Smt D. Durga Kalyani

1

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

Present :- Smt D. Durga Kalyani, III-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole

Tuesday, the First (1st) day of December, 2015

C.C.No.273/2013

(Cr.No.101/2013 of Ongole Taluk P.S.)

Between

State : Inspector of Police,

Ongole Taluk Police Station .... Complainant

And

Modi Sivaiah, S/o. Krishnaiah, aged 42 years, SC Mala by caste, R/o. Chupparapalle village,

Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District ..... Accused

This case is coming on 28-11-2015 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri N.

Mohan Das, Advocate for Accused, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The State, represented by Inspector of Police of Ongole Taluk P.S.

filed charge sheet against the sole accused in Cr.No.101/2013 for the offence punishable u/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V.

Act.

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

LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah and the deceased Sk. Kalesha are residents of

Ongole working as Watchman in TAFE Showroom, Ongole. On 16-03-2013 at 8-00 P.M. the deceased Sk. Kalesha started on his motor cycle at his house in order to go to TAFE Showroom for attending duty. At about 8-30 hours, while the deceased Sk. Kalesha was crossing Guntur - Chennai

N.H.5 from east to west, the accused being the driver of lorry bearing 2

No.AP 03 TA 2599 on NH-5 road towards Chennai, drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and collided the deceased Sk. Kalesha, due to which the deceased sustained severe bleeding injury on the back side of his head and fell unconscious. Subsequently LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah came to know about the incident, rushed to the spot and found the deceased in unconscious stage. Then he conveyed about the incident to

LW-2/ Shaik Maalin Bee over phone and subsequently he shifted him to

RIMS hospital, Ongole in 108 Ambulance. On coming to know about the said accident, LWs-2 and 3 namely Shaik Maalin Bee and Shaik Begum rushed to the spot and found the deceased in unconscious stage. Later on receipt of hospital intimation, LW-19/Y. Badaraiah recorded the statement of LW-2/Shaik Maalin Bee and transferred the same to Ongole Taluq P.S. on the point of jurisdiction. Later LWs-4 to 7 namely Shaik Hussain Basha,

Shaik Chand Basha, Shaik Abdul Hefeez and Shaik Baji rushed to RIMS hospital, Ongole and on the advice of duty Doctor, all of them shifted the deceased to G.G.H. for better treatment. There the condition of the deceased Sk. Kalesha was declared as critical and as such they brought back the deceased to their house and subsequently on 17-03-2013 at about 7-00 hours, the deceased succumbed at his house. Hence the accused is liable for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC.

Therefore, the charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act.

3.This court took cognizance of offence u/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134

(a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act against the accused. After appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

3

4.The accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act against the accused was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and the accused having understood the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examinedAfter closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed byu/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against accused was read over and explained toprosecution witnesses against accused was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.7.Heard both sides. Heard both sides.

8.8.Now the point for determination is :- Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt ? beyond reasonable doubt ?

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecutionIn order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 9 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P12.examined PWs-1 to 9 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P12.

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused being the driver ofThe case of the prosecution is that, the accused being the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 has dashed the motor cycle of thethe Lorry bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 has dashed the motor cycle of the deceased Sk. Kalesha when he was crossing the Guntur-Chennai N.H.5deceased Sk. Kalesha when he was crossing the Guntur-Chennai N.H.5 road. Subsequently he succumbed due to injuries sustained by him in theroad. Subsequently he succumbed due to injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Hence the accused being driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 03said accident. Hence the accused being driver of Lorry bearing No.AP 03

TA 2599 is liable for punishment.TA 2599 is liable for punishment.

9.9.In order to substantiate the same, the prosecution relied upon theIn order to substantiate the same, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P12. evidence of PWs-1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to P12.

4

On careful perusal of evidence on record, there is no dispute withOn careful perusal of evidence on record, there is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased. On this aspect, the prosecutionregard to death of the deceased. On this aspect, the prosecution examined PWs-1, 2 to 4 coupled with evidence of PW-8 and Exs.P3, P11examined PWs-1, 2 to 4 coupled with evidence of PW-8 and Exs.P3, P11 and P12. On this aspect, PW-1 being wife of the deceased Sk. Kaleshaand P12. On this aspect, PW-1 being wife of the deceased Sk. Kalesha deposes that her husband used to work as Security guard in onedeposes that her husband used to work as Security guard in one showroom. Likewise LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah also used to work as Securityshowroom. Likewise LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah also used to work as Security guard in the said showroom. While so, about 3 years back on one day herguard in the said showroom. While so, about 3 years back on one day her husband went to showroom at 8-00 P.M. after having meals at her house.husband went to showroom at 8-00 P.M. after having meals at her house.

After 9-00 P.M. she was informed by LW-11/Nagireddy Malakondaiah thatAfter 9-00 P.M. she was informed by LW-11/Nagireddy Malakondaiah that her husband met with an accident and sustained injuries. On that, he washer husband met with an accident and sustained injuries. On that, he was shifted to RIMS hospital, Ongole. Then she immediately proceeded toshifted to RIMS hospital, Ongole. Then she immediately proceeded to

RIMS hospital and found her husband with injuries on the back of his head.RIMS hospital and found her husband with injuries on the back of his head.

Subsequently her husband was shifted to Gungur Government Hospital,Subsequently her husband was shifted to Gungur Government Hospital, where he was not admitted stating that his condition was serious. Laterwhere he was not admitted stating that his condition was serious. Later they returned back to Ongole and in the mean time, he succumbed due tothey returned back to Ongole and in the mean time, he succumbed due to injuries on the way. Thereupon she has given statement to police underinjuries on the way. Thereupon she has given statement to police under

Ex.P1.Ex.P1.

10.10.PW-2 being son of deceased Sk. Kalesha also deposed in the samePW-2 being son of deceased Sk. Kalesha also deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW-1 stating that on 16-03-2013 at about 7-00 P.M. helines as deposed by PW-1 stating that on 16-03-2013 at about 7-00 P.M. he was informed by LW-1/K. Mallaiah the other security guard in TAFE Tractorwas informed by LW-1/K. Mallaiah the other security guard in TAFE Tractor

Showroom that his father met with lorry accident, thereupon he proceededShowroom that his father met with lorry accident, thereupon he proceeded to RIMS hospital and found his father in unconscious stage. Subsequentlyto RIMS hospital and found his father in unconscious stage. Subsequently he shifted the deceased Sk. Kalesha to Guntur Government Hospital forhe shifted the deceased Sk. Kalesha to Guntur Government Hospital for better treatment, but there Doctor did not admit him as his condition wasbetter treatment, but there Doctor did not admit him as his condition was critical. Thereupon they returned back where his father succumbed due tocritical. Thereupon they returned back where his father succumbed due to injuries on the way. Later they buried the dead body of the deceased asinjuries on the way. Later they buried the dead body of the deceased as they do not know the formalities and subsequently informed about thethey do not know the formalities and subsequently informed about the 5 incident to the police, who in turn took the body of the deceased and gotincident to the police, who in turn took the body of the deceased and got conducted postmortem examination through Doctor and M.R.O. conducted postmortem examination through Doctor and M.R.O.

