that time the police have obtained his signature (Ex.P1) on white paper and it is his evidence that the accused Nos. 1 to 4 never beat PW-2 and 3 (injured).

12) The injured persons (PWs-2 and 3) themselves stated before this

Court that about seven years back, there was Ganesh festival and all the villagers gathered there for worshipping the Lord. At that time, they were pushed by somebody from backside, as a result they were fallen down on a stone and sustained injuries. In that regard, police have referred them to Area Hospital, Huzurnagar for treatment. None beat them on that day.

13) The direct eye witnesses i.e., PWs-5 to 7 and PW-14 pleaded ignorance about their knowledge as to how PWs-1 to 3 sustained injuries.

PW-4, who is the circumstantial witnesses categorically stated that he does not know anything in this case. PWs-1 to 7 and PW-14 were also treated hostile by the learned A.P.P. and cross examined them. During the course of cross examination, PWs. 1 to 7 and PW-14 have denied a

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 9 of 14 suggestion that all of them have compromised the matter with the accused out of the Court and hence they are deposing falsehood. Hence, the evidence of the injured persons PWs-1 to 3, the direct eye witnesses and circumstantial witness i.e., PWs-4 to 7 and PW-14 is no way helpful to the prosecution case in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused for the charge framed against them.

14) The prosecution has also examined two panch witnesses for the seizure as PWs-8 and 15, but they also did not support the prosecution case. PWs-8 and 15 have categorically stated that no seizure panchanama was conducted in their presence and the police have obtained their signatures on white papers and their signatures are respectively marked as Exs.P9 and P20. Both PWs-8 and 15 have denied a suggestion that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused nos. 1 to 4.

15) The prosecution has also examined two panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and drafting of rough sketch of the scene as PWs-9 and 10, but they also did not support the prosecution case.

PWs-9 and 10 have categorically stated that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and the police have obtained their signatures on white papers and their signatures are respectively marked as Exs.P10 to P13. Both PWs-9 and 10 have denied a suggestion that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused nos. 1 to 4.

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 10 of 14

16) The prosecution has examined the mediators as PWs-11 and 12 and both PWs-11 and 12 categorically stated that the accused never made any confession before them and no confessional panchanama was conducted in their presence and no material object was seized from the possession of the accused in their presence and it is their evidence that the police merely obtained their signatures on white papers and their signatures are respectively marked as Exs. P14 and P15. Both PWs-11 and 12 were treated hostile and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has cross examined them. Thus, the crucial evidence of independent mediators PWs-11 and 12 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt against accused nos. 1 to 4.

17) The prosecution has also examined the Medical Officer (PW-13), who alleged to have treated the injured (PWs.1 to 3) and issued Exs.P.16 to 18/Wound Certificates, but it is the evidence of the injured persons

PWs-1 to 3 themselves that such injuries sustained by them were not caused by the accused nos. 1 to 4. If that be so, the evidence of the

Medical Officer /PW-13 is of no consequence in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused nos. 1 to 4.

18) The left over evidence is the evidence of the Investigating

Officer/PW-16, who has deposed as to how PW-1 came to the Police station, lodged Ex.P-21 report, basing on which he registered a case as per Ex.P-22, conducted seizure panchanama, scene of offence

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 11 of 14 panchanama and drafted rough sketch as per Exs.P-23 to P-25 respectively.

19) PW-16 also further deposed that on 18.09.2017, LW-17/Shaik Saida has arrested the accused nos. 1 to 3 and on interrogation, the accused nos. 1 to 3 admitted their guilt; then he secured the presence of mediators PWs-11 and 12 and conducted Ex.P26/confessional and seizure panchanama of the accused no. 1 to 3. PW-16 clearly deposed that the accused nos. 1 to 3 voluntarily confessed before the panchas as to how the accused nos. 1 to 4 have attacked PW-2 with a knife and attempted to kill him and he also stated that upon such confession PW-16 has seized M.O. 2 from the possession of the accused no.1 under the cover of panchanama. But the evidence of the said independent mediators who are examined as Pws-11 and 12 is otherwise. Pws-11 and 12 virtually have given a go bye to the prosecution case and deposed against its version. They have merely stated that police have obtained their signatures on white papers and it is their evidence that none confessed anything before them, no panchanama was conducted and no material object, M.O.2 was seized from the possession of the accused no.1 in their presence. Thus, in the absence of any evidence from the independent mediators Pws-11 and 12 and basing on the evidence of the

Investigating Officer (PW-16), no sanctity can be attached to the confessional and seizure panchanama (Ex.P26) and such confession

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 12 of 14 alleged to have been made by the accused in the presence of PW-16, who is none other than a police officer is entirely in-admissible in evidence and accordingly Ex.P-26 was hit by section 25 of the Indian

Evidence Act.

20) Of course, the Investigating Officer (PW-16) categorically stated that PWs.1 to 7 and PW-14 have stated before him as in Exs.P.2 to P-8 and P-19, their 161 Cr.P.C statements respectively, but the evidence of the injured PWs-1 to 3 and the evidence of the direct eye witnesses and circumstantial witness i.e., PWs-4 to 7 and 14 reveal that the police never examined them and they never stated before the police as in

Exs.P2 to P8 and P-19. In such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the self serving testimony of the Investigating Officer/ PW-16 in order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge framed against them to base a conviction.

21) Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt alleged against the accused nos. 1 to 4 for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused nos.