11.11.PW-4 said to be one of the inquest panchayatdars deposes that onPW-4 said to be one of the inquest panchayatdars deposes that on 23-03-2013 at about 11-00 A.M. police conducted inquest over the dead23-03-2013 at about 11-00 A.M. police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased at burial ground situated at Kothapatnam bridge inbody of the deceased at burial ground situated at Kothapatnam bridge in his presence along with LWs-14 and 15 namely Sk. Ibrahim and Sk. Chinahis presence along with LWs-14 and 15 namely Sk. Ibrahim and Sk. China

Khasim and other relatives. At first, the dead body of the deceased wasKhasim and other relatives. At first, the dead body of the deceased was removed from the pit of the burial ground, police observed it and gotremoved from the pit of the burial ground, police observed it and got conducted inquest and again dead body of the deceased was buried.conducted inquest and again dead body of the deceased was buried.

Thereafter an inquest report was drafted by police in which he with otherThereafter an inquest report was drafted by police in which he with other mediators signed as inquest panchayatdars. He also deposes that policemediators signed as inquest panchayatdars. He also deposes that police observed the said place, where the dead body of the deceased was buriedobserved the said place, where the dead body of the deceased was buried and prepared observation report. The said burial ground observationand prepared observation report. The said burial ground observation report and inquest reports were marked under Exs.P2 and P3.report and inquest reports were marked under Exs.P2 and P3.

12.12.PW-8 said to be Professor in Forensic Medicine, RIMS hospital,PW-8 said to be Professor in Forensic Medicine, RIMS hospital,

Ongole deposes that on 23-03-2013 he received requisition from MandalOngole deposes that on 23-03-2013 he received requisition from Mandal

Executive Magistrate, Ongole and accordingly he attended exhumationExecutive Magistrate, Ongole and accordingly he attended exhumation and conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of theand conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the injuries -deceased and found the injuries -

1) Oblique sutured wound of 6 cm length with 6 situres present over parito occipital region of scalp on right side present 2 cm below the right parital eminence

On dissection

2) Contusion of 9 x 8 cm bluish red in colour

3) Fissured fracture of 7 cm length right oblique placed present on right parito occipital region of skull present 4 cm below the right parital eminence 6

4) Contusion of 6 x 5 cm bluish red in colour present on left temporal region of scalp

5) Fissured fracture of 5 cm length transversely placed present on left temporal region of skull present 4 cm above the ear apeutur on left side

6) Extra dural hiematoma of 12 x 11 x 2 cm present on parito occipital region of brain on right side bluish red in colour

7) Extra dural hiematoma of 7 x 5 x 1 cm present over left temporal region of brain bluish red in colour.

Accordingly he has given opinion as to cause of death is due to headAccordingly he has given opinion as to cause of death is due to head injury to his best knowledge. He issued postmortem certificate to thatinjury to his best knowledge. He issued postmortem certificate to that effect under Ex.P12 and exhumation report under Ex.P11. effect under Ex.P12 and exhumation report under Ex.P11.

Thus on perusal of the above evidence, it is established by theThus on perusal of the above evidence, it is established by the prosecution that, the deceased Sk. Kalesha died due to injuries sustainedprosecution that, the deceased Sk. Kalesha died due to injuries sustained by him in an accident. The said aspect was not denied by the defence andby him in an accident. The said aspect was not denied by the defence and so it is clear that the prosecution established the death of the deceased.so it is clear that the prosecution established the death of the deceased.

13.13.Now the point for determination is "whether the accused being theNow the point for determination is "whether the accused being the driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599, drove his vehicle in a driver of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599, drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused this accident"? rash and negligent manner and caused this accident"?

On perusal of evidence on record, the prosecution relied upon theOn perusal of evidence on record, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs-1 to 4 and PW-8. Though PWs-1 to 4 are examined by theevidence of PWs-1 to 4 and PW-8. Though PWs-1 to 4 are examined by the prosecution, they are not eye-witnesses to the incident. prosecution, they are not eye-witnesses to the incident.

Coming to the evidence of PW-5 i.e. owner of the vehicle deposesComing to the evidence of PW-5 i.e. owner of the vehicle deposes that, the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 is belonged to him, but hethat, the vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 is belonged to him, but he turned hostile stating that he do not know anything about this caseturned hostile stating that he do not know anything about this case particulars. As such his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked under Ex.P4.particulars. As such his 161 Cr.P.C. statement was marked under Ex.P4.

7

14.14.Coming to the evidence of MVI i.e. PW-7, he deposes about hisComing to the evidence of MVI i.e. PW-7, he deposes about his inspection of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 and accordingly heinspection of crime vehicle bearing No.AP 03 TA 2599 and accordingly he has given opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defecthas given opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect and hence he issued report under Ex.P10. But his evidence is not useful toand hence he issued report under Ex.P10. But his evidence is not useful to attribute the accusation against the accused. attribute the accusation against the accused.

Thus remained only the evidence of PW-6 the Investigating Officer,Thus remained only the evidence of PW-6 the Investigating Officer, who deposed elaborately about his receiving hospital intimation underwho deposed elaborately about his receiving hospital intimation under

Ex.P5 along with statement of PW-1, registering the case, issuing FIREx.P5 along with statement of PW-1, registering the case, issuing FIR under Ex.P6, proceeding to scene of incident, preparing scene observationunder Ex.P6, proceeding to scene of incident, preparing scene observation report under Ex.P7, preparing rough sketch under Ex.P8, proceeding to thereport under Ex.P7, preparing rough sketch under Ex.P8, proceeding to the

RIMS Hospital and coming to know that the deceased was shifted toRIMS Hospital and coming to know that the deceased was shifted to

Guntur Government Hospital, proceeding to the house of the deceased,Guntur Government Hospital, proceeding to the house of the deceased, securing the presence of witnesses, examining them and coming to knowsecuring the presence of witnesses, examining them and coming to know about the death of the deceased, accordingly altering the section of lawabout the death of the deceased, accordingly altering the section of law from 337 IPC to 304-A IPC by filing alteration memo under Ex.P9, securingfrom 337 IPC to 304-A IPC by filing alteration memo under Ex.P9, securing the presence of Doctor and M.R.O., getting the dead body of the deceased,the presence of Doctor and M.R.O., getting the dead body of the deceased, getting conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, preparinggetting conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, preparing inquest report in the presence of mediators, securing the presence ofinquest report in the presence of mediators, securing the presence of other witnesses and recording their statements and arresting the accused.other witnesses and recording their statements and arresting the accused.

He further deposes that further investigation was done by LW-21/ I.He further deposes that further investigation was done by LW-21/ I.

Srinivasan, who filed charge sheet against the accused for the offenceSrinivasan, who filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act.punishable under Sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act.

15.15.Though PW-7 deposed elaborately about the allegation about hisThough PW-7 deposed elaborately about the allegation about his investigation done in this case and though it is not seriously denied by theinvestigation done in this case and though it is not seriously denied by the defence, there is no evidence on record to show that this accused was thedefence, there is no evidence on record to show that this accused was the driver of crime vehicle as well he drove it in a rash and negligent manner,driver of crime vehicle as well he drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which this accident occurred. Thus it is clear that the prosecutiondue to which this accident occurred. Thus it is clear that the prosecution 8 failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further,failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the prosecution failed to produce LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah, who is crucialthe prosecution failed to produce LW-1/Kukka Mallaiah, who is crucial witness to the incident. As such, his evidence was closed inspite of givenwitness to the incident. As such, his evidence was closed inspite of given much opportunity. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of themuch opportunity. Hence the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.accused beyond reasonable doubt.

16.16.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

from the date of this Judgment. There is no case property in this case, hence no specific order.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 1 st day of December, 2015.

III- Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE //

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Shaik Maalin Bee - NIL - P.W.2: Shaik Hussain Basha P.W.3: Meda Baburao P.W.4: Shaik Abdullah P.W.5: Gundrollu Murali P.W.6: K. Manohara Rao P.W.7: K.S.M.V. Krishna Rao P.W.8: Dr. G.B. Rajakumar P.W.9: P.V. Subba Rao

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1/ -- : Statement of PW-1. Ex.P2/ -- : Burial ground observation report. Ex.P3/ -- : Inquest report. Ex.P4/ -- : 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5.

9

Ex.P5/ – : Hospital intimation. Ex.P6/ – : FIR in Cr.No.101/2013 of Ongole Taluq P.S. Ex.P7/ -- : Scene observation report. Ex.P8/ -- : Rough sketch. Ex.P9/ -- : Alteration memo. Ex.P10/ -- : M.V.I. Report. Ex.P11/ -- : Exhumation report. Ex.P12/ -- : Postmortem Certificate.

For Defence :Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

-NIL-

III-AJMFC, Ongole 10

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT IN CC.NO.273/2013 ON THE FILE OF III-ADDL. JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ONGOLE

1.Date of offence:16-03-2013

2.Date of Complaint/report: 17-03-2013

3.Date of apprehension of accused: 26-03-2013

4.Date of release of accused on bail: 26-03-2013

5.Date of commencement of trial: 06-07-2015

6.Date of closure of the trial: 25-11-2015

7.Date of judgment: 01-12-2015 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8.Complainant : State : Inspector of Police, Ongole Taluk PS.,

9.Description of the accused :- Modi Sivaiah, S/o. Krishnaiah, aged 42 years, SC Mala by caste, R/o. Chupparapalle village, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.Offence:u/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134

(a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act

11.Plea of accused:Not guilty

12.Finding of the Court:Found Not Guilty

13.Sentence or Order : In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.304(A) IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act and accordingly he is acquitted u/s.255 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months as per Sec.437-A Cr.P.C. from the date of this Judgment. There is no case property in this case, hence no specific order.

14.Explanation for the delay : The case was taken on file on 04-12-2013. On 09-04-2014 after appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused as required u/sec.207 Cr.P.C. On 30-07-2014 accused was examined u/sec.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/sec.304-A IPC and Sec.134 (a) & (b) R/w.187 of M.V. Act was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu language and the accused having understood the accusation pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the stage, matter adjourned from time to time due to summons of witnesses pending since long time. During the course of trial i.e. from 06-07-2015 to 25-11-2015 Pws.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Ex.P.1 to P12, the evidence of LWs-3, 5 to 7, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 was given up by learned APP and the evidence of LWs-1, 19 and 21 was closed by the court as the police failed to produce them and prosecution evidence reported closed and matter posted for 313 Cr.P.C. examination. On 28-11-2015 accused was examined under-2015 accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence against him, for which hesection 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence against him, for which he denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence, arguments heard and posteddenied the evidence and reported no defence evidence, arguments heard and posted for Judgment. On 01-12-2015 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused.for Judgment. On 01-12-2015 Judgment pronounced by acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.Hence, the delay.

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Ongole Copy Submitted to The Hon'ble I Addl. District Judge, Ongole for favour of information.

Copy to The Superintendent of Police, Ongole for information.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

Present: Smt D.Durga Kalyani,

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 17th day of February, 2017

Original Suit No. 7 of 2014

Between: Kapil Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Assistant Manager Having its Registered Office at 3-1-631, V.R.N. Nagar, Karimnagar with Branches at Several places and its Branch at Ongole.

…........Plaintiff.

And

1. Rapuri Chiranjeevi, W/o. Musalaiah, Aged 54 years, Attender, Govt., Polytechnic College, Ongole.

2. Bassani Pullamma, W/o. Chinna Subbarayudu, Aged 54 years, Lab Attender, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

3. Vadapalli Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Chinna Anjaiah, Aged 50 years, Record Assistant, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

4. Shaik Habeeb, S/o. Mastan, Aged 54 years, Lab Attender, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

5. Kankati Kumaraswamy, S/o. Balamallu, Aged 33 years, Manager, Kapil Infra Avenues (P) Lted., Magunta Layout, Nellore. …..… Defendants.

The suit is coming on 08-02-2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri N. S. Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.V.Raghava

Rao, Advocate for D1 and of Sri N.S.K. Satyanarayana, Advocate for D3 and D4; and the 5th Defendant remained set exparte, and the 2nd defendant was dided; and upon hearing the arguments, this Court delivered the following:

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

01.This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 73,136/- being the balance amount of principal and interest due under a chit agreement dated 8.10.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- and for subsequent interest and for costs.

02. The brief facts of the case of plaint are as follows:-

The plaintiff is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and it has been running chit fund business having registered office and corporate 2 office at Karimnagar. The first defendant joined as a member of chit, allotted ticket No. ONTO5H/44 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- payable in 50 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.6000/- per month. The chit was commenced on 10-7-2009. In the auction dated 28-2-2010 the 1st defendant participated and became as prized subscriber to forego Rs.1,20,000/- and the 1st defendant agreed to execute a demand promissory note in favour of plaintiff along with sureties i.e., defendants 2 to 5 and executed demand promissory note on 25-5- 2010 for a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- and the defendants 2 to 5 executed letter of guarantor. The 1st defendant paid installments up to 39 installments in full and committed default from 40th part installment. Subsequently, plaintiff got issued a registered lawyer notice to all defendants on 20-9-2013 demanding for payment. But there is no reply from the defendants and they have not paid anything. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.