1 to 4 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

22) Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the charge under Section 307

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 13 of 14 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused nos.1 to 4 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

23) IN THE RESULT, the accused nos.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The MOs.1 and 2 (knifes) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 LW-1 Sadham Govindaraju Complainant/injured PW2 LW-2 Sadham Vijay Kumar Injured PW3 LW-3Sadham Naresh Injured PW4 LW-4Sadham Gangaiah Circumstantial witness PW5 LW-5Juvvenboina Valaraju Eye witness PW6 LW-6Juvvenaboina Thirpaiah Eye witness PW7LW-7Thodeti Veeraiah Eye witness PW8 LW-9Golla Gangaraju Panch witness for the seizure PW9 LW-11Anangi Saidulu Panch witness for the scene of offence PW10 LW-12 Sadham Narsimha Rao Panch witness for the scene of offence PW11 LW-13 Pasupuleti Panch witness for the Hanumantharao confession PW12 LW-14 Kothapalli Saideswara Rao Panch for the confession cum seizure panchanama PW13 LW-15 Dr. P.Ravi Treated injured and issued MCs PW14 LW-8 Munaga Rambabu Eye witness PW15 LW-10 Anangi Kondalu Panch witness for the seizure

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 14 of 14

PW16 LW-16 V. Jayakar Investigating Officer FOR DEFENCE:-NIL-

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on report Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.P-4 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3 Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4 Ex.P-6 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5 Ex.P-7 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6 Ex.P-8 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-7 Ex.P-9 Signature of PW-8 on the seizure panchanama Ex.P-10 Signature of PW-9 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-11 Signature of PW-9 on the rough sketch Ex.P-12 Signature of PW-10 on the scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-13 Signature of PW-10 on the rough sketch Ex.P-14 Signature of PW-11 on the confessional and seizure panchanama Ex.P-15 Signature of PW-12 on the confessional and seizure panchanama Ex.P-16 Wound certificate of PW-3 Ex.P-17 Wound certificate of PW-1 Ex.P-18 Wound certificate of PW-2 Ex.P-19 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-14 Ex.P-20 Signature of PW-15 on the seizure panchanama Ex.P-21 Report Ex.P-22 First Information Report Ex.P-23 Seizure panchanama Ex.P-24 Scene of offence Ex.P-25 Rough sketch Ex.P-26 Confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused nos. 1 to 3 FOR DEFENCE:-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJETS MARKED

MO.1 Knife MO.2 Knife

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

S.C.No. 145 of 2018

Page 1 of 13

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri. CH.A.N. Murthy,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

HUZURNAGAR.

O.S.NO. 03 OF 2016

(Thursday, this the 18th day of August, 2022) Between: Karne Shambi Reddy, S/o. Koti Reddy, Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 4-154, Veterinary Hospital Bazar, Dirshincherla Village of Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District. … PLAINTIFF AND

1.Kurri Sovamma @ Somamma, W/o. Late Pitchaiah, Age: 56 years, Occ: Agriculture,

2.Kurri Sudhakar, S/o. Late Pitchaiah, Age: 35 years, Occ: Auto Driver,

3.Kurri Prabhakar, S/o. Late Pitchaiah, Age: 29 years, Occ: Painter,

4.Kurri Bharat, S/o. Late Pitchaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Student. All are residents of behind Telugu Baptist Church, Near Library, Dirshincherla village of Nereducherla Mandal, Nalgonda District.

… DEFENDANTS

This suit coming before me on 11.08.2022 for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri. P. Ravindhra Reddy, Counsel for the plaintiff and Sri. Kalva Srinivasa Rao, Counsel for the defendants and having stood over for consideration today this court doth pronounce the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of amount of Rs.4,40,640/- based upon the suit demand promissory note.

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 2 of 13

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

(a) The defendant nos. 2 to 4 are the sons of the defendant no. 1. The plaintiff and defendant are acquainted with each other; with that acquaintance, the defendants approached the plaintiff at Dirshincherla on different dates for financial accommodation for their family needs, like performing the marriage of the 1st defendant’s daughter namely

Madhavi. The plaintiff has lent an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- to the defendants at Dirshincherla on 24.01.2013 for the marriage expenses and defendants have executed two separate promissory notes of

Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 1,38,000/- in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay said amount together with interest of Rs.1-50 paise per one hundred rupees per month on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order.

(b) The defendants have also borrowed other amounts of Rs. 5,000/- on 24.08.2013, Rs. 30,000/- on 20.02.2014, Rs. 5,000/- on 10.08.2014,

Rs. 10,000/- on 21.11.2014 and Rs. 5,000/- on 29.10.2015 and defendants have executed promissory notes of respective even dates as collateral security in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to repay said amount together with interest @ Rs. 2-00 paise per one hundred rupees per month on demand either to the plaintiff or to his order. Out of these three transactions defendant no. 3 accompanied the defendant no. 1 on two occasions i.e., on 24.08.2013 & 20.02.2014 and signed as attester in the said promissory notes along with other attesters.

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 3 of 13

(c) After lending the said loan amounts, the plaintiff has demanded many times for discharge of the said loan amounts, but the defendants dodged the matter on one pretext or the other. As a matter of fact, the plaintiff lent the said amounts as the family of the defendants is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 1-18 gts., in Sy. No. 233 of

Dirshincherla Revenue village on the eastern side of the land held by the plaintiff. But, recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendants are trying to alienate their only immovable property into the name of third parties. Hence, the suit.

3.After service of Summons, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed their Written Statement through their counsel denying the material averments contained in the plaint.

(a) It is further contended that the defendant nos. 1 to 4 are having an agricultural land beside the road and the road is existed on the Eastern side of the land of the defendants. It is further contended that the plaintiff is having agricultural land on the Western side of the defendants’ land. The plaintiff has to proceed to his agricultural land through the land of the defendant nos. 1 to 4. After plantation was completed by the defendant nos. 1 to 4, the plaintiff used to proceed to his agricultural land through the agricultural land of the defendant nos. 1 to 4 by damaging their crop and bunds. Upon which, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 so many times asked the plaintiff not to do so. As such, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendant nos. 1 to 4 and hatched a plan to

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 4 of 13 black mail the defendant nos. 1 to 4 for his wrongful gain and created the suit promissory notes with the assistance of the alleged attestor and scribe by forging the signatures of defendants. The plaintiff also making pressure upon the defendant no. 1 to 4 to sell their agricultural land to him, upon which D-1 to 4 strongly opposed. Hence, the plaintiff keeping these things in mind, with an evil intention created and forged the promissory notes and hence, seeks to dismiss the suit with costs.

4) Basing on the above pleadings this Court has settled the following issues for trial:

i. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the defendants ? ii. Whether the plaintiff is a money lender without having valid licence ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? Iv Whether the suit is barred by limitation?’ v. To what relief?