03.Per contra, defendant No.5 failed to file his written statement in spite of given statutory time. Hence, he was set ex-parte. Whereas, the 1st defendant filed his written statement denying the averments of the plaint and submitted his contention in the following manner:

He submits that the foreman is the rightful person to maintain the suit and not the Assistant Manager, on that ground the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff is entitled to collect the commission at every auction which shall be distributed to all the members .As such the suit claim to that extent is not maintainable and the defendant is entitled for dividend. Thus the plaintiff at the time of paying chit amount took blank signed cheques and they were taken only as a security and the plaintiff has to return them and the dividend has to be deducted from the suit amount. The bid amount and the paid amount are more than the permitted limits as the amount paid is less than 50% of the chit amount and plaintiff is not entitled to maintain the suit. The suit is not maintainable for further installments and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

3

04. 3Rd defendant filed his written statement and 4th defendant adopted the written statement of 3rd defendant denying the averments of the plaint and submitted his contention in the following manner:

The 1st defendant availed loan from the plaintiff's company and he is the beneficiary and the suit amount is not correct and the plaintiff company did not show the several installments in the account copy and this defendant is guarantor only. The plaintiff has to proceed against the 1st defendant only, and if the debt amount is not recovered from him, then only the plaintiff can proceed against this defendant. So this defendant is not liable to pay the amount. Hence, he sought for dismissal of suit.

05.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed:-

1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree recovery of suit amount against defendants as prayed for ?

2) To what relief?

06. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff PW1 was examined and exhibited Ex.A1 to A17 were marked and on behalf of the defendants none were examined and no documents were marked.

ISSUE NO.1:

07. According to plaintiff company, it is submitted by it that the 1st defendant joined in the plaintiff Chit fund company on 8-10-2009 by executing agreement of chit and he was allotted chit No.44. Later he participated in the auction and has the bid the amount foregoing an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. Then the defendants 2 to 5 stood as guarantors and executed agreement of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff company agreeing the future liability besides execution of promissory notes in favour of plaintiff company. Later the 1st defendant received the prized money of Rs.1,80,000/- and subsequently paid 40 part installments and committed default thereafter. Then the plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendants demanding future installments, but the defendants though received notice failed to pay the future liability for the chit 4 amount obtained by the 1st defendant. As such plaintiff company has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.73,136/-.

08. To substantiate the same the plaintiff Company represented by its

Manager, examined himself as PW1 by filing chief affidavit in lieu of chief examination and reiterated the same facts as stated by it in plaint. Further, he exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A17 which are described as follows:

Ex.A1:Certified copy of Certificate incorporated dated 1-5-1981 Ex.A2: Copy of Form No.II, dated 1-7-2008 Ex.A3: Agreement of chit dated 8-10-2009 Ex.A4: copy of Form No.III, dated 10-7-2009 Ex.A5: Agreement of Guarantee, dated 25-5-2010 Ex.A6: Promissory note dated 25-5-2010 Ex.A7: Cash voucher, dated 25-5-2010 Ex.A8: Office copy of legal notice dated 20-9-2013 Ex.A9: Acknowledgment of Defendant No.5, dated 10-10-2013 Ex.A10: Unserved of defendant No.1 dated 10-10-2013 Ex.A11: Unserved of defendant No.2 dated 07-10-2013 Ex.A12: Unserved of defendant No.3 dated 07-10-2013 Ex.A13: Unserved of defendant No.4 dated 07-10-2013 Ex.A14: Postal receipts D1 to D5, dated 3-10-2013 Ex.A15: Account copy Ex.A16: True copy of Authorization letter dated 16-7-2012 Ex.A17: Attested copy of Authorization letter, dated 3-4-2006.

09. On the other hand the contention of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable as per the contentions raised by them in written statements.

Though, it is contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to collect commission at every auction contrary to the law, this defendant is entitled for dividend through out the chit period, plaintiff obtaining blank signed cheque towards security and did not give back the same to these defendants and the account shown by the plaintiff company are entirely false without deductions and alleged suit promissory note is not at all a promissory note and hence suit is not maintainable. Though the defendants contended in the above manner, it is not their case that the 1st defendant never joined in the chit maintained by the plaintiff company and the 1st defendant did not bid the chit amount and not obtained the prized amount. As seen from Ex.A3 it clearly depicts that the 1st defendant has joined in the chit on 8-10-2009 executed Ex.A6 on 25-5-2010 and 5 obtained prized amount under Ex.A7 cash voucher dated 25-5-2010. However, the contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff company has calculated excess interest and he is liable to pay only Rs.5,000/- or Rs.10,000/- and suppressing all the above facts, this suit is filed for Rs.73,136/-. If that is so, the 1st defendant though raised the above objections did not choose to prove the same by adducing cogent evidence, if at all his version is true that he is liable to pay only Rs.10,000/- certainly he would have filed receipts showing that he has paid all the installments as contended by him. But he did not file any said receipts before this Court inspite of given much opportunity to the defendant and did not choose to prove his version. Further, as seen from EX.A5 it depicts that the defendants 2 to 5 stood as sureties to D1. Though, they filed their written statement denying their version of plaintiff they did not come forward to contest the suit. Accordingly, their failure on the part of other defendants clearly establishes the version of plaintiff as true. Hence, in view of above discussion, it is clear that the defendant failed to discharge his burden with plausible evidence. Accordingly, this Issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff bank.

ISSUE NO.2;-

10.In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for an amount of Rs.73,136/- (Rupees Seventy Three Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Six only) with subsequent interest thereon @ 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% p.a., till the date of realization. The defendants 1 to 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

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

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 17 th day of February, 2017.

(SD/- DURGA KALYANAI)

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

6

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW-1: P. Rajeswara Rao, - N O N E -

Documents marked

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1/: Certified copy of Certificate incorporated dated 1-5-1981

Ex.A2/: Copy of Form No.II, dated 1-7-2008

Ex.A3/: Agreement of chit dated 8-10-2009

Ex.A4/: copy of Form No.III, dated 10-7-2009

Ex.A5/: Agreement of Guarantee, dated 25-5-2010

Ex.A6/: Promissory note dated 25-5-2010

Ex.A7/: Cash voucher, dated 25-5-2010

Ex.A8/: Office copy of legal notice dated 20-9-2013

Ex.A9/: Acknowledgment of Defendant No.5, dated 10-10-2013

Ex.A10/: Unserved of defendant No.1 dated 10-10-2013

Ex.A11/: Unserved of defendant No.2 dated 07-10-2013

Ex.A12/: Unserved of defendant No.3 dated 07-10-2013

Ex.A13/: Unserved of defendant No.4 dated 07-10-2013

Ex.A14/: Postal receipts D1 to D5, dated 3-10-2013

EX.A15/: Account copy

Ex.A16/: True copy of Authorization letter dated 16-7-2012

Ex.A17/: Attested copy of Authorization letter, dated 3-4-2006.

For Defendant: NIL (SD/-D.D.K) I-A.J.C.J. ONGOLE. // True Copy //

I.ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

Present: Smt D.Durga Kalyani,

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 17th day of February, 2017

Original Suit No. 7 of 2014

Between: Kapil Chit Funds (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Assistant Manager Having its Registered Office at 3-1-631, V.R.N. Nagar, Karimnagar with Branches at Several places and its Branch at Ongole.

…........Plaintiff.

And

1. Rapuri Chiranjeevi, W/o. Musalaiah, Aged 54 years, Attender, Govt., Polytechnic College, Ongole.

2. Bassani Pullamma, W/o. Chinna Subbarayudu, Aged 54 years, Lab Attender, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

3. Vadapalli Venkata Subbarao, S/o. Chinna Anjaiah, Aged 50 years, Record Assistant, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

4. Shaik Habeeb, S/o. Mastan, Aged 54 years, Lab Attender, Government Polytechnic College, Ongole.

5. Kankati Kumaraswamy, S/o. Balamallu, Aged 33 years, Manager, Kapil Infra Avenues (P) Lted., Magunta Layout, Nellore. …..… Defendants.