5) To substantiate the suit claim, the plaintiff himself examined as

PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 and A-2 documents and also examined PW-2 on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 herself examined as DW-1, but no documents are marked on behalf of the defendants.

6)Heard both sides.

7) Issue Nos. 1 & 3: 1. Whether the suit promissory notes are true, valid and binding on the

defendants ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for?

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 5 of 13

It is the grievance of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants are acquainted with each other and with that acquaintance the defendant nos. 1 to 4 approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.01.2013 and executed two separate promissory notes for Rs. 1,38,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- (respectively marked Exs.A1 and Ex. A-2), agreeing to repay the said amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- with interest @ Rs. 1-50 paisa per hundred rupees per month i.e., @ 18% per annum. In spite of repeated demands the defendant did not repay the said amount covered under Exs.A1 and

A-2, which resulted in the filing of the instant suit.

8) It is also the grievance of the plaintiff that the plaintiff lent the said amounts to the defendants as the family of the defendants is having an agricultural land of Ac. 1.18 gts., in Sy. No. 233 of Dirshincherla

Revenue village and when the defendants are trying to alienate the said agricultural land to third parties with view a to defraud the plaintiff, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit.

9) To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has exhibited the two promissory notes said to have been executed by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 for the amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- respectively as Ex. A-1 and A-2. A perusal of the recitals of Exs. A-1 and

A-2 promissory notes clearly reveal that D-1 has borrowed the amount of

Rs. 1,38,000/- and Rs. 1,50,000/- from the plaintiff on 24.01.2013 and executed Exs. A-1 and A-2, agreeing to repay the said sum with interest

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 6 of 13 @ 1-50 paisa per hundred per month. A perusal of Exs. A-1 and A-2 also reveal that both Exs. A-1 and A-2 are executed by D-1 and D-2 to D-4 have also signed on that promissory notes and one Mattapally Veeraiah,

Rapolu Narsaiah and P. Lachaiah have signed on Exs. A-1 and A-2 as attesting witnesses and both Exs. A-1 and A-2 are scribed by Karne Koti

Reddy .

10) A plain comparison of the signatures made on Exs. A-1 and A-2 as per the powers conferred as per section 73 of Indian Evidence Act with that of the admitted signatures made by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 on their written statement so also on the vakalath filed by them clearly reveal that the signatures are made on Exs. A-1 and A-2 and also on the

Written Statement and Vakalath by one and the same persons, who are none other than defendants nos. 1 to 4 and said fact is clearly visible to the naked eye.

11) Though, bald and vague contentions have been taken by the defendant nos. 1 to 4 in their Written Statement that both Ex. A-1 and A- 2 are created and forged promissory notes, but there is no scrap of paper filed by the defendants to substantiate such contentions. Though, the defendants have specifically asserted in the written statement that

Exs.A1 and A-2 are forged and created promissory notes, but no steps whatsoever have been taken by the defendants to substantiate the theory of forgery put forth by them in their written statement by sending such promissory notes Exs. A-1 and A-2 to an expert.

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 7 of 13

12) On the other hand, the plaintiff besides exhibiting Ex. A-1 and A-2 has also adduced oral evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W-1 and also examined the scribe of Exs. A-1 and A-2 as

P.W-2.

13) The chief examination of P.W-1 is nothing but a reiteration of the plaint averments and hence the version spoken to by the plaintiff in his chief examination affidavit needs no reproduction. Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination of P.W-1 to discredit his testimony.

P.W-1 categorically stated in his cross examination that he lent amount to D-1 on two occasions i.e., an amount of Rs. 1,38,000/- in the evening and an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the morning. P.W-1 also added that due to lack of funds with her, she gave amounts to D-1 on two occasions.

The tenor of cross examination of P.W-1 made by defendants’ counsel only goes to show that in order to ascertain the capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amounts covered under Exs. A-1 and A-2, such questions might have been posed to P.W-1 by the defendants’ counsel and such details are not at all germane for consideration, in determining the controversy in issue. P.W-1 clearly admitted that as per the contents of body of Exs. A-1 and A-2, they were executed by D-1, but he adds that all the defendants have signed on Exs. A-1 and A-2. P.W-1 clearly stated that at the time of Exs. A-1 and A-2 transaction, himself, Rapolu

Narsaiah, Pathkoti Lachaiah, Mattapally Veeraiah and Koti Reddy and defendants were present. The said Rapolu Narsaiah, Mattapally Veeraiah

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 8 of 13 and Pathakoti Lachaiah are none other the attesting witnesses on Exs. A- 1 and A-2. Thus, the version spoken to by P.W-1 during the course of cross examination made by the defendants’ counsel further strengthens the case of the plaintiff and shatters the defence put forth by the defendants.

14) The plaintiff also examined the scribe of Exs. A-1 and A-2 as P.W-2 who categorically stated in his chief examination as to how he has scribed Exs. A-1 and A-2 promissory notes in the presence of the attesting witnesses Mattapally Veeraiah, Rapolu Narsaiah and P. Lachaiah and he clearly stated as to how the defendants borrowed the amount of

Rs. 2,88,000/- from the plaintiff and executed Exs. A-1 and A-2 promissory notes, agreeing to repay the said loan amount with interest @

Rs.1-50 paisa per one hundred rupees per month.

15) During the course of cross examination, P.W-2 categorically stated that as per Exs. A-1 and A-2, the defendant no. 1 has borrowed the amounts from P.W-1 to meet her daughter’s marriage expenses and he also stated that the other defendants being legal heirs have also signed on Exs. A-1 and A-2. The version deposed by P.W-2 is corroborating with the plaint averments. Except putting suggestions to P.W-2, nothing incriminating has been elicited from the tongue of P.W-2 to discredit his testimony.

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 9 of 13

16) Thus, the oral evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 further substantiate the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount covered under Exs.

A-1 and A-2 from D-1 to D-4.

17) The first defendant herself examined as DW-1, whose chief examination affidavit is also nothing but a reiteration of the Written

Statement contents and needs no reproduction. During the course of cross examination, DW-1 stated that she owns an extent of one acre of land in Dirshincherla village and it is her evidence that she never borrowed any amounts from the plaintiff. But DW-1 volunteers that the plaintiff demanded her to give him entire the land for the formation of the road leading to his land, but she did not agree.