This is a suit filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 73,136/- being the balance amount of principal and interest due under a chit agreement dated 8.10.2009 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.3,00,000/- and for subsequent interest and for costs.

Plaint presented on: 11-12-2013 Plaint filed on: 03-01-2014.

Valuation and Court Fee: Value of the suit for the purpose of Court Fee and

Jurisdiction is Rs.73,136/- on which a Court Fee of Rs.2866/- is paid under Sec.20 of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose on 8-10-2009 when the 1st defendant became a member of chit fund scheme organized by the plaintiff company, when the 1st defendant signed the agreement of chit with the plaintiff company on 25-5-2010 when the 1st defendant was paid the chit prize amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- on 25-5-2010 when the defendants 2 to 5 executed an agreement 2 of guarantee and on 25-5-2010 when all the defendants executed the pronote as collateral security and also on 21-10-2012 when the 1st defendant committed default and breach of the chit agreement and finally on 20-9-2013 when the plaintiff company has sent the registered demand notice issued by its advocate.

The suit is coming on 08-02-2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri N. S. Srinivasulu, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri P.V.Raghava

Rao, Advocate for D1 and of Sri N.S.K. Satyanarayana, Advocate for D3 and D4; and the 5th Defendant remained set exparte, and the 2nd defendant was dided; and upon hearing the arguments, this court doth order and decree:

1.that the defendants 1 to 5 jointly and severally do pay to the plaintiff's company a sum of Rs.73,136/- with subsequent interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of suit i.e. 11.12.2013 till the date of decree i.e., 17.02.2017 and thereafter @ 6% per annum till the date of realization; and

2.that the defendants do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7138/- towards costs of the suit, bearing their own costs of Rs.-NIL-(CM & FC not filed).

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 17th day of

February, 2017.

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintiff For Defendants (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00(CM &FC not filed) Stamp on Plaint 2866-00 Stamp on process 180-00 Advocate Fee 3890-00 Typing charges 200-00 Total costs of Rs.7138-00

I-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

3

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

4 // True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-

cum-PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM DIST., at ONGOLE.

C.C.No. 52/2013.

Complainant:State:Sub-Inspector of Police, K.K.Mitla P.S

Description of the :Komerla Kistaiah @ Venkata Krishna S/o JuvenileRamanaiah, age 16 years, Viswabrahmin, Kammaripalli of Siddavaram village

Offence:under Sec.324 of IPC

Plea of Juvenile:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, the Juvenile in conflict withIn the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offencelaw is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC andpunishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1)accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenileof Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with law shall be in force for ain conflict with law shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of thisperiod of 6 months from the date of this

Order as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As thereOrder as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence nois no property in this case, hence no specific order.specific order.

DATE OF

Offence:21-12-2011

Complaint:22-12-2011

Apprehension of Juvenile :01-02-2012

Released on bail:01-02-2012

Commencement of trial:21-6-2013

Closure of trial:28-6-2013

Judgment:27-10-2015

Explanation for the delay:

The Sub- Inspector of Police, K.K Mitla Police station filed final report against the juvenile in Cr.No.66/2014 of his station under

Secs.324 of IPC. On 18-1-2013 this case was taken on file. On 8-2- 2013, the copies of documents were furnished to the juvenile and on 15-03-2015 juvenile was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC has been read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial i.e., from 21-6-2013 to 28-6-2013 Pws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 and on defense side Ex.D1 is marked. On 27-10-2015 juvenile was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence hence, defense side evidence is closed and the same day heard arguments and accordingly orders are

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC Prl. Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl.J.F.C.M, Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // True Copy//

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS -CUM-

PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

AT ONGOLE

Present: Smt. D.Durga Kalyani III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC: Prl. Magistrate-Juvenile Justice Board cum-II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.cum-II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. Tuesday, the Twenty-seventh (27thTuesday, the Twenty-seventh (27th) day of October, 2015) day of October, 2015

C.C.No.52 of 2013 C.C.No.52 of 2013

Between: Between: STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police,STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, K.K. Mitla Police StationK.K. Mitla Police Station… … ComplainantComplainant

AndAnd

Komerla Kistaiah @ Venkata Krishna, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged 16 years, Viswabrahmin, Kammaripalli of Siddavaram village … Juvenile

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri K. Nageswara Rao Goud,Advocate for Juvenile, upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// O R D E R//

1.The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police of K.K. Mitla P.S.

laid final report against the Juvenile in conflict with law in Cr.No.66/2011 of K.K. Mitla Police Station for the offence u/s.324 R/w.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

LW-1/Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah is working as Manson mastry since 10 years on contract basis for the basement the work to the accused/A1. Later LW-1/Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah has completed the construction work and handed over the same to A1. At that time, an amount of Rs.2,600/- was fixed for the completion of that work. But, LW- 1/N. Venkata Subbaiah received only an amount of Rs.400/- from the accused for constructing the said basement. On 21-12-2011 at 12-00

4

noon, the complainant asked the accused/A1 for due amount for the construction he made. On that A1, A2, juvenile and A3 went to the house of LW-1/N. Venkata Subbaiah, picked up quarrel, where A1 beat LW-1/N.

Venkata Subbaiah with an axe, A2 beat with shovel and A3 (the juvenile) beat LW-1/N. Venkata Subbaiah with sickle stick by causing bleeding injuries. On 22-12-2011 at 11-00 hours, LW-1/N.Venkata Subbaiah came to police station and gave a report which was registered as a case in

Cr.No.66/2011 under Sec.324 R/w.34 IPC of K.K. Mitla P.S. Hence the juvenile in conflict with law is liable for the offence punishable under Sec.

324 R/w.34 IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of offence punishable u/s.324 IPC against the Juvenile. After appearance of Juvenile, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The Juvenile was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/s.324 IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.5.In order to establish the guilt of the juvenile, the prosecutionIn order to establish the guilt of the juvenile, the prosecution examined altogether 4 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1.examined altogether 4 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1.

On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 is marked.On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 is marked.

6.6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the juvenile wasAfter closure of the prosecution evidence, the juvenile was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposedexamined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against juvenile was read over and explained toby prosecution witnesses against juvenile was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.7.Heard both sides. Heard both sides.

8.8.Now the point for determination is :- Now the point for determination is :-

5

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the juvenile beyond Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt ? reasonable doubt ?

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 toIn order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to 4 and exhibited Ex.P1.4 and exhibited Ex.P1.

PW-1 being the defacto - complainant deposes that about one and half year back at 12-00 P.M. he asked the father of juvenile to give the amount to him for the work done by him for masion work. Then the juvenile beat him with a sickle near his right eye along with his parents.