18) Dw-1 categorically stated that after receipt of summons she got the contents of the plaint read over and explained through her counsel and she came to know that the plaintiff filed this suit demanding her to give her entire land for the formation of the road. She also stated that before filing the written statement she got the contents of her Written statement read over and explained to her by her counsel. To a question put by the counsel to Dw-1 “ as to whether she can identify her signature if the same is shown to her”, she bluntly answered that “she has not signed anywhere”.

19) From the tenor of the version spoken to by her in her cross examination only goes to show that the case of DW-1 appears to be a total denial. When the plaintiff’s counsel confronted the signatures

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 10 of 13 made by the defendants on each page of the chief affidavit of the witness, after perusing the signatures, the witness stated that she is unable to understand whether her chief affidavit contains her signatures are not. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also confronted page no.5 of the written statement of D-1 to D4 and after pursing the same the witness stated that she has not contained the signatures, but a perusal of the signatures of page no. 5 of the written statement clearly reveal that it contains the signature of D-1 and it also contains the signatures of D-2 to D4.

20) Thus, the manner in which DW-1 deposed in her cross examination

before this Court clearly goes to show the falsity in the version spoken to

by DW-1 and such false version deposed by Dw-1 will no way enrich the defence put forth by the defendants nor weakens the claim of the plaintiff for recovery of the suit amount from the defendant nos. 1 to 4 covered under Exs. A-1 and A-2.

21) Though, a bald plea has been taken by the defendants that the plaintiff is having his agricultural land on the Western side of the defendants’ land and the plaintiff has to proceed to his agricultural land through the land of D-1 to D-4 and the plaintiff has no road to reach his agricultural land, he pressurized the defendants to sell their agricultural land to him and as the defendants did not agree for the same, the plaintiff bore grudge against the defendants and with an evil intention to grab the land of the defendants, created and forged the suit promissory

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 11 of 13 notes Exs. A-1 and A-2. Such a bald defence taken by the defendants in their written statement and also in the chief affidavit of P.W-1, without there being any evidence, either oral or documentary to substantiate such contentions, cannot be taken into consideration at all to accept such defence and such defence of the defendants is far-fetched. Even assuming for a moment that such defence is true and correct, but as to why the defendant nos. 1 to 4 have executed Exs. A-1 and A-2 by putting their signatures on Exs. A-1 and A-2 is a thousand dollars question, which was left unanswered.

22) Thus, the plaintiff by adducing documentary evidence Ex. A1 and

A-2 coupled with the oral evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2 clinchingly establishes the borrowing of the amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- by the defendants from the plaintiff and execution of Exs. A-1 and A-2 promissory notes, agreeing to repay the said amount with interest @ Rs.

1-50 paisa per one hundred rupees per one month. Accordingly, issues nos. 1 and 3 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

23) ISSUE NO. 2

“Whether the plaintiff is a money lender without having valid

licence?”

Though, the defendants stated in their written statement that the plaintiff is doing money lending business besides agriculture by giving loan for the needy persons at Dinshincherla and its surroundings areas,

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 12 of 13 but the defendants did not adduce any evidence to substantiate such contentions. During the course of cross examination, P.W-1 categorically stated that he never lent any amount to any other villagers and denied a suggestion that he is doing money lending business. Thus, in the absence of any evidence placed by the defendants, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is a professional money lender. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

24) ISSUE NO. 4:

“ Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

According to the plaintiff, the defendant nos. 1 to 4 have approached the plaintiff on 24.01.2013 and borrowed an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- and executed Exs. A-1 and A-2 on the same day i.e., on 24.01.2013 and the plaintiff categorically stated in his plaint averments that the suit is filed well within the period of limitation.

On the other hand, the defendant nowhere pleaded that the suit is borrowed by limitation. A perusal of the date of presentation of the plaint clearly reveals that the plaintiff has filed this suit on 05.01.2016 i.e., within the prescribed period of limitation of three years and hence, it cannot be said that the suit is barred by limitation. Thus, issue no. 4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

25) Issue No.5: To what relief?

In view of my findings on issue Nos. 1 to 4, this suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant nos. 1 to 4,

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 13 of 13 directing the defendant nos. 1 to 4 to pay jointly and severally a sum of

Rs.4,40,640/- together with subsequent interest @ 18% per annum from the date of Suit i.e. 05.01.2016 till the date of Decree i.e. 18.08.2022 on the principal amount of Rs.2,88,000/- and thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of August, 2022)

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PLAINTIFF:

1)P.W.1: Karne Shambi Reddy

2)P.W.2: K. Koti Reddy DEFENDANT:

1)DW-1: Kurri Sovamma @ Somamma Documents marked for plaintiff Ex.A-1: Original promissory note, dt. 24.01.2013 for amount of Rs.1,38,000/- Ex.A-1: Original promissory note, dt. 24.01.2013 for amount of Rs.1,50,000/-

DEFENDANT: - NIL -

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

O.S.No. 3 of 2016

Page 1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT HUZURNAGAR

(Thursday, the 18th day of August, 2022)

PRESENT: Sri. CH. A.N. Murthy,

Assistant Session Judge,

Huzurnagar.

SESSIONS CASE No. 50 of 2018

( P.R.C. No. 06/2018 on the file of the J.M.F.C., Huzurnagar, in Crime No.310/2017 of P.S. Mellachervu)

COMPLAINANT : The State through Sub- Inspector of Police, P.S. Mellachervu.

ACCUSED: A1 Sadham Vijay Kumar, S/o. Govindaraju, Age: 22 years, A2 Sadham Naresh, S/o. Govindaraju, Age: 20 years, A3 Sadham Nagendra Babu, S/o. Ayodhya Raju, Age: 25 years, A4 Sadham Gangaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 58 years, A5 Juneboina Valaraju, S/o. Shambaiah, Age: 30 years, A6 Juneboina Thirupathi Rao, S/o. Mattaiah, Age: 28 years, A7 Sadham Ayodhya, S/o. Gurvaiah, Age: 58 years, A8 Sadham Narsamma, W/o. Ayodhya, Age: 50 years, All are agriculturists, R/o. Revuru village of Mellachervu Mandal.