As he was unable to move with the injuries sustained by him, on the next day, he went to police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. He also deposes that he accepted to do the construction of basement to the parents of juvenile for an amount of Rs.2,600/-, but the parents of juvenile has given only Rs.400/-. When the same was questioned by him, this incident occurred.

9.PW-2 being cousin of PW-1 deposes that about one and half year back at 12-00 P.M. when PW-1 asked the parents of juvenile to give the amount to the work done by him, the juvenile beat PW-1 on his right eye with the sickle along with his parents.

PW-3 deposes that when he was present near water tank, the juvenile beat PW-1 with stick near the left eye of PW-1.

PW-4 deposes that about one and half year back, he kept sickle at his house and at evening he found that the sickle was missed.

Subsequently he came to know that the juvenile has taken away the said sickle.

10.On careful perusal of evidence on record, admittedly the prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer, who treated PW-1 and

6

failed to produce the said witness inspite of given much opportunity by this Court. Hence the evidence of Doctor is closed by this Court.

Further coming to the allegation against the juvenile, it is alleged by

PW-1 that he was beaten by the juvenile along with his parents, when he asked them to give money for the work done by him. To corroborate the same, though prosecution examined PWs-2 to 4, the evidence of PW-4 is no way helpful as he did not allege any incriminating material against the juvenile to connect the crime with the juvenile.

11.Coming to the evidence of PWs-2 and 3, though they were cited as eye-witnesses to the incident, in the cross-examination of PW-2, it is deposed by him that at the time of incident, he was present in his house.

The said underlined portion was also marked under Ex.D1.

Whereas coming to his chief examination, he deposed that as if he was present at the time of incident and has seen the incident.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW-3, she deposes that when she was present near the water tank, the juvenile beat PW-1 with stick. Whereas coming to the allegation against the juvenile, it is stated by PW-1 that he was beaten by sickle. Therefore, the presence of PW-3 at the time of alleged incident creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. More over, the alleged injuries sustained by PW-1 was not proved by the prosecution by examining the Medical Officer. Further, there is no medical evidence on record to show that PW-1 sustained injuries when he was beaten by juvenile. Thus, there arises a doubt in the mind of the Court and accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt.

7

13.13.In the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for theIn the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquittedoffence punishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with lawu/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with law shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order as perrshall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order as pe

Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence no specific order.Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence no specific order.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of October, 2015

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl. J.F.C.M, Ongole.

Sd/- x x x x x x x x x

Signature of the Member:

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah - NIL - P.W.2: Nalamari Nageswara Rao P.W.3: Dirisala Lakshmamma P.W.4: Pappuleti Venkata Subbaiah

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Certified copy of Report.

For Defence :

Ex.D1: Underline portion in 161(3) statement of PW-2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

−NIL -

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl. J.F.C.M, Ongole.

// True Copy//

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

8

Calendar and Judgment

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS-

cum-PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM DIST., at ONGOLE.

C.C.No. 52/2013.

Complainant:State:Sub-Inspector of Police, K.K.Mitla P.S

Description of the :Komerla Kistaiah @ Venkata Krishna S/o JuvenileRamanaiah, age 16 years, Viswabrahmin, Kammaripalli of Siddavaram village

Offence:under Sec.324 of IPC

Plea of Juvenile:Not guilty

Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

Sentence or Order:In the result, the Juvenile in conflict withIn the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offencelaw is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC andpunishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1)accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenileof Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with law shall be in force for ain conflict with law shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of thisperiod of 6 months from the date of this

Order as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there isOrder as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence no specificno property in this case, hence no specific order.order.

DATE OF

Offence:21-12-2011

Complaint:22-12-2011

Apprehension of Juvenile :01-02-2012

Released on bail:01-02-2012

Commencement of trial:21-6-2013

Closure of trial:28-6-2013

Judgment:27-10-2015

Explanation for the delay:

The Sub- Inspector of Police, K.K Mitla Police station filed final report against the juvenile in Cr.No.66/2014 of his station under

Secs.324 of IPC. On 18-1-2013 this case was taken on file. On 8-2- 2013, the copies of documents were furnished to the juvenile and on 15-03-2015 juvenile was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence punishable u/s.324 of IPC has been read over and explained to him in telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the course of trial i.e., from 21-6-2013 to 28-6-2013 Pws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 and on defense side Ex.D1 is marked. On 27-10-2015 juvenile was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and he denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence hence, defense side evidence is closed and the same day heard arguments and accordingly orders are

pronounced. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC Prl. Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl.J.F.C.M, Ongole.

Copy submitted to: The Hon’ble 1st Addl. Dist & Sess. Judge, Ongole. Copy to: The Superintendent of Police, Prakasam Dist., // True Copy//

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

3

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF I-CLASS -CUM-PRINCIPAL

MAGISTRATE, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, PRAKASAM DISTRICT AT ONGOLE

Present: Smt. D.Durga Kalyani III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole, FAC: Prl. Magistrate-Juvenile Justice Board cum-II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole.cum-II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ongole. Tuesday, the Twenty-seventh (27thTuesday, the Twenty-seventh (27th) day of October, 2015) day of October, 2015

C.C.No.52 of 2013 C.C.No.52 of 2013

Between: Between: STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police,STATE: Sub-Inspector of Police, K.K. Mitla Police StationK.K. Mitla Police Station… … ComplainantComplainant

AndAnd

Komerla Kistaiah @ Venkata Krishna, S/o. Ramanaiah, aged 16 years, Viswabrahmin, Kammaripalli of Siddavaram village … Juvenile

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of the Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri K. Nageswara Rao Goud,Advocate for Juvenile, upon perusing the entire material available on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

// O R D E R//

1.The State, represented by Sub-Inspector of Police of K.K. Mitla P.S.

laid final report against the Juvenile in conflict with law in Cr.No.66/2011 of K.K. Mitla Police Station for the offence u/s.324 R/w.34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :-

LW-1/Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah is working as Manson mastry since 10 years on contract basis for the basement the work to the accused/A1.

Later LW-1/Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah has completed the construction work and handed over the same to A1. At that time, an amount of

Rs.2,600/- was fixed for the completion of that work. But, LW-1/N. Venkata

Subbaiah received only an amount of Rs.400/- from the accused for constructing the said basement. On 21-12-2011 at 12-00 noon, the complainant asked the accused/A1 for due amount for the construction he made. On that A1, A2, juvenile and A3 went to the house of LW-1/N.

4

Venkata Subbaiah, picked up quarrel, where A1 beat LW-1/N. Venkata

Subbaiah with an axe, A2 beat with shovel and A3 (the juvenile) beat LW- 1/N. Venkata Subbaiah with sickle stick by causing bleeding injuries. On 22-12-2011 at 11-00 hours, LW-1/N.Venkata Subbaiah came to police station and gave a report which was registered as a case in Cr.No.66/2011 under Sec.324 R/w.34 IPC of K.K. Mitla P.S. Hence the juvenile in conflict with law is liable for the offence punishable under Sec. 324 R/w.34 IPC.