Offences Charged : U/Sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty.

SENTENCE OR ORDER:

IN THE RESULT, the accused nos. 1 to 8 are found not guilty for the charge U/sec. 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. MO-1/Axe shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri. L. Srinivas, Addl.P.P.

Accused is defended by :Sri. Jakkula Veeraiah, Advocate.

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 2 of 12

This case coming before me for final hearing on 17.08.2022 in the presence of Sri. L. Srinivas, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and of Sri. Jakkula Veeraiah, Learned counsel for accused and having perused the evidence adduced and exhibits marked and other material papers on record having heard both sides and stood over for consideration this Court has delivered the following:

:JUDGMENT:

1) The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Mellachervu filed the charge sheet against the accused nos. 1 to 8 in Cr. No. 310/2017 for the offences under sections 307 r/w 34 IPC, the brief facts of which are narrated here under :

(a) On 26.08.2017 at 08.00 AM, the complainant /Sadham Srinu lodged a Telugu written report in PS Mellachervu stating that on 25.08.2017 about 6.00 PM, he went to Gangapalem, where he took his cell phone from his friend and later he proceeded near Goddess Gangamma

Temple, there the accused nos. 1 to 3 have attacked him with an axe and sticks, due to previous grudges and tried to kill him, as a result, he has received severe bleeding injuries over his head. In the meantime, some persons rescued him and shifted him to local RMP doctor and provided first aid. Later, he was proceeding to approach the elders to report the incident, again the accused nos. 1 to 3 along with their followers i.e., accused nos. 4 to 8 attacked him and abused him and gave blows with axes and sticks and requested to take Legal action against the Accused nos. 1 to 8.

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 3 of 12

2.Basing on the said report, LW.14/Sk. Saida has registered a case in

Cr. No. 310/2017 for the offence under section 324 r/w 34 IPC and later basing on the statements of LWs-2 to 8 namely S. Satyanarayana,

Sadham Ravi, S. Gangamma, S. Ramaiah, M. Veera Babu, Anangi Shankar and J. Samabaiah, LW-14/Sk. Saida inclined to alter the section of law from section 324 IPC to section 307 r/w34 IPC and investigated into; the accused no. 4, who is the Ex. Sarpanch of Revuru village and belongs to

Congress-I party. Under the leadership of the accused no. 4, the accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 and their family members are the followers of

Congress-I Party. Earlier, LW-2/S. Satyanarayana and LW-9/

Vippakuntala Sudhakar Reddy have approached Smt. Utham Padmavathi, who is the MLA of Kodad Assembly constituency and got sanctioned of CC road works without knowledge of the accused no. 4. Then, the accused nos. 1 to 8 and LWs-1 to 4 (S. Srinu, S. Satyanarayana, Sadham Ravi,

S. Gangamma) have formed into two groups and they have quarreled with each other. On which cases were registered on both parties vide Cr.

No. 143/2017 and 144/2017. Accused nos. 1 to 8 have decided to kill anyone person of the other group. Accordingly, on 25.08.2014 about 06.00 PM, the Yadav community peoples were celebrating Ganesh festival and they were conducting Kabaddi games in front of Goddess

Gangamma temple. In the meantime, LW-1/S. Srinu went to

Gangapalem, where LW-1/ S. Srinu took cell phone from his friend and

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 4 of 12 later he proceeded to Goddess Gangamma Temple, there the accused nos. 1 to 3 have attacked him with axe and sticks, due to previous grudges and tried to kill him, as a result, he has received severe bleeding injuries over his head. In the meantime, some persons rescued him and shifted him to local RMP and provided first aid. Later, he was proceeding to approach the elders to report the incident, again the accused nos. 1 to 3 along with their followers i.e., accused nos. 4 to 8 attacked him and abused him and gave blows with axes and sticks. Thus, the accused Nos. 1 to 8 are liable for punishment for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC. Hence, the charge.

3) The learned Judicial first class Magistrate, Huzurnagar, took cognizance of the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos.1 to 8 and registered the case vide

PRC No. 6/2018 and committed the above case to the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, Nalgonda under section 209-A of the Code of Criminal

procedure. The Hon’ble Prl. District Sessions Judge’s Court has numbered the case as SC No. 50/2018 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4)On appearance of the accused nos. 1 to 8 before this Court, they were examined under section 228(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure and charges were framed for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused nos. 1 to 8, read over and explained to the accused

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 5 of 12 nos. 1 to 8 in Telugu and when questioned, the accused nos. 1 to 8 pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

5)During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 16 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22 documents and M.O. 1 (Axe) and closed the evidence.

6)After the closure of Prosecution evidence, the accused nos.1 to 8 were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them and when questioned, the accused nos. 1 to 8 have denied the evidence and did not choose to examine any defence witness.

7)Heard the arguments of Sri. L. Srinivas, learned Additional P.P appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri. Jakkula Veeraiah, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the accused nos. 1 to 8 and perused the material on record.

8) Now the point that arises for consideration in this case is:- “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 8 for the charge punishable under section 307

r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?”

9)Point:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 25.08.2014 about 06.00

PM, the Yadav community people were celebrating Ganesh festival and they were conducting Kabaddi games in front of Goddess Gangamma temple, as such PW-1 went to Goddess Gangamma Temple, there the

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 6 of 12 accused nos. 1 to 3 have attacked him with axe and sticks, due to previous grudges and tried to kill him, as a result, he has received severe bleeding injuries over his head. In the meantime, some persons rescued him and shifted him to local RMP and provided first aid. Later, he was proceeding to approach the elders to report the incident, again the accused nos. 1 to 8 have attacked him and abused him and gave blows with axes and sticks and hence, the accused nos. 1 to 8 are accordingly liable for punishment for the offence under section 307 r/w 34 IPC.

10) To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined the informant/injured as PW-1, the circumstantial witnesses as PWs-2 to 4, who are elder brothers and mother of PW-1, the direct eyewitnesses to the incident as PW-5 to 8. PWs-9 and 10 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence. PWs-11 and 12 are panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama, PW-13 is the Medical Officer, who has treated the injured(PW-1) and issued Ex.P-16 wound certificate and PW-14 is the Investigating Officer, who investigated the case.

11) The complainant who alleged to have lodged Ex.P17/report at the earliest point of time, himself did not support the prosecution case. PW- 1 categorically stated that about seven years back, there was Ganesh festival and all the villagers gathered there for worshiping the Lord. At that time, he was pushed by somebody from back side, as a result, he was fallen down on a stone and sustained injury on his forehead and at

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 7 of 12 that time the police have obtained his signature (Ex.P1) on white paper.

It is his evidence that none beat him on that day.

12) The direct eye witnesses i.e., PWs-5 to 8 pleaded ignorance about their knowledge as to how PW-1 sustained injuries. PWs-2 to PW-4, who are the circumstantial witnesses categorically stated that about seven years back, there was Ganesh Festival and all the villagers gathered there for worshiping the Lord and at that time, somebody pushed PW-1 from back side, as a result PW-1 has sustained an injury. PWs-1 to 8 and were also treated hostile by the learned A.P.P. and cross examined them.

During the course of cross examination, PWs-1 to 8 have denied a suggestion put by the learned Additional P.P. that they have stated

before police as in Exs. P-2 to P-9, their 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded

by the police and PWs. 1 to 8 have also denied a suggestion that all of them have compromised the matter with the accused out of the Court and hence they are deposing falsehood. Hence, the evidence of the injured (PW-1), the direct eye witnesses and circumstantial witness i.e.,

PWs-1 to 8 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused for the charge framed against them.

13) The prosecution has also examined two panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama and drafting of rough sketch of the scene as PWs-9 and 10, but they also did not support the prosecution case.

PWs-9 and 10 have categorically stated that no panchanama was

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 8 of 12 conducted in their presence and the police have obtained their signatures on white papers and their signatures are respectively marked as Exs.P10 to P13. Both PWs-9 and 10 have denied a suggestion that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused nos. 1 to 8.

14) The prosecution has examined the mediators as PWs-11 and 12 and both PWs-11 and 12 categorically stated that the accused never made any confession before them and no confessional panchanama was conducted in their presence and no material object was seized from the possession of anybody in their presence at any time and it is their evidence that the police have merely obtained their signatures on white papers and their signatures are respectively marked as Exs. P14 and P15.

Both PWs-11 and 12 were treated hostile and the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor has cross examined them. During the course of cross examination, Pws-11 and 12 denied a suggestion that they are deposing falsehood in order to help the accused. Thus, the crucial evidence of independent mediators PWs-11 and 12 is no way helpful to the prosecution in establishing the guilt against accused nos. 1 to 8.

15) The prosecution has also examined the Medical Officer (PW-13), who alleged to have treated the injured (PW.1) and issued Ex.P.16 /Wound Certificate, but it is the evidence of the injured PW-1 himself that such injuries sustained by him were not caused by the accused nos.

1 to 8. If that be so, the evidence of the Medical Officer /PW-13 is of no

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 9 of 12 consequence in establishing the guilt alleged against the accused nos. 1 to 8.

16) The left over evidence is the evidence of the Investigating

Officer/PW-14, who has deposed as to how PW-1 came to the Police station, lodged Ex.P-27 report, basing on which he registered a case as per Ex.P-18, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch as per Exs.P-19 and P-20 respectively.

17) PW-14 also further deposed that on 19.09.2017, he has arrested the accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and on interrogation, the accused nos.

1 to 3 and 5 to 7 admitted their guilt; then he secured the presence of mediators PWs-11 and 12 and conducted Ex.P22/confessional and seizure panchanama of accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. PW-14 clearly deposed that the accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 voluntarily confessed before the panchas as to how the accused nos. 1 to 8 have attacked PW-1 with an

Axe and attempted to kill him and he also stated that upon such confession PW-14 has seized M.O. 1 under the cover of panchanama. But the evidence of the said independent mediators who are examined as

Pws-11 and 12 is otherwise. Pws-11 and 12 virtually have given a go bye to the prosecution case and deposed against its version. They have merely stated that police have obtained their signatures on white papers and it is their evidence that none confessed anything before them, no panchanama was conducted and no material object, much less M.O.1

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 10 of 12 was seized from the possession of the accused in their presence. Thus, in the absence of any evidence from the independent mediators Pws-11 and 12 and basing on the evidence of the Investigating Officer(PW-14), no sanctity can be attached to the confessional and seizure panchanama (Ex.P22) and such confession alleged to have been made by the accused in the presence of PW-14, who is none other than a police officer is entirely in-admissible in evidence and accordingly Ex.P-22 was hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

18) Of course, the Investigating Officer (PW-14) categorically stated that PWs.1 to 8 have stated before him as in Exs.P.2 to P.9, their 161

Cr.P.C statements respectively, but the evidence of the injured PW-1 and the evidence of the direct eye witnesses and circumstantial witness i.e.,

PWs-2 to 8 reveal that the police never examined them and they never stated before the police as in Exs.P2 to P9. In such circumstances, it is highly unsafe to place reliance on the self serving testimony of the

Investigating Officer/ PW-14 in order to bring home the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 8 for the charge framed against them to base a conviction.

19) Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt alleged against the accused nos. 1 to 8 for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused nos.

1 to 8 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 11 of 12

20) Thus, the prosecution had miserably failed to establish the guilt alleged against the accused Nos.1 to 8 for the charge under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly the accused nos.1 to 8 are entitled to benefit of doubt.

21) IN THE RESULT, the accused nos.1 to 8 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 307 r/w 34 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months. The MO.1 (Axe) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of August, 2022.