3.This court took cognizance of offence punishable u/s.324 IPC against the Juvenile. After appearance of Juvenile, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.The Juvenile was examined u/s.251 Cr.P.C. and the substance of accusation for the offence u/s.324 IPC was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.5.In order to establish the guilt of the juvenile, the prosecutionIn order to establish the guilt of the juvenile, the prosecution examined altogether 4 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1.examined altogether 4 witnesses i.e., Pws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P.1.

On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 is marked.On behalf of defence, Ex.D1 is marked.

6.6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the juvenile was examinedAfter closure of the prosecution evidence, the juvenile was examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed byu/sec.313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating material that was deposed by prosecution witnesses against juvenile was read over and explained to himprosecution witnesses against juvenile was read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence. in Telugu, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

7.7.Heard both sides. Heard both sides.

8.8.Now the point for determination is :- Now the point for determination is :-

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the juvenile beyond Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt ? reasonable doubt ?

In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 toIn order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to 4 and exhibited Ex.P1.4 and exhibited Ex.P1.

5

PW-1 being the defacto - complainant deposes that about one and half year back at 12-00 P.M. he asked the father of juvenile to give the amount to him for the work done by him for masion work. Then the juvenile beat him with a sickle near his right eye along with his parents.

As he was unable to move with the injuries sustained by him, on the next day, he went to police station and lodged a report under Ex.P1. He also deposes that he accepted to do the construction of basement to the parents of juvenile for an amount of Rs.2,600/-, but the parents of juvenile has given only Rs.400/-. When the same was questioned by him, this incident occurred.

9.PW-2 being cousin of PW-1 deposes that about one and half year back at 12-00 P.M. when PW-1 asked the parents of juvenile to give the amount to the work done by him, the juvenile beat PW-1 on his right eye with the sickle along with his parents.

PW-3 deposes that when he was present near water tank, the juvenile beat PW-1 with stick near the left eye of PW-1.

PW-4 deposes that about one and half year back, he kept sickle at his house and at evening he found that the sickle was missed.

Subsequently he came to know that the juvenile has taken away the said sickle.

10.On careful perusal of evidence on record, admittedly the prosecution did not examine the Medical Officer, who treated PW-1 and failed to produce the said witness inspite of given much opportunity by this Court.

Hence the evidence of Doctor is closed by this Court.

Further coming to the allegation against the juvenile, it is alleged by

PW-1 that he was beaten by the juvenile along with his parents, when he asked them to give money for the work done by him. To corroborate the

6

same, though prosecution examined PWs-2 to 4, the evidence of PW-4 is no way helpful as he did not allege any incriminating material against the juvenile to connect the crime with the juvenile.

11.Coming to the evidence of PWs-2 and 3, though they were cited as eye-witnesses to the incident, in the cross-examination of PW-2, it is deposed by him that at the time of incident, he was present in his house.

The said underlined portion was also marked under Ex.D1.

Whereas coming to his chief examination, he deposed that as if he was present at the time of incident and has seen the incident.

12.Coming to the evidence of PW-3, she deposes that when she was present near the water tank, the juvenile beat PW-1 with stick. Whereas coming to the allegation against the juvenile, it is stated by PW-1 that he was beaten by sickle. Therefore, the presence of PW-3 at the time of alleged incident creates a doubt in the mind of the Court. More over, the alleged injuries sustained by PW-1 was not proved by the prosecution by examining the Medical Officer. Further, there is no medical evidence on record to show that PW-1 sustained injuries when he was beaten by juvenile. Thus, there arises a doubt in the mind of the Court and accordingly, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the juvenile beyond reasonable doubt.

13.13.In the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for theIn the result, the Juvenile in conflict with law is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquittedoffence punishable under Sec.324 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted u/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with law shallu/sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The parental bonds of juvenile in conflict with law shall be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order as per Sec.437be in force for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order as per Sec.437 (A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence no specific order.(A) Cr.P.C. As there is no property in this case, hence no specific order.

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

pronounced by me in open court, this the 27 th day of October, 2015

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

7

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl. J.F.C.M, Ongole.

Sd/- x x x x x x x x x

Signature of the Member:

// APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE // -: WITNESSES EXAMINED :-

For Prosecution:For Defence:

P.W.1: Nalamari Venkata Subbaiah - NIL - P.W.2: Nalamari Nageswara Rao P.W.3: Dirisala Lakshmamma P.W.4: Pappuleti Venkata Subbaiah

/ / DOCUMENTS MARKED / /

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: Certified copy of Report.

For Defence :

Ex.D1: Underline portion in 161(3) statement of PW-2.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION

NIL -

Sd/- D.Durga Kalayni

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board cum- II Addl. J.F.C.M, Ongole.

// True Copy//

III-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole FAC: II-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I-Class, Ongole

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

Present: Smt D.Durga Kalyani,

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 17th day of February, 2017

Original Suit No. 448 of 2011

Between:

Mandava Audiseshu, S/o. Akkaiah, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Maddirala Muppalla Village, N.g.Padu Mandal. …........Plaintif.

And

1. Chinnam Ramaiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah, Aged 56 years.

2. Chinnam Eswaraiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah, Aged 50 years.

3. Chinna Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 30 years.

All are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o. Maddirala Muppalla Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal. …..… Defendants.

The suit is coming on 10-02-2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of Sri M. Gangadhara Rao & V. Ramamurthy, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendants remained ex-parte, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of plaintif, this Court delivered the following:

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

01.This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief facts of the case of plaint are as follows:-

The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintif.

After the lifetime of his father the plaintif was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. Then the Grama Panchayat mutated the house tax in the name of plaintif after death of his father. While so, the defendant being the southern boundary owners of schedule property having no right, title or interest in the said property is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession 2 and enjoyment of the said property. In fact the plaintif demolished the old thatched house in the suit schedule property and constructed a terraced building about six years back. He himself is alone residing along with his wife without any assistance. That being so, the defendants are canvasing in the village that they will interfere with plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even though they are not having any right over the property. So if the defendants translate their words into action plaintif will be put to loss and as such he has filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

03.Per contra, the defendants 1 to 3 were set exparte, by this court as they failed to file written statement inspite of given statutory period.

04.To establish his case the plaintif, got examined himself as Pw.1 and also examined PW2 by filing chief affidavits in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the same facts as stated in plaint and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A30

05.Head arguments on behalf of plaintif.

Now the point for determination is that whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as pleaded by him ?

06. To substantiate his version the plaintif as PW1 filed his chief affidavit stating the same averments as stated by him in his plaint, however the said facts in brief are as follows:

The suit schedule property is his ancestral property. After the life time of his father he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property. Then the Grama Panchayat mutated the house tax in his name after death of his father. While so, the defendant being the southern boundary 3 owners of schedule property having no right, title or interest in the said property and trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. In fact PW1 demolished the old thatched house in the suit schedule property and constructed a terraced building about six years back. He himself is alone residing along with his wife without any assistance. That being so, the defendants are canvasing in the village that they will interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even though they are not having any right over the property. Even at all the defendants translate their words into action he will be put to loss as such he has filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property.

07. To support his contention, he also examined PW2 the third party who deposed that the plaintif constructed a terraced building in the suit schedule property in the year 2006 and he is residing in it with his wife. The plaintif's wife died recently. Subsequently, the defendants are the southern boundary owners and they have nothing to do with the suit schedule property.

The defendants without any right trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintif.

08. On careful perusal of evidence on record admittedly there is no dispute with regard to plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment. However, by virtue of Ex.A1 and Ex.A30 they depicts that the plaintif is in possession of plaint schedule property. While so, it is contended by the plaintif that the defendants are canvasing in the village that they will interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and they are powerful and influential. To prove the same he examined himself as PW1 and also PW2 the third party on his behalf, who also deposed in the same manner as deposed by 4

PW1. Thus the version of PW1 coupled with the evidence of PW2 establishes that he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property.

Now the burden shifts on to the defendant to discredit the version of plaintif, but the defendants failed to contest the matter. Thus, it can be clearly inferred that the version of plaintif is true as it is not challenged by the defendants.

Hence, in view of above discussion, this Court is inclined to believe the version of plaintif. Accordingly, plaintif is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs, by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of plaint schedule property.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court this the 17 th day of February, 2017.

I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined

For Plaintif: For Defendant:

PW-1: Mandava Audiseshu (Exparte) PW.2: J. Venkata Sesha Rao

Documents marked

For Plaintif:

Ex.A1/: House tax dated 11-10-2007

Ex.A2/: House tax dated 23-08-2007

Ex.A3 : House tax dated 31-3-2007 in SI.No.0248001

Ex.A4: House tax dated 31-3-2007 in SI.No.018975

Ex.A5 : House tax for the month of 31-3-2008 in SL.No.032675

Ex.A6 : Certificate dated 7-9-2011 issued by Panchayat Secretary, Maddirala Muppala Village.

5

Ex.A7 : House tax receipt pertaining to year 2007, 2008 to 2010, 2011 in house bearing No.2-113.

Ex.A8 : Electricity receipt dated 19-01-2007 for the period 19th January to 19-4-2007.

Ex.A9 : Electricity receipt dated 19-1-2007 for the period 18th April, to June, 2007

Ex.A10 : Electricity receipt dated19-10-2007 for the period 19-8-2007 to 19-10-2007

Ex.A11: Electricity receipt dated 15-12-2007 for the period 15-10-2007 to 15-12-2007

Ex.A12: Electricity receipt dated 18-2-2008 for the period 18-12-2007 to 18-2-2008

Ex.A13: Electricity receipt dated 13-4-2008 for the period 13-2-2008 to 13-4-2008

Ex.A14 : Electricity receipt dated 14-6-2008 for the period 18-4-2008 to 14-6-2008

Ex.A15 : Electricity receipt dated 16-4-2008 for the period 16-6-2008 to 16-8-2008

Ex.A16: Electricity receipt dated 14-10-2008 for the period 14-8-2008 to 14-10-2008

Ex.A17 : Electricity receipt dated 13-12-2008 for the period 13-10-2008 to 13-12-2008

Ex.A18: Electricity receipt dated 13-2-2009 for the period 13-12-2008 to 13-2-2009

Ex.A19 : Electricity receipt dated 12-4-2009 for the period 12-4-2009

Ex.A20: Electricity receipt dated 13-6-2009 for the period 13-4-2009 to 13-6-2009

Ex.A21 : Electricity receipt dated 12-8-2009 for the period 12-6-2009 to 12-8-2009

Ex.A22: Electricity receipt dated 12-10-2009 for the period 12-08-2009 to 12-10-2009

Ex.A23: Electricity receipt dated 12-12-2009 for the period 12-10-2009 to 12-12-2009

Ex.A24: Electricity receipt dated 12-8-2010 for the period 12-6-2010 to 12-8-2010

Ex.A25: Electricity receipt dated 13-6-2010 for the period 13-4-2010 to 13-6-2010

Ex.A26: Electricity receipt dated 12-2-2011 for the period December, 2010 to February, 2011

Ex.A27: Electricity receipt dated 12-2-2010 for the period 6 12-12-2009 to 12-2-2010

Ex.A28: Electricity receipt dated 18-6-2007 to 10-8-2007

Ex.A29: Electricity receipt dated 13-2-2010 to 13-4-2010

Ex.A30: Electricity receipt dated 12-10-2010 for the period 12-8-2010 to 12-10-2010

For Defendant: NIL

I-A.J.C.J.

ONGOLE.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE: ONGOLE

Present: Smt D.Durga Kalyani,

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole

Friday, this the 17th day of February, 2017

Original Suit No. 448 of 2011

Between:

Mandava Audiseshu, S/o. Akkaiah, Aged 75 years, Hindu, Cultivation, R/o. Maddirala Muppalla Village, N.g.Padu Mandal. …........Plaintif.

And

1. Chinnam Ramaiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah, Aged 56 years.

2. Chinnam Eswaraiah, S/o. Veerabhadraiah, Aged 50 years.

3. Chinna Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged 30 years.

All are Hindus, Cultivation, R/o. Maddirala Muppalla Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal. …..… Defendants.

This suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit.

Plaint presented on: 05-09-2011 Plaint filed on: 05-09-2011.

Cause of Action: Cause of action for the suit arose when the plaintif is the owner of the suit schedule property after the death of his father; when the plaintif constructed a terraced house in it about 6 years back; when the defendants without any right for the last week they are canvasing that they will interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by the plaintif; when the plaintif is aged about 75 years and he is a weak person; when the plaintif cannot resist the acts of defendants; when the defendants are powerful and influential persons in the suit schedule village; when the defendants translate their words into action the plaintif will be put to loss and at

Maddirala Muppalla village is within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

Valuation and Court Fee: The relief of Permanent injunction is valued at Rs.10,000/- and a Court fee of Rs.786/- is paid under Sec. 26(c) of APCF & SV Act.

2

The suit is coming on 10-02-2017 before me for final disposal in the presence of

Sri M. Gangadhara Rao & V. Ramamurthy, Advocate for the Plaintif and the defendants remained ex-parte, upon hearing the arguments on behalf of plaintif, this court doth order and decree:

1. that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their associates from interfering with the plaintif's peaceful possession and enjoyment in respect of plaint schedule property; and

2. That each party do bear their own costs.

Costs of plaintif: 788/-(Institutional costs)(CM & FC not filed) Costs of Defendant: Nil (CM & FC not filed) (Plaint schedule is attached herewith)

Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this the 17th day of February, 2017.

I-ADDL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.

//TABLE OF COSTS//

For Plaintif For Defendant (Rs.)(Rs.) Stamp on Vakalat2-00 Stamp on Plaint 786-00Ex-parte Stamp on process -- Advocate Fee -- Typing charges -- Total costs of Rs 788-00

I-A.J.C.J., ONGOLE.

NOTE: The exhibited documents and non-exhibited documents, which are marked, have to be taken back by the parties concerned within the stipulated time with an undertaking to produce the same as and when required by the Court.

3 // True Copy //

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ONGOLE.