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1 LW-1 Sadham Srinu Complainant/Injured PW2 LW-2 Sadham Sathyanarayana Circumstantial witness PW3 LW-3 Sadham Ravi Circumstantial witness PW4 LW-4Sadham Gangamma Circumstantial witness PW5 LW-5Sadham Ramaiah Eye Witness PW6 LW-6Monde Veera Babu Eye Witness PW7LW-7Anangi Shankar Eye Witness PW8LW-8J. Sambaiah Eye Witness PW9 LW-9Vippakuntla Sudhakar Panch witness to the scene of Reddy offence PW10 LW-10 Kommu Kondal Rao Panch witness to the scene of offence PW11 LW-11 Sadham Sayiram Panch for the confession cum seizure panchanama PW12 LW-12 Sadham Kotaiah Panch for the confession cum

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

Page 12 of 12 seizure panchanama PW13 LW-13Dr. N. Ravi Treated injured and issued MC PW-14 LW-14 V. Jayakar Investigating Officer FOR DEFENCE:-NIL-

:EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1 Signature of PW-1 on report Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-1 Ex.P-3 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-2 Ex.P-4 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-3 Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-4 Ex.P-6 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-5 Ex.P-7 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-6 Ex.P-8 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-7 Ex.P-9 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-8 Ex.P-10 Signature of PW-9 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-11 Signature of PW-9 on rough sketch Ex.P-12 Signature of PW-10 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-13 Signature of PW-10 on rough sketch Ex.P-14 Signature of PW-11 on confessional and seizure panchanama Ex.P-15 Signature of PW-12 on confessional and seizure panchanama Ex.P-16 Wound certificate of PW-1 Ex.P-17 Report Ex.P-18 First Information Report Ex.P-19 Scene of offence Ex.P-20 Rough sketch Ex.P-21 Section alteration Memo Ex.P-22 Confession cum seizure panchanama of the accused nos. 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 FOR DEFENCE:-NIL-

MATERIAL OBJETS MARKED

MO.1 Axe

Sd/-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

S.C.No. 50 of 2018

HMOP 15 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri. CH.A.N. Murthy,

Senior Civil Judge,

Huzurnagar.

H.M.O.P. No. 15 of 2022

(Tuesday, the 16th day of August, 2022)

BETWEEN: Keshavan Krishna Chaithanya, S/o. Seshadri, Age: 28 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. H. No. 42-1-12, Ramakrishnapuram, Vijayawada (Uban), Krishna District.

…Petitioner No.1. A n d

Keshavan Bindu Nikhitha @ Kachiraju Bindu Nikhitha, D/o. Kachiraju Narayana rao, Age: 24 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H. No. 3- 296/2/21/1/6/c, Srinagar colony, Kodad town, Suryapet District.

… Petitioner No.2.

This Petition having come before me for final hearing on 10.08.2022 in the presence of Sri. Sadhu Sharath Babu, Advocate, on behalf of Petitioners, upon hearing arguments on behalf of Petitioners, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying this Court to grant Divorce on

Mutual Consent by dissolving the marriage in between the Petitioners, which was held on 27.04.2018.

2.The brief facts of the Petition are as follows:-

(a)The marriage of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was performed on 27.04.2018 at Kodad town in Mellachervu Kahsinadham-Nagarathnamma 1

HMOP 15 of 2022

Function Hall as per the customs and traditions prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner no. 2 has joined the conjugal life with the petitioner no. 1 at Vizag and Vijayawada.

Thereafter differences arose between them and the same went to high range and both side elders have interfered and tried to pacify the matter, but in vain.

(b)Since November -2018, the petitioner No. 2 is living with her parents at Kodad town and the petitioner no. 2 has lodged the police report before the Police Kodad Town for the offence under section 498-A

IPC and the said case is pending for disposal before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad and she has also filed maintenance petition against the petitioner no. 1 before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad and the same is pending. During pendency of the said cases, the well wishers tried their level best in the year 2019 for the reunion of the petitioners and the petitioners hardly lived in Kodad as husband and wife for five days at the house of petitioner no. 2’s parents, but there also differences arose and the petitioners have expressed their disinterest against each other to continue their matrimonial relationship.

(c) Both petitioners have decided to take mutual divorce from the

Court. As per the settlement made by the elders, the petitioner no. 2 has agreed to pay Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner no. 1 towards her permanent settlement and the petitioner no. 2 has to withdraw the case for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also to withdraw the maintenance case filed against the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no.

1 has paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- to the petitioner no. 2 and the said amount was received by the petitioner no. 2 and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- has to be paid by the petitioner no. 1 to the petitioner no. 2 at the time of final hearing of this case. Hence, this 2

HMOP 15 of 2022

Petition for divorce on mutual consent.

3.After registering the O.P., statutory period of six months was given to the Petitioners with a fond hope that there might be a chance of reunion. This Court conducted reconciliation between parties, but in vain. This Court had ascertained that the consent for mutual divorce still subsists between both parties as is evident from the joint memo filed by the both petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Hence, at request of both petitioners, the matter was taken up for inquiry.

4.During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-3.

5.This Court heard the arguments on behalf of both the Petitioners and perused the entire record.

6. NOW THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS,

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of divorce on

mutual consent u/s 13-B of Hindu marriage act as prayed for?”

7.The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and got marked Exs.P.1 to P-3. Ex.P-1 is the Wedding card,

Ex.P-2 is the marriage Photograph and Ex.P-3 is the Spouse Certificate, dt.27.01.2022.

8.PWs.1 and 2 have reiterated almost all the averments in the

Petition about their marriage, cropping up of misunderstandings in between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and their desire to take divorce on mutual consent. As per the settlement made by the elders, the petitioner no. 1 has paid an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in all to the petitioner no. 2 towards her permanent alimony as per the advise of the elders and the said amount was received by the petitioner no. 2. The petitioner no. 2 has withdrawn the case for the offence under section 498-A IPC and also maintenance case filed against the petitioner no. 1 3

HMOP 15 of 2022

and both cases were settled in Lok –Adalath before the Prl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kodad. In these circumstances and in view of

the terms of settlement arrived at between both parties and upon considering the oral evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.P-1 to P3, this Court has no option except to grant divorce to the Petitioners on mutual consent. Accordingly, the

Point in question is answered in favour of the Petitioners.

9. IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed granting divorce on mutual consent to the Petitioners by dissolving their marriage, on 27.04.2018 with effect from 16.08.2022. However, it is made clear that the Petitioner No. 2 shall not file any type of Civil and Criminal cases against the Petitioner No.1 and his family members in future and that she has no right or claim over the person and properties of Petitioner

No.1 and his family members during her life time as agreed by her.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on the 16th day of August, 2022).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Petitioners) PW.1 : Keshavam Krishna Chaithanya ….. (Petitioner No.1) PW.2 : Keshavan Bindu Nikitha @ K. Bindu Nikhitha …..(Petitioner No.2)

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Petitioners) Ex.P-1 : Wedding Card Ex.P-2 : Marriage photo Ex.P-3 : Spouse Certificate, dt.28.01.2022.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

4

HMOP 12 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT HUZURNAGAR

PRESENT: Sri. CH.A.N. Murthy,

Senior Civil Judge,

Huzurnagar.

H.M.O.P. No. 12 of 2022

(Tuesday, the 16th day of August, 2022)

BETWEEN: Poloju Sunitha @ Maroju Sunitha, W/o. Brahmaji, D/o. Maroju Laxmachary, Age: 27 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Karivirala village, Nadigudem Mandal, Suryapet District.

…Petitioner No.1. A n d

Poloju Brahmaji, S/o. Purnachary, Age: 32 years, Occ: Private employee, R/o. Kandibanda village, Mellachervu Mandal, Suryapet District.

… Petitioner No.2.

This Petition having come before me for final hearing on 11.08.2022 in the presence of Sri. Thati Murali, Advocate, on behalf of Petitioners, upon hearing arguments on behalf of Petitioners, upon perusing the entire material on record and after having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1.This is a Petition filed by the Petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying this Court to grant Divorce on

Mutual Consent by dissolving the marriage in between the Petitioners, which was held on 12.02.2020.

2.The brief facts of the Petition are as follows:-

(a)The marriage of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 was performed on 12.02.2020 at Karivirala village of Nadigudem Mandal as per the 1

HMOP 12 of 2022

customs and traditions prevailing in their community. After the marriage, the petitioner no. 1 has joined the conjugal life with the petitioner no. 2 at Kandibanda village and there they lived happily for a period of five months only. Out of their wedlock, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have not blessed with any children. Later, the petitioner no. 1 has left the conjugal company of the petitioner no. 2 and went to her parents house at Karivirala Village and she did not come back to conjugal home.

(b)On 10.01.2022 the petitioner no. 2 along with elders went to the parents house of the petitioner no. 1 to bring back the petitioner no.1 for conjugal life, but she did not show any interest to come to conjugal home and the petitioner no. 1 said that “she does not like the petitioner no. 2”, and her parents forcibly performed her marriage with the petitioner no. 2.

(c)Several panchayaths held for the reunion of the couple were failed due to the behavior of the petitioner no. 1, as such both petitioners have decided to take mutual divorce from the Court and in the final panchayath the petitioner no. 1 has agreed that she does not want any maintenance from her husband ( petitioner no. 2). The petitioner no. 1 is ready to give up all her rights over the petitioner no.

2 as wife. The petitioner no. 2 is also ready to give up all his rights over the petitioner no. 1. As per the terms of compromise and settlement held between the parties, the petitioner no. 1 has agreed not to claim her past and future maintenance from the petitioner no. 2 in future and both the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have agreed that they will not file any cases, suits, applications, petitions, maintenance cases, property suits, compensation cases and petitions seeking residence orders etc., before any courts, Police Stations against each other and their family members in any manner in future. The petitioner no. 1 has accepted to forego all 2

HMOP 12 of 2022

her rights as a wife to the petitioner no. 2. Hence, this Petition for divorce on mutual consent.

3.After registering the O.P., statutory period of six months was given to the Petitioners with a fond hope that there might be a chance of reunion. This Court conducted reconciliation between parties, but in vain. This Court had ascertained that the consent for mutual divorce still subsists between both parties as is evident from the joint memo filed by the both petitioner nos. 1 and 2. Hence, at request of both petitioners, the matter was taken up for inquiry.

4.During the course of enquiry, the Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have been examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P-1 to P-6.

5.This Court heard the arguments on behalf of both the Petitioners and perused the entire record.

6. NOW THE POINT FOR CONSIDERATION IS,

“Whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief of divorce on

mutual consent u/s 13-B of Hindu marriage act as prayed for?”

7.The Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were examined as PWs.1 and 2 respectively and got marked Exs.P.1 to P-3. Ex.P-1 is the Wedding invitation card dt. 12.02.2020, Exs.P-2 to 5 are the marriage

Photographs and Ex.P-3 is the Spouse Certificate, dt.22.01.2022.

8.PWs.1 and 2 have reiterated almost all the averments in the

Petition about their marriage, cropping up of misunderstandings in between the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and their desire to take divorce on mutual consent. As per the settlement, the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have agreed that they will not file any cases, suits, applications, petitions, maintenance cases, property suits, compensation cases and petitions seeking residence orders etc., before any courts, Police Stations against each other and their family members in any manner in future. In these 3

HMOP 12 of 2022

circumstances and in view of the terms of settlement at arrived between both parties and upon considering the oral evidence of PWs-1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence Exs.P-1 to P6, this Court has no option except to grant divorce to the Petitioners on mutual consent. Accordingly, the Point in question is answered in favour of the

Petitioners.

9. IN THE RESULT, this petition is allowed granting divorce on mutual consent to the Petitioners by dissolving their marriage, on 12.02.2020 with effect from 16.08.2022. However, it is made clear that the

Petitioner No. 1 shall not file any type of Civil and Criminal cases against the Petitioner No.2 and his family members in future and that she has no right or claim over the person and properties of Petitioner

No.2 and his family members during her life time as agreed by her.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on the 16th day of August, 2022).

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

(On behalf of Petitioners) PW.1 : Poloju Brahmaji ….. (Petitioner No.1) PW.2 : Poloju Sunitha @ Maroju Sunitha …..(Petitioner No.2)

EXHIBITS MARKED

(On behalf of Petitioners) Ex.P-1 : Wedding invitation card dt. 12.02.2020 Ex.P-2 : Marriage photo Ex.P-3 : Marriage photo Ex.P-4 : Marriage photo Ex.P-5 : Marriage photo Ex.P-6 : Spouse Certificate, dt.22.01.2022.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

HUZURNAGAR

